Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-05/A couple of users for desysophood

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A couple of users for desysophood[edit]

Nomination: I hereby nominate Maro and MaEr to be de-sysopped. No activity since 2014 an 2015 respectively. Skisckis (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule:

Support[edit]

  1. Support. I provisionally support the desysopping of these users as they've been inactive for 5 or more years. I will immediately change my vote to 'oppose' if they make edits between now and the final vote deadline. Of course someone with the power to do so is well within their rights to remove their privileges immediately. Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Additionally in my opinion, 5 years is quite long compared to other sites' policies on inactivity. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, routine housekeeping measure. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support * Pppery * it has begun... 03:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. They didn't edit for 6 years at least. It's time to desysop. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, although as Megathonic wrote below, this vote is unnecessary as policy already allows for their removal without the need for a vote. – Guitarmankev1 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support -- Huhu9001 (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support ɶLerman (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Makes perfect sense. GKØN (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Not using the tools for an extended period of time shows that there is no need for the user to hold such privileged tools. Minorax (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Vininn126 (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose purely on principle: I think permablocked users should not be allowed to create votes. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 00:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We tried a vote to stop that, but unfoturnately it failed Wonderfool69 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware, and I don't expect to change the outcome of this vote, but I'd still like to use my vote how I see fit. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I'm just jealous because I am not allowed to vote Wonderfool69 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above. Jesielt (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Moved to oppose I would like to see a formalized procedure for this rather than mere voting, perhaps including attempts to contact these editors (so I tend to oppose on those grounds). But it does seem like there should ultimately be a way to remove someone who is no longer editing from this position, especially if it has been several years (so I tend to support on these grounds). Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a procedure: Wiktionary:Administrators#Removal_for_inactivity. This vote is actually unnecessary: Both of these editors are already eligible to be immediately desyopped "without further ado". Megathonic (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, that's the procedure I was looking for. I knew it was somewhere out there Skisckis (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This should not be a vote, there is already a policy in place. - TheDaveRoss 14:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheDaveRoss If this should not be a vote, then an admin should cancel/delete it already. Everyone saying that it shouldn't be a vote doesn't do anything until someone actually acts on it. AG202 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only bureaucrats can desysop users. @Chuck Entz: Do you think the users should be desysopped, per policy, and this vote be cancelled? J3133 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain. As mentioned above, the vote is unnecessary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abstain I also believe that this vote is unnecessary: a policy exists for desysopping, not requiring a vote. J3133 (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

Passes 11-3-4. @Chuck Entz, SemperBlotto This, that and the other (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. For future reference, Surjection is also a bureaucrat. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-05/A_couple_of_users_for_desysophood&oldid=73428995"