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

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

User:Vahagn Petrosyan for de-sysop

[edit]

Be sure to vote on both questions! (I mean, unless you choose not to. We won't, like, throw out votes on one issue by people who skipped the other. But a vote on one issue will have no effect on the other.)

Proposal 1: Immediate de-sysopping

[edit]
  • If this proposal passes, then Vahagn Petrosyan (talk • contribs) will be desysopped. (Obviously this doesn't preclude the possibility of resysopping him in the future, but that would require another vote.)
Support immediate de-sysopping
[edit]
  1. Support —CodeCat 11:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Njardarlogar (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Clear support Gauss (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Instead of apologizing, he has mocked Wiktionary. No opinion on the other part of this proposal. --BB12 (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If part 1 fails, then it is part 2 that matters; so if one wants there to be any significant official response at all to the vandalism, either 1 or 2 must pass. Njardarlogar (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The BP discussion and this proposal are warning enough. If this proposal fails, then I see no reason to worry about his vandalism and lack of apology. --BB12 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the below vote fails, then there is no warning: there will be a demonstrated lack of consensus for de-sysopping him, even if his vandalism continues. (I guess it will "warn" him that a lot of editors are bothered by his edits, but he obviously doesn't mind that.) —RuakhTALK 17:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If he continues making inappropriate changes to the main namespace after all this brouhaha he created (and could have easily dispelled), then I believe even those not supporting this proposal will support desysoping without further ado. Regardless of the second part of this proposal, further discussion would be required if there is further vandalism. I would prefer dealing with that theoretical situation only after it occurs. --BB12 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the vote below fails, then there will be a demonstrated lack of consensus even for warning him, or indeed for paying any attention to him. Some of the comments below make it clear that there are Wiktionarians who don't see Vahag's behavior as problematic at all and who won't mind if he continues to vandalize mainspace with impunity. —Angr 17:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we don't know if he will do more vandalism, it's still only theoretical. If there is further vandalism, then I think it should be dealt with at that time with a response appropriate to the act. Administrators have gained their status because the community trusts and respects them. If the community decides to not desysop him at this time, then I will return to my former stance of trusting and respecting Vahagn Petrosyan until there is a reason for me to feel otherwise. --BB12 (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Ƿidsiþ 17:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Much as I like Vahagn, he's a much better editor than he is a sysop. Wonderfool also produced lots of good edits with occasional bouts of vandalism, I don't really see the difference (and personally I find all the tedious gay jokes more objectionable than any wonderfoolery).[reply]
    Wonderfool needed the sysop tools to do his kind of vandalism; what Vahag does does not require any sysop tools. Sysop tools help Vahag with the work that he does, but the tools are not used in making his humorous examples and comments. Also, Vahag lives in a part of the world where there is no gay culture, and the gay culture is unknown except for what can be gleaned from Western internet comments. Gay comments do not have the meaning for him that they have for you. So there is a vast difference between Wonderfool’s deliberate vandalism using sysop tools and Vahag’s light-hearted comments and humorous, if tasteless, examples. —Stephen (Talk) 18:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well, ignorantia juris non excusat. Something is either appropriate behaviour for admins here, or it isn't. Ƿidsiþ 19:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it as a different and equally valid culture. The culture of Britain or the culture of America are not the only correct cultures. I am astounded at the parochial attitude of some here, and I think the problem is this unsophisticated attitude and nothing that Vahag has written or thought. It is surprising how tolerant and understanding he is, considering where he was raised. More surprising is how intolerant and narrow-minded some of the English (and probably American, but I’m not sure) admins. Well, whatever. It is what it is. —Stephen (Talk) 21:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The only culture relevant here is the culture of the Wiktionary community, which Vahag is as much a part of as any of us, and in this culture it is not acceptable for admins to vandalize pages, least of all mainspace pages. Whether the content of that vandalism is considered "offensive" or "light-hearted and humorous" has nothing to do with the case. The issue of getting him to stop making disruptive edits, while hopefully keeping him here as a constructive editor, would still be present even if what he had written was no more offensive than "I like pie". —Angr 22:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Being from another culture does not make one exempt from local laws - or policies in this case. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Sounds like an irresponsible and selfish individual with bipolar. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 04:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Neskaya … gawonisgv? 05:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Better editor than admin, and frankly I've been sick of the disruptive edits and distasteful jokes for years now. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 05:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Personal attacks like this one from 16 September 2012 are unworthy of an admin. This one from 5 April 2012 is of especially poor taste. I don't see any repentance coming. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as Vahagn has so far given no indication that he understands that his behavior is problematic, or that he intends to stop making "joke" edits, or indeed that he cares about the Wiktionary community at all. While he hasn't abused the admin tools, he has abused the trust that is put in admins. —Angr 19:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I cannot believe that such homophobic and anti-semitic vandalism has not resulted in a permanent ban, let alone just desysoping. SpinningSpark 00:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose immediate de-sysopping
[edit]
  1. Oppose -- Liliana • 08:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Equinox ◑ 12:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose —Stephen (Talk) 00:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose BigDom (t • c) 18:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose —Internoob 21:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose We cannot de-sysop Vahagn, because he's the only admin from Armenia. Maro 16:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite frankly that doesn't actually matter -- we can have no Admins from Armenia and still have other administrators deal with issues from Armenian when brought to attention by editors. We do not and never have and hopefully never will have a policy of necessarily having an admin for every language on Wikt. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 05:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I agree that some of Vahagn's edits are indeed crossing the line. An admin should certainly know better. However, he is overall a great contributor to Wiktionary and has never abused his admin tools, so I cannot support an immediate revocation of his admin flag. He should definitely be warned, though. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose --Makaokalani (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose — [Ric Laurent] — 13:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose This vote and its stats are a sufficient warning. biblbroksдискашн 19:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I fail to see a rationale for such a harsh punishment in a slightly facetious remark about some misformed Armenian neologism. For more details, vide infra. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain re: immediate de-sysopping
[edit]
  1. Abstain —RuakhTALK 13:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain for now. If and when Vahagn apologizes and promises to stop vandalizing/making "joke" edits/hiding "Easter eggs" in mainspace, I'll switch to oppose; if he doesn't, I'll switch to support. —Angr 15:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Switching vote to Support[reply]

Proposal 2: Warning/eventual de-sysopping

[edit]
  • If proposal 1 passes, then this proposal will automatically be withdrawn as irrelevant.
  • If this proposal passes, and Vahagn Petrosyan (talk • contribs) continues to make problematic edits (as described above under "Proposals" and below under "Support" votes), then he will be de-sysopped (without need for a further vote).
  • Note that the above-linked discussions mention a few different types of edits. Voters in "support" are invited to clarify which type(s) of edits they consider to be grounds for de-sysopping.
Support warning/eventual de-sysopping
[edit]
  1. Support —CodeCat 11:47, 23 Septemberl 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support Njardarlogar (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: 'problematic edits' are synonymous to 'vandalism' for me in this vote. Particularly, but not exclusively, in the main namespace. Njardarlogar (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Equinox ◑ 12:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Offensiveness aside, "joke edits" make us look childish and unprofessional, and if we let admins habitually do this then we are going to be even less reliable as a resource. Equinox ◑ 12:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We are childish, unprofessional and unreliable. — [Ric Laurent] — 17:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, except that I do not think the "big penis" example sentences are vandalism. They genuinely demonstrate the use of the headwords, and they're not offensive: silly, but not vandalism. Humor-that-falls-flat is not grounds for de-sysopping. —RuakhTALK 13:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But what do you think a user would (not should!) do if they came across such an example? —CodeCat 14:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea. Do users do things? :-P   —RuakhTALK 14:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They use? Use Wiktionary? And hopefully, they'll keep using it. So if there is something like this that could drive users away, we probably need to consider whether we should change it. I'd hate students of Armenian to forego using Wiktionary as their dictionary because a few too many of our usage examples are about penises. —CodeCat 15:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To make this a bit more explicit — I do have a problem with discussion-page comments about other editors' races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, and nationalities. —RuakhTALK 17:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support —Angr 15:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support but I would be very disappointed in our 'crats if any of them desysopped him for activity outside of the content namespaces (main, rhymes, citations, etc). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really a matter of disappointment and of 'crats. Many of the complained-about edits were on discussion pages; one aim of this vote is to clarify whether the discussion-page edits warrant de-sysopping. If the conclusion is that they do, then you can hardly be disappointed in a 'crat — let alone all 'crats — for following consensus. (But you're welcome to be disappointed in voters, including at least one 'crat, for voting that way. :-P   ) —RuakhTALK 15:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean by "many of the complained-about edits", because the list compiled by Ungoliant (and Vahag himself) was explicitly almost wholly not complained-about. The points that users actually brought up in the BP were almost always about stuff like the :gay: categories and the rogue usage note, which were both mainspace acts. And I would interpret comments like those that Equinox made to mean that he agrees with me that what matters is content that anons regularly see, not places like WT:V. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've complained about them, and I'm not alone. The mainspace edits are obviously worse than the discussion-page edits, but I find both to be unacceptable.   You may be right about Equinox's comments; I interpreted them as indicating that his vote is especially about mainspace edits, but perhaps he did mean that his vote is exclusively about mainspace edits. —RuakhTALK 17:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, mainspace is most important. I can be pretty rude myself in talkspace. Heh. Equinox ◑ 20:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support eventual de-sysopping if he makes edits similar to the usage notes of երկկտտացնել (for which he apologised). Joke edits are fine as long as they are not too harsh, not too frequent and he cleans them up. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. At the very least this option. Recurrent offensive remarks "justified" as "humour" are a reason for de-sysopping, IMO. — Gauss (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit-summary says that this comment was meant as disagreement with mine, but — I completely agree with it. You must have misunderstood me. (Oh, or you find Vahag's example-sentences about his alleged big penis to be offensive?) —RuakhTALK 22:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your statement Humor-that-falls-flat is not grounds for de-sysopping - this may be true for non-mainspace edits but there we're looking at offensive "jokes". When applied to his mainspace edits, this kind of "humor" is inappropriate and sysops are expected to refrain from adding inappropriate material. In addition, without the clarification by yourself, your comment could be misunderstood in the sense that you don't see any offensive edits that would justify de-sysopping anywhere. — This unsigned comment was added by Gauss (talk • contribs) at 18:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    Ah, O.K. I just meant that, although the "big penis" jokes were stupid and unfunny, they weren't actually a problem. But anyway, I've struck that comment from my vote now, to avoid further confusion. —RuakhTALK 18:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support BigDom (t • c) 18:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak support - again, an admin should know better than this. He has not abused his admin tools, so there is no reason to take them away for now. However, he does need a very stern warning, IMO. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Neskaya … gawonisgv? 05:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Again, I have a huge, huge problem with this user's discussion-space jokes that are in poor taste and the general behaviour, including his blatant statement that we can't desysop him. I'm going to state that I support him being warned no matter what, even though I would rather he simply had his tools/privileges removed. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 05:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Personal attacks like this one from 16 September 2012 are unworthy of an admin. This one from 5 April 2012 is of especially poor taste. I don't see any repentance coming. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - -sche (discuss) 22:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose warning/eventual de-sysopping
[edit]
  1. Oppose This is basically a huge invitation for trolling and baiting Vahag to get him banneddesysoped on purpose. I cannot accept that. -- Liliana • 08:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How could someone troll/bait him into vandalizing an entry? Or into making offensive racist/homophobic/anti-Semitic comments? —RuakhTALK 13:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that "problematic edits" is nowhere defined, simple comments offensive to Armenians in his entries would be a good enough bait for him. -- Liliana • 14:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K., I've modified the vote-text to explain what "problematic edits" means. (If anyone objects, they can revert.) But regardless, keep in mind that only someone in the "Bureaucrats" group can de-sysop someone, and none of the members of that group is about to let themself be manipulated in such a way. —RuakhTALK 14:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Based on wording alone. It leaves a lot, I mean A LOT of room for interpretation and to eliminate that I think we'd need a vote, hence self-defeating. Even if the wording were better, I think the Beer Parlour discussion is already a de facto verbal warning and we don't need another. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you're completely wrong: if this vote fails, then we cannot treat the BP discussion as a warning, because it will be clear that we don't have consensus to de-sysop him, even if these edits continue. —RuakhTALK 14:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you know it or not, you've answered my query above. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose The punishment is too harsh and there was no formal warning. I don't approve what Vahag did but an apology would be sufficient. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow. You object to giving him a warning . . . on the grounds that there hasn't been a warning? :-/   —RuakhTALK 20:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Vahag is a long-timer and 99.99% of his edits are very good and reliable. His bad edits have been reversed, he admitted that he did them and he has stopped it. If we see a newcomer vandalising a page, we can block him/her but if a contributor of many years does some naughty things we could start with a warning, at least. His contributions are very valuable but there were a lot of negative comments on BP and here - obviously people have only noticed the bad edits, not his 53 thousand good edits. He really spoilt it with those edits, <sigh>. I understand why you are personally upset but I think we should give him another chance. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "we could start with a warning": This proposal is to start with a warning.   Re: "we should give him another chance": This proposal is to give him another chance.   What am I missing? —RuakhTALK 23:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The "eventual de-sysopping" bit, sounds like a vendetta. As "problematic edits" I would restrict the definition to only racist (including anti-Semitic or other xenophobic edits), homophobic comments/edits in the main space (I hate these type of comments in the talk pages as well but they are not a reason for desysopping). Not sure if "gay.Category" edits were really homophobic. As a better of two evils, I would change my vote to "abstain" or even "support" if definition was less threatening. I'd have to give it a thought. I agree with Mglovesfun who said that the BP discussion was already enough warning. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "The 'eventual de-sysopping' bit, sounds like a vendetta": It wasn't meant to. The point is just that "warning" is a bit meaningless on its own: a warning of what? Answer: a warning of eventual de-sysopping if the bad edits continue.   Re: "As 'problematic edits' I would restrict […] ": As an 'oppose' voter, you're voting that he shouldn't be desysopped even if all of the problematic edits continue. The classification of edits as 'problematic' or not is a matter for 'support' voters to decide, because the classification only makes sense if the proposal passes. —RuakhTALK 23:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose this nonsense as well. —Stephen (Talk) 00:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose —Internoob 21:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Oppose We cannot warn and eventually de-sysop Vahagn, because of many reasons. The main reason is that he didn't abuse admin tools; he didn't delete something or block someone, so there is no reason to desysop. Most of these, so-called disruptive edits, were not in the main space. Those, which were in the main space, were reverted immediately. Those which weren't reverted, weren't harmful. Maro 16:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose This vote is a warning. Something should be done if Vahag adds any more gay categories or ethnic/homophobic jokes in the main namespace, but let's discuss it if/when it happens. I thought of supporting a warning, but the comments of Jamesjiao and Neskaya put me off. Desysopped for joking in the talk pages! I don't see sysops as role models, only as people with special tools, and Vahag has not misused his tools. Volunteers can only be punished by blocking. Vahag deserved those short blocks. A longer block next time? Plus: many of Vahag's comments and even jokes are constructive (the duel between Ivan Štambuk and Robert Ullmann). --Makaokalani (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the roles of admins is to combat vandalism. This user does the opposite, thus he is clearly not admin material. Njardarlogar (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose — [Ric Laurent] — 13:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Was meaning to vote support but the wording is too vague and since the vote itself is a warning, I see no need for any explicit warning. --biblbroksдискашн 19:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Liliana is right that it's important to vote, so I am voting. If the first proposal fails, then appropriate steps should be taken in the future when the occasion arises. It is not appropriate to mandate steps in advance of theoretical behavior. --BB12 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Let us perpend the accusations directed against Vahag by juxtaposing the allegations with his impeccable interaction with users who may be related to their content. One might accuse Vahag of homophobia, but this would be far-fetched and ungrounded considering his affable relationship with Dick Laurent. When one decides on whether to impose desysopping, not only one’s alleged trespasses ought to be taken into accont, but one’s benign acts as well. One might accuse Vahag of Turkophobia, again inadvertently oblivious of Vahag’s obliging and ungrudging responses (there are other occurences as well) to quæstions posed by our user from Saranta Ekklesiai (in East Thrace): therefore this conjecture again turns out to be ungrounded. There is one wise, edifying sutta in Aṅguttara Nikāya (III.101) which says that just as a lump of salt is unable to make Ganges’ water saline, a minor misdemeanour committed by a wise, perspicacious man who has numerous benefactions on his record will neither lead him to perdition, nor unleash perceivable adversities. I believe this is Vahag’s case too and I remain convinced that his contributions and obliging answers outweigh by far a modicum of inconsideration of which he already repented. Numbers quoted there by Vahag showing the infinitesimal percentage of indecorous edits in his contributions seem to justify my comparison with the case recounted in the sutta. Moreover, I was profoundly nonplussed by the overt misrepræsentation of Vahag who has been making invaluable contributions to Armenian entries and has thereby been accomplishing a laudable job for more than three years, at the end of this comment by Angr. This upsets me more strongly than the actions being discussed here. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain re: warning/eventual de-sysopping
[edit]

Decision

[edit]

Results:

  • The first vote fails, 11–17–1.
  • The second vote shows no consensus, 15–12–1.
    • My read on this is that a large majority actually does support de-sysopping Vahagn if his mainspace vandalism continues, but only a "small" majority supports doing so without another vote.
    • I think this actually should be a pass — when the question is "Do we trust so-and-so with such-and-such privilege?", we should require a consensus in order to award or retain the privilege, rather than in order to award or revoke it — but that hasn't been our custom to date, and it would be ugly to try to adopt to custom right now, by closing this vote in a non-customary direction.

Conclusion:

  • Vahagn will not be de-sysopped at this point. Naturally, if his mainspace vandalism continues, or if particularly egregious past examples should come to light, a new discussion can be started.

—RuakhTALK 00:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a vote to amend the way we handle "votes of confidence" in a person. If a vote is about the faith of the community in a person or in a certain other situation, the criteria for that vote should be the same as in a vote establishing that faith in the first place. So if the conclusion of a vote is that there is no longer a consensus on keeping someone as an admin, we should treat that the same as if we were nominating them for adminship. Or to say it another way, certain votes can be held to re-affirm that faith, instead of to demonstrate lack of it. —CodeCat 01:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that the 11–17–1 first vote (I didn't count votes and am trusting Ruakh's count) should pass and desysop, since 17–11–1 fails to make someone an admin?​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I am arguing. It seems unfair to have such a vote biased by status quo. If Vahag had not already been a sysop, he wouldn't have made it to being one with this vote. So why should the outcome be different simply because he is a sysop already? —CodeCat 11:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what the vote was about. It was voted to remove his sysop rights, not to confirm them. If it had been stated from the beginning that this was a confirmation vote, people may have voted differently. -- Liliana • 11:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any agreed upon rules regarding confirmation votes? I mean, I haven't come across anything similar in my wiki experience. --biblbroksдискашн 17:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource has them. There, all admins are up for reelection once a year (in practice, more like every 13 months), so if an admin has lost the community's trust, they can vote to remove his sysop bit at the next confirmation discussion at the latest. —Angr 20:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sure hope we won't be getting that here. -- Liliana • 20:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is also the case in German wikipedia. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense to have a weaker form of that, to say that a elevated user privilege would be revoked if the vote of confidence does not pass a simple majority. DAVilla 05:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2012-09/User:Vahagn_Petrosyan_for_de-sysop&oldid=71471676"