Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2010-06/User:EncycloPetey for desysopping

I so wish this were unnecessary. If it were possible to reason with EP, I'd done that, but I see no evidence that it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

To repeat what I said on his talk page, he's a very good editor but not suited to be an admin. He's very stubborn, listens to nobody, considers it "not worth his while" to reply to other contributors. Editors who look for conflict rather than consensus should not be admins at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is the evidence of supposed transgressions of community consensus the deletions of Category:Latin ordinal numbers and the restorations of Category:Latin ordinal numerals & Category:Latin numerals (see logs) supposedly in light of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/Number categories. Am I missing anything in this telenovela? --Bequw → τ 03:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is about EP, not a theoretical consensus. EP is just a thug, a bully. A man so cowardly he can't even reply to a straight question on his talk page. Other organizations have a zero tolerance approach to bullying, we have no policy on this. Bullies are always cowards, so he's hired Conrad to reply on my talk page, as he's either too lazy or too scared to do it himself. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Martin, you should describe (a) what undesirable or unjustified action it is that EncycloPetey has recently performed (I don't want to be looking into Recent changes and guessing), (b) what makes you think EncycloPetey's action was unjustified. If there were several such unjustified or bad actions, please provide their clear identification including hyperlinks where applicable. It is hard for me to judge the case when the case has not really been presented. --Dan Polansky 11:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply