Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2010-09/User:Daniel. for desysopping

• Nomination: I hereby nominate Daniel. (talk • contribs) to be removed as an English Wiktionary sysop. Despite criticism on his talk page, he continues to modify heavily used templates, sometimes breaking thousands of entries. In my personal opinion, he is not interested in improving Wiktionary but testing his ability as a program, creating unneeded templates to replace perfectly valid existing systems. On a related note, I don't support a (long) block unless he continues to edit wrecklessly. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Vote starts: now
• Vote ends: 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Support Mglovesfun (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC) as I noted in my edit summary, with regret, but not with reservations. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
2. {{votesymbol|support|{{color|green}}}} {{boldtext|{{vote|s}}}} -- {{signature|User:Prince Kassad|{{date|revision}}}}
3. Support temporary desysopping, with regret. It seems that the main thing Daniel. uses the sysop flag for is making undiscussed edits to very widely transcluded templates, which is not an appropriate use of that flag. Some of his template changes have been good, but some have not, and none (or almost none) were discussed beforehand. (I say "temporary" because I hope that, once desysopped, Daniel. will start proposing template changes so they can be discussed. If he demonstrates that he's willing to do that, then I would be very happy for him to be resysopped.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
   • I support desysoping per Ruakh's comment, immediately above (but, unlike Ruakh, "permanently" (though of course he can thereafter be sysoped like anyone else can)). My only hesitation is that he may have made some changes only he will know how to undo, and will be unable to if desysoped. But I don't think that that's at all likely (after all, edits are basically transparent on a wiki), and fear of further changes outweighs.​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Striking.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Support Ƿidsiþ 10:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC), given the evidence on the Talk page, although in other ways he seems a good editor.
5. Support Out of control with warped priorities and judgment. See WT:BP#English appendix-only nouns DCDuring TALK 00:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose, violently, vehemently. — opiaterein — 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
2. EXTREMELY STRONG OPPOSE. --Yair rand (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose —Stephen (Talk) 21:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC) You would have to supply diffs that show what edits, or as an example of what edits, you are talking about, as well as links to discussions where he refused to answer or acted unprofessionally. Also, you need to give an indication of the amount of time it took you and trouble you went to to detect and fix the problems. You simply have made no case. —Stephen (Talk) 21:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   See this vote's talkpage.​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Stephen. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I can't even think of supporting this without having had some sort of larger discussion.
6. Oppose Neskaya … gawonisgv? 06:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Per Stephen. You seem to have some sort of ongoing diatribe going against Daniel. and I'm sorry, but I have to oppose, not only on the fact that this is unfounded, but that it is stupid and unfounded. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 06:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

   Managed to get it all wrong. I have no diatribe against Daniel., I'd like him to focus on Wiktionary rather than himself. I've always maintained that he's a brilliant editor, just that he has no interest in Wiktionary. As for stupid and wrong, perhaps you should read the recent changes from time to time. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose If the author of this vote didn't necessarily think this vote would pass then I do not either. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Na case made. Jcwf 01:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose EncycloPetey 23:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, sometimes edits break templates, and many of us have done that. Yes, sometimes an edit is made that one person thinks is minor and others disagree. I don't see these problems as reasons for desysopping. I beleieve that Daniel's edits are good faith edits, and although I don't always agree with the results, Daniel is working much harder to provide consistency and logic to an increasingly large system of categorization where most of us have never tried to help out much. I prefer to see his system put in place with the possibility of modifications than leave the piles of untended festering rubbish to accumulate. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

-# Abstain DCDuring TALK 17:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I would very much like to see documented the vast set of commonly templates that have been created and deployed without warrant. I would happily change my vote to Support if there is not substantial progress in this direction.

1. Abstain Will give my vote to whoever proposes a bigger bribe. I'm thinking about a Blue-Label-shaped bribe. --Vahag 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Abstain Equinox ◑ 21:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Abstain per DCDuring. User:Daniel./Resume#Templates is indicative of the pride he holds for his templates. I think constructive criticism should've been tried before this vote. I fault myself here as well. --Bequw → τ 04:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

   It has been tried, see his talk page archives. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

   I meant about the proximate issue. Though now that I think about it, there have been many times where he has been unhelpful in cleaning-up after himself and I have had to do it myself (1, 2, 3, 4). Now I'm leaning towards Ruakh's line of reasoning. --Bequw → τ 05:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

4. Abstain SemperBlotto 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC) - but is there any way we can get him to test his edits. How can you destroy {{en-noun}} and not notice!

   What if he did w:Unit testing for his more complicated templates (eg Template:en-verb/test)? --Bequw → τ 14:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

5. Abstain. Dan Polansky 12:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
6. His edits to templates are bad, yes, but he has not shown intransigence sufficient for desysoping IMO (after thinking it over some more (contrast my now-discounted "support" vote, above)).​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support = 5, Oppose = 9. Fails. —Stephen (Talk) 20:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  This is a very nice result. Thank you for your votes. --Daniel. 20:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)