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

Evidence
I didn't necessarily think this vote would pass, but I expected it would be a bit more 50/50 than this. For starters, how about User talk:Daniel. and all the stuff below it. It's all about broken templates (like this). Anyway, I don't oppose Daniel. as an editor, I don't want him making irrelevant edits that make Wiktionary more complicated or more difficult to use, but please him. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Result
Would this be like a normal vote (i. e. 66% support is needed to pass), or like an admin re-election vote like Wikipedia does (i. e. 66% oppose is needed to fail)? -- Prince Kassad 16:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 66% needed to pass. —Stephen (Talk) 17:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would support a lower threshold — with bureaucrats' having discretion if they think outsiders are meddling — but we'd have to form that consensus explicitly, and it wouldn't apply retroactively. (If the ambiguous outcome is a problem, I can change my vote back to "abstain", which will make this unambiguously fail. I was pretty torn anyway; desysopping is such a big escalation. I would gladly vote "strong support" if I were certain that Daniel. had seen this discussion and had continued with his unacceptable edits, but as it is I'm just not sure it had ever been made clear to him that many editors strongly object to his edits.) —Ruakh TALK 17:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how he could not have seen the discussion.
 * But, in any event, for this vote, I think 66% is needed to pass. The admin re-election approach would probably enforce a higher level of politeness among admins. The 66% re-election requirement might be a little steep. 50%? DCDuring TALK 17:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)