Nomination: I hereby nominate EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) for desysopping. He's consistently revert community consensus, deleting categories because of his own personal opinion. We'd happily block an non-sysop with an expiry time of infinitive for this sort of thing, so why do bureaucrats have lower standards than IPs and non-sysops. Note, I hope he continues to edit here. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeConrad.Irwin22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC) We have lots of grumpy admins, picking on one is unfair; particularly over such an irrelevant issue. (I'm secretly hoping this vote is a joke, but you never can be too careful)[reply]
Oppose -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 22:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC) EP is a long-time contributor with a great depth and breadth of experience. Shows good judgement and restraint in the vast majority of situations I've seen him in. Also, is one of the few admins who actually does administrative work, and thus actually needs the tools (as opposed to say, me, who would probably not notice I was missing them). Finally, the preamble to this vote shows no evidence of malpractice in any way. In fact it cites no evidence of any kind, on any issue. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί22:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, obviously. I'm not aware of the consensus you describe, and even if it does exist, there's no reason to think that EP is aware of it, either. We don't permablock editors for violating consensi they're not aware of. So far, the only evidence I've seen is your claims that there's a consensus; and while I'd normally expect a new editor to trust an established editor's claims of existing consensus (though we have had a few sysops in the past who were prone to asserting non-existent consensi), it's not reasonable to require EP to trust your claims in this regard. Better evidence, please! —RuakhTALK23:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. Amongst other things, this vote is ridiculous and started by a user who is obviously thus far biased against EncycloPetey, who is one of the overall best administrators we have. Additionally, prior to this vote I have seen very little discussion of the matter, but really. Discussion? Where is it? In the larger picture, we don't have an established procedure or such for desysopping -- and if we ever have them I hope we have more of an idea of what we're doing than to let such nonsensical and petty arguments as these make the decisions. --Neskaya … gawonisgv?06:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeIvan Štambuk 15:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC) The term numeral is preferable to number because it's much less ambiguous, especially in grammar terminology where number normally denotes plurality (singular, plural..). Colloquial usages of number are irrelevant because they don't refer to the part of speech, but rather to "the amount of something". We should strive for precision and clarity wherever possible. English language is lucky that there are distinct terms for number and numeral, many other languages aren't. --Ivan Štambuk15:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not English either. Plus, Ziffer cannot refer to PoS AFAIK, and is thus not analogical to English numeral in grammatical sense. --Ivan Štambuk15:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote fails. Right now it's losing 2–11–1; clearly there's no point letting this float on the votes page for >2 weeks. (Normally I'd say that input is welcome, whether or not it has a chance of swaying anything; but this is an ad hominem vote, so there are better, less divisive ways for people to give input.) —RuakhTALK13:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and lifetime block -- Prince Kassad 22:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Conrad.Irwin 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC) We have lots of grumpy admins, picking on one is unfair; particularly over such an irrelevant issue. (I'm secretly hoping this vote is a joke, but you never can be too careful)
Abstain lulzy, but I can't take this seriously enough to even cast an oppose vote =P — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)