Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Requested articles, Recently featured articles, Requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance).


Requests for adminship sections
Main page
edit | watch
Active nominations for Administrator and Bureaucrat
Talk page
post | watch | archives
Bureaucrat noticeboard
Discussions related to RfA
Past nominations
Successful RfAs
Unsuccessful RfAs
Successful RfBs
Unsuccessful RfBs
Nomination data
Nominate
To nominate an editor
Related reading
Administrators
Bureaucrats
Guide to RfA
Admin reading list
Admin how-to guide
Current admin count: 1,165


Shortcut:
WP:RFA
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

Contents

[edit] About RfA

The community will grant administrator status only to trusted users who understand policy. Therefore, nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy and knowledgeable about policy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The only major consideration for whether a user should become an administrator is evidence of how the user will use administrator tools. However, the community tends to look for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this; for examples of what the community is looking for, look at some successful requests and some unsuccessful ones.
Decision process
Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are the main factor in determining consensus. Generally the line between successful and unsuccessful candidacies lies at 75% support, though a few have failed with more support or succeeded with less support.
Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please don't close any requests that you have taken part in. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.
Expressing opinions
Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments.

[edit] Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions.


[edit] Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 13:28:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

[edit] Staecker

Voice your opinion (8/0/0); Scheduled to end 03:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Staecker (talk • contribs) - I first met Staecker after a night of working on C:CSD. I didn't think much of it at the time, but I noticed there were an extremely high ratio of CSD I1 images. The next day, Staecker contacted me and let me know that he was working on a bot to automatically identify and tag CSD I1 candidates. He asked me why I occasionally would delete the other duplicated instead of the one that Staeckerbot tagged. I explained it was because sometimes the licensing information wasn't identical or the uploader provided more details about the image on the untagged image. Staecker ended up adding some code to copy the licensing information to make sure both images had the same information. I feel that giving Staecker the tools would be greatly beneficial to him by allowing him to review why admins sometimes deleted the image that wasn't tagged which would allow him to further refine his bot.

Staecker has also contributed quite a bit to other image related tasks. He has nominated images for being {{PUIdisputed}} and has helped users clear up image copyright problems. I am confident in his knowledge of policy, especially image/CSD related. Reading through Staecker's contributions, I have found that he has kept his cool and makes good use of talk pages and edit summaries to explain any possible contentious edits. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks for the nom, PS2- I hadn't ever seriously considered my being an admin, but I gratefully accept the idea, if others are in favor. I have been editing for 2 years now- I care a lot about WP, and would love to assist in any way that the community deems appropriate.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: My bot User:Staeckerbot is all about image speedy deletions. A bit of background- Over the past year or so, I used to occasionally page though the Special:Newimages gallery, looking for suspicious images (likely copyvios, duplicates, etc). I was always surprised that nobody else seemed to be patrolling that gallery. A couple of months ago I decided to write a bot to detect duplicate file uploads, and now this bot (still in trial) nominates about 75 duplicates per day.
The experience with the bot, and image deletions by hand for many months before, has shown me that we need help in clearing speedy deletions (at least as far as images go). Help first of all in the form of bodies willing to go through the hassle of making the deletions, and second of all in evolving our policies to make it more efficient. I'm sorry to say that I don't have any revolutionary ideas, but I recognize the need and will gladly help however I can.
I also have seen horrible problems with image licensing tagging- so many images are improperly tagged, and I've occasionally done what I can to fix them up, but as is I think more needs to be done from a policy/interface standpoint. That's just another half-baked idea in my mind at this point, but it's something I care about, and something that I would love to help repair.
I have a fair amount of expertise in the ins and outs of MediaWiki- I run several at the College where I work. This of course doesn't directly impact my editing at Wikipedia, but at least I already know what the "delete" tab looks like and I'm not going to be trigger-happy with it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Certainly my most useful recent contribution to the project as a whole has been my bot, described above.
As far as my (manual) edits are concerned, I've done my best to create new articles wherever I see the need, some fairly interesting, some certainly useful, some on the edge of notability (feel free to AFD that last one, if it's not worth keeping- the pic is priceless, at least). I'm also a PhD mathematician, and have contributed a fair amount of material in my research area (Nielsen theory and related topics). My edits to WP often follow my life interests as they come up. I've been contributing quite a bit on the films of Werner Herzog lately.
Honestly speaking, my most useful edits over my two years here might have been anti-vandalism. It gives me some sort of cheap thrill to revert silly vandalism (the sillier the better). I go for a month or so reverting fairly high-traffic vandalism pages, until I get fed up and take my business elsewhere. I spent some time keeping the "haters" off of 50 Cent, some time at Jar Jar Binks (the similarities are subtle but many), etc. Most recently I've been watching Kazakh and Nursultan Nazarbayev, which get about one Borat-related vandal each day. My personal favorite page to watch for vandalism: Liar. Why such an obscure page gets vandals, I don't know, but it always gives me a smile to see that one pop up on my watchlist. My nominator has suggested that I should take the time to notify vandals more often when I revert them, and this is, I think, a good suggestion.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have had a few run ins- Conflicts with misguided new users have included: A lengthy debate at Talk:Almaty about nomenclature. Receiving the brunt of a disgruntled user over an image at Talk:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (more comments at my talk). Being accused of faith-based censorship (see section at my talk.) These are cases in which I felt that I was clearly in the right, and I've tried to respond to unreasonable or misguided attitudes with grace and patience.
One thing that bugs me is pre-emptive semiprotects, which I've encountered twice. See discussions here and here. You be the judge if I handled it appropriately.
Of course I don't always feel that I'm clearly right. I had a long-winded debate at Talk:Florence Foster Jenkins about NPOV, and to this day I'm not really sure who was right (I eventually "lost" by giving up- by the way I'd appreciate any commentary on that debate, not to revive it but to clarify my impressions of what NPOV is supposed to mean in a case like that).
I also had a (in my opinion) ugly experience at Intelligent design, which is now at Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive29. I made what I thought was a fairly innoccuous suggestion, and ended up with a fairly hostile reaction. My lesson learned from that episode- don't try to jump in, even in a very little way, to mega-controversies without doing a lot of research ahead of time (which I didn't).
I hope that anybody who's interested can read over the above incidents and decide for themselves if I acted appropriately. I think that having a clear head and civil tone is absolutely essential. I don't experience stress very publicly in these situations- I do get a little excited in my own mind, but always try to put my emotions aside when contributing. I am always willing to admit when I'm wrong (I hope), and certainly would never use adminship as a trump in disputes in which I was personally involved.


General comments
  • See Staecker's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I'd be happy to elaborate on any of the above (or anything else), and look forward to good discussion regardless of the votes. I hope to be as transparent as possible- if you are aware of significant information about me that I'm leaving out, please let me know and I'll try to address it. I also know that I can be a bit longwinded- let me know if I should just shut up about something.
  • Someone pointed me to WP:CANVASS regarding my edit here. I've seen so many people pimping their RfAs and other causes that I thought it was fairly accepted. But now that I've seen the guideline page (it's fairly new, right?) I reverted the above diff. Sorry if anybody thought it was uncool- Staecker 13:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Seen them around and interacted briefly regarding the bot, very civil. Also familiarity with the tools is always helpful. - cohesion 05:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I share the nominator's confidence. YechielMan 06:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Attitude and experience are all there with the bot-work an additional plus. I imagine that the projectspace and user Talk edits will increase dramatically after the admin tools allow you to patrol the new pages/recent changes pages, etc. (aeropagitica) 09:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per good answers and sufficient overall experience. Addhoc 10:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - A sensible user who I feel would not abuse admin abilities and who has answered the questions well. Also, seems to have plenty of experience, especially with bots and images. Camaron1 | Chris 11:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support An excellent candidate, could use the tools when, definitely be trusted. Good luck - Tellyaddict 11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support seems trustworthy and experienced. Why not? —Anas talk? 12:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

[edit] Joebengo

Voice your opinion (4/3/6); Scheduled to end 01:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Joebengo (talk • contribs) - I feel sort of odd nominating myself for adminship but since I find myself wishing I were an admin at times I thought I would give it a shot. I like to consider myself a low-key editor who just wants what is best for Wikipedia, I started editing about a year ago without a user name and started editing with this user name in October of 2006. My edit countis a little over 3,000 with over 1,500 mainspace edits, (though I contribute some of my edit count to AWB). Since joining Wikipedia I have stuck to editing U.S. Navy and Basque related articles, I am especially proud of the work I did on the United States Naval Academy article in order to get it to WP:GA status, BUT that is not the only thing I have done (a rough idea of what I have done can be found here). I have also, in my spare time, contributed to reverting vandalism and I have nominated a fair share of AfD while surfing the "Random article" link. I understand that some of you will want to know my position on Wikipedia's Guidelines and Policies, and or other issues and I will gladly take any questions. If nominated I would work to make Wikipedia a better place and with the sysop tools I believe that I will be able to achieve that goal. Joebengo 01:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes.--Joebengo 02:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: First off I would like to work on WP:CSD because I find articles that are tagged for a speedy deletion need to be take care of ASAP and those articles are disruptive to the integrity of Wikipedia, secondly I would like to help the WP:AFD. I also want to be an Admin that is approachable and able to help other users who don't have sysop tools and are in need of Admin assistance.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have three articles that I am very happy with, the first being the United States Naval Academy article, which I took a keen intrest in since I applied for it this past summer, the USNA article was very choppy and was missing a lot of history and inline citations which I spent almost three months editing. It was nominated for GA last week and within a day it was approved for GA status. The second article I am most proud of would be the Basque-American article, which was also my first big project, I added much of the information on the page and created the map and the list of notables. I'll try to speed things up, my third article that I am particularly pleased with is the List of Basques, after a lot of discussion on the talk page about seperating Basques from dispora Basques I took it upon myself to place flagicons before every name (which took a VERY LONG time) and I also spiced the article up with pictures of Basque people who were born Basque and not just dispora Basque.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I really haven't been in any conflicts over editing that werent resolved or taken care of civily. Of course I have run into other users with different POV and instead of creating conflict I have just gotten a consensus from the community on the talk page where there may be a difference and taken care of things that way.
General comments
  • See Joebengo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I just want everyone to know that all I want for Wikipedia is for it to be a better place and with the tools of an administrator I believe that I will be a better asset to Wikipedia as a whole. Feel free to ask any questions.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Good candidate, no reason to oppose from his records. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support, no reason to think he'll misuse or abuse the tools. --Rory096 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support with mild reservations. Most speedy deletions are not urgent, with the notable exceptions of CSD G1, G3, G10 and T1. They can wait a day or two without harming anyone. Generally you want to focus your CSD work on the longest backlogs - generally G11, G12, A7, and some of the image categories. If this RFA passes, I'd encourage you to process a few dozen CSDs before you close AFDs, but I'm willing to give you the chance. YechielMan 06:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No. sorry. Very few CFDs and not much project space. Basically, needs more time sorry. WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    CFDs? What the hell? Even I don't have CFDs, and I have 25,000 edits. How does that disqualify someone from adminship, especially when they didn't say ANYTHING about CFDs in their first question? --Rory096 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Read the below comment, Rory. And a reminder to remain civil --KZTalk• Contribs 05:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Again, sorry. Very little XfD involvement considering your response to Q1. Suggest try again in 3 months. Addhoc 10:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, sorry. Joebengo's been doing a good job (I often see his edits to Portal:Basque and Basque-related articles), but his Wikipedia space count is just too low at the moment. Much more evidence is needed to verify if this user is experienced enough to become an administrator. Also, most edits consist in tagging talk pages, so there's no real need for the admin tools at this time. More vandalfight and participation in WP:XFD are badly needed. Please try again in a few months.--Húsönd 12:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral good user, however doesn't meet the general criteria for adminship; you have low participation in the project-space, you say in your answer to Q1 that you would like to help in CfD when you have very few edits in there, and there is a lack of user communication, which is quite crucial for an admin. I would definitely support if you have worked on these areas and renominated yourself. —Anas talk? 02:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your concern, part of the reason for wanting to become an admin is so that I can work on AfD (note I accidentally put CfD when I was responding in my question) more and be more involved in that field, I also understand the lack of user communication but I would partially attribute that to the fact that I have worked in fields where there are little or no other users who are active such as the Basque Portal and Wikiproject where I am a maintainer and rarely come in contact with other users.--Joebengo 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    I see. But still, your AfD involvement is not enough. Sorry. —Anas talk? 12:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Too little project edits. I'll be happy to support once you contribute more to that. --KZTalk• Contribs 03:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - Sorry, insufficient project space experience, recommend withdraw as it is unlikely to pass. --WinHunter (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Echo the projectspace comments above. I would like to see greater participation in the admin-related side of Wikipedia before this vote slides to a support. You're a good editor, more experience is the key. (aeropagitica) 09:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Well, I think you could definitely be an Admin in the future but I think you need a bit more experience, you have an OK edit summary usage and if you intend to help closing etc at WP:CFD it would be nice to see a bit of work there, give it another 2-3 months of quality and varied contributions and you'll probably pass - Good luck! Tellyaddict 11:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - I don't think he would misuse the admin abilities and is a sensible user. However, I think a little more experience is needed in some areas. If you get more experience and re-nominate, then I would happily support you. Good luck! Camaron1 | Chris 11:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veesicle

Voice your opinion (1/2/6); Scheduled to end 01:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Veesicle (talk • contribs) - Well, I've been a Wikipedia editor for a few months now and as someone who agrees with the concept of adminship being not a big deal, I thought that I would volunteer to assist with the various janitorial duties that can only be done with sysop tools. I have something like 1600+ edits and enjoy repetitive tasks (what can I say, I'm boring) and whilst I probably do not meet up to the high standards that some users set on sysop tool requestees, I would hope that those users would give me a chance and would be willing to put myself open to recall on the provisio that at least five editors in good standing ask for me to give up the tools (if adminship is no big deal, giving it up shouldn't be either). Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yep. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: CAT:CSD and WP:IFD in particular, they are often backlogged and contain copyvios, BLP violations, etc, that I think should be removed ASAP. I'm not so much interested in the blocking side of things, although I realise that the tools come as part of a package and if I'm allowed access to one tool I'll be allowed access to them all. I've participated in a fair few AfDs, and I spend a lot of time browsing the discussions, although I don't comment anywhere near as much as I read as the discussions are generally going the way I want them to anyway and comments from myself are unneeded. I have tagged quite a few articles for speedying, but obviously that won't show up in my contributions :)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: This question is a bit unfair on a WikiGnome like myself, but I suppose turning this copyvio into this was quite pleasing. I spend a fair bit of time reverting vandalism to articles on my watchlist, and sometimes RC patrolling. I am not a hugely prolific contributor; however, I think that the mainspace edits I make are good ones and although I may not make huge use of the sysop tools I would use them I think usefully.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I haven't really been involved in conflict here on Wikipedia, yet. I once reverted a removal of a comment by banned editor Daniel Brandt at Talk:Daniel Brandt, something that I regret as I have since become more aware of the trouble he's caused for Wikipedia editors. I think I've probably done some silly things in annoyance to something someone said here, though I don't recall anything specifically and I would apologise if I thought I'd caused anyone any bother... when I first started reading more into policy discussions, discussions on AN, etc, I found myself getting quite frustrated with people I disagreed with but these days I'm far more laid back about it all. It's just an encyclopedia, after all.
Optional questions from User:Gwernol
4. Reading through your contributions I found the article you created Caïman Fu. Can you tell me what the applicable policies and guidelines are that an administrator would follow when considering if this article might be subject to deletion? Please explain why you believe the article meets the relevant criteria. Thanks.
A: Well I think the most obvious guideline is the one for notability which I'm pretty sure the band meets because:
  • It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. [1] [2] (some minor info at: [3] [4]) and a multitude of possible sources here although as they are linked from their own site I will have to check their reliability. These of course should be added to the article, and I'm going to link them at the talk page, but as my French is a little rusty (and this is a band which is primarily French speaking - therefore mostly French sources) and I don't want to rely on automated translators I was going to wait until I had the time to go through them properly first (my Easter break started today). I'm pretty sure they meet criterion #1 also but I'm having a hard time finding archives of Canadian music charts online. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. Edit count is fine, and I see no indication that this user would abuse or misuse the tools, so he should get them. --Rory096 04:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Two problematic statements stand out to me. First, you write that you don't comment so much on AFDs because usually the consensus is already clear by the time you see them. I scan the AFD list frequently, and I make it a point to comment on AFDs that have not yet received sufficient attention. Tens of AFDs are relisted after the five-day period for lack of interest until then, and failure to focus AFD contribution where it's needed shows a lack of sensitivity to the backlog needs. Second, I'm not willing to give adminship to maintenance specialists - I'd like to see some contributions to articles, WikiProjects, mediation, or other fora where your voice can count. YechielMan 06:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per low overall experience. Addhoc 10:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Two concerns. One, I dislike admin recall, for reasons that I really should write up so I don't have to keep telling people who ask. And two, you have to keep better archives, not just "click on the history". That is incredibly annoying for someone who wants to reference a particular conversation. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    I can go through my history and archive things properly right now if you like - there's not a huge amount there. I tried archiving, but just confused myself and removed everything 'cause it seemed easier. As for the recall; judging by RfAs I'm expecting that some people will oppose because I don't have enough edits or experience or something like that... I thought it might put their minds to rest if they knew I wouldn't really mind giving up the tools if people thought I did that bad a job with it. What exactly are your concerns with it? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, I know that you can easily fix up the archive issue; the point is that you didn't know to do it. As for admin recall, see the page I just wrote on it. Oh, and recognize that this is only a neutral because you're on the borderline of support anyway. Just baaarely enough edits to show that you really understand Wikipedia. -Amarkov moo! 01:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    He doesn't have to do anything, Amarkov. The history tab exists for a reason. Keeping archives as subpages is optional. Picaroon 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, it is. On anything like Wikipedia, very few things are mandatory. That doesn't mean that they're all good, and I consider not keeping some better archiving system than "look through the history" bad. It doesn't have to be subpages, but it has to be more than that. -Amarkov moo! 03:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well it doesn't really matter now as I went ahead and made an archive in all of a minute ;) And I'm a she, for future reference. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral not enough project-space activity and a generally low edit count, for an adminship candidate. I'd have to second Amarkov on the archive issue. —Anas talk? 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - Seems to be good intention user but lack experience in both mainspace and the project namespace, recommend withdraw. --WinHunter (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - Per above. Also, Wikipeda count is low. Real96 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Good attitude and good work ethic, so it's purely down to experience on this one. Involvement with admin-related tasks needs to increase alongside contributions to the encyclopedia - nothing wrong with being a WikiGnome - new page/recent change patrols; user Talk page contributions/vandal warnings and, as above, XfDs are always open for a policy-based opinion, so don't worry if all of the other contributions have voted one way, gauge your response with the policies and guidelines and show this in your contributions. (aeropagitica) 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - A good contributer but I do not feel quite has enough experience yet to be an Admin. Once more experience is gained in contributing to the encyclopedia and been involved with Admin related tasks, I would support this candidate, good luck! Camaron1 | Chris 11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coelacan

Voice your opinion (28/0/0); Scheduled to end 00:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan (talk • contribs) - I am honored to present Coelacan to the community for adminship. Editing since May 9, 2006, Coelacan has amassed over 9200 edits, spread out over the article and Wikipedia namespaces, among others. Though his user page may seen sparse and empty, underneath lies an editor complete with a deep knowledge in policy and well-rounded experience in almost all aspects of Wikipedia (including, but not limited to, XfD's, policy, deletion sorting, etc.). Most importantly, Coelacan has an amicable, civil, and polite personality that helps when help can be offered and advises when advice can be given — a truly rare example in the Wikipedia community. Coelacan has demonstrated his abilities past the most stringent minimums of adminship and into the near-perfect blend of editor and non-administrator that I am, and will be, proud to nominate. 210physicq (c) 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination - It is with great pleasure that I am able to co-nominate Coelacan for adminship. Coelacan does great work at CfD and AfD always giving very good policy arguments during the discussions. His work on categories is extremely good, showing full understanding of all applicable policies. I feel Coelacan's major asset is his thoroughness, if he starts a job, he finishes it and does it properly - no matter how long it takes. He's a nice chap as well, always friendly, and always open to listen to concerns and deal with them in a diligent manor. When talking to new editors, he always quotes applicable policies/guidlines in a hope to steer them in the right direction - this shows a tendancy to assume good faith and help the newbies. With his time spent here, coupled with his dedication to the project and firm grasp of policy, Coelacan will be a great asset to the administration. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. — coelacan — 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I have enough experience with our fair use requirements that I can begin clearing out the backlog of replaceable fair use images immediately. Images with unknown copyright status and images with no fair use rationale will be easy too. Ideally, handling these backlogs may involve providing the missing information and then keeping the images in some cases; it isn't just about deleting. In my opinion one of the most important issues to handle quickly are attack pages, and while category:attack pages for speedy deletion never seems to be backlogged, I intend to be one more set of eyes on it. The more complicated issues that show up at the biographies of living persons noticeboard need similar attention, though they don't always need admin tools, some persistent BLP problems can benefit from admin involvement. I have a familiarity with XFD discussions, particularly CFD (I can use WP:CFD/W without breaking it), and I'm able and willing to recognize when a consensus favors a result I might disagree with. I feel that I can close almost any XFD discussion impartially, and I'll steer clear of those I can't (and of course those I've participated in). Though anti-vandalism is not my idea of fun, I'll help keep WP:AIV from piling up whenever I can. Beyond these, I anticipate that in a pinch, I can help with most any task when called on. I've watched most processes on Wikipedia, and where I'm unsure of something, it's never hard to find a more experienced admin to confer with first.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I really enjoy freeing images, that is, convincing photographers to copyleft their images for our articles here. A good image makes any article better, and I've "negotiated for the release" of many; my favorites are the ones you see at Whoopi Goldberg, Jeff Corwin, Carlton Pearson, John Shelby Spong and James A. Forbes. Most of my other activity is gnomish: dredging up references, moving articles incrementally toward NPOV, wikifying new articles. I have over time developed an outlook on how this community builds an encyclopedia, and I'm pleased with everything I've done toward that end.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Responding to RFCs and requests at the help desk has given me experience in defusing hostilities between editors, and, failing that, at least bringing article-space edit wars to a halt. For example, with the help of other uninvolved editors, I kept the discussion at Talk:First world on track by countering POV pushing from both sides, reducing incivility, and bringing this edit war to a real end. I didn't have to edit the article once; the dispute was resolved through diplomacy. Talk:Max Headroom pirating incident is a more recent example; this one hasn't been resolved to anyone's satisfaction yet, but I've tried to raise the discourse there above a subjective evaluation of who likes having what in the article. In general I find that Wikipedia has already developed many reliable methods for handling conflict. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I find that the old standard of insisting that articles conform to policy, and taking further disputes through dispute resolution, tends to resolve most situations that arise. There were conflicts with one editor which I am not proud of, and which I still regret. These culminated in me whining on ANI over a rather unimportant matter. I was still in a WP:PAIN mode of thinking, and I escalated the conflict rather than cooling it down. After realizing that I was climbing the Reichstag, I let it go, and this mistake helped me to take a new approach to editing here, wherein I don't need to concern myself with unkind things said of me. I now focus on the results of editing and let personal commentary slide off, unacknowledged. Past that instance, I think I do a good job of keeping myself and (when I can) others on the task of writing this encyclopedia. I try to reduce instruction creep, which has recently led to discussion on ANI and my talk page. I've done my best to address this politely. As it's ongoing, we'll have to see what happens, but I'm still optimistic that the usual means of communication and wider community input will bring about an amicable resolution.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominator Support —210physicq (c) 00:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, beat the co-nom? - I've seen this person around, and I'm quite sure that he won't abuse the tools. // PTO 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Pfeh! - about time "support" - Alison☺ 00:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I see no problems here. (aeropagitica) 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. I have been very aware of Coelacan's contributions and have been impressed in all instances. Mallanox 00:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Oh dear God yes. This user lurks around all kind of backwaters on Wikipedia doing stuff that is unpleasant but necessary, is consistently helpful to anyone who knocks on his talkpage and quickly learns from any mistakes made. Even when we have not seen eye to eye we have settled our differences in a civil and amicable manner that I believe Coelcan brings to nearly every discussion. Moreover he has a brilliant sense of humour and a seemingly endless supply of cat pictures for every situation. I have no doubt whatsoever that Coelacan will prove an exceptionally useful and helpful admin. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Honest to goodness, my first thought on seeing this one pop up was "wait, he isn't one?" -- I've been going on this whole time thinking you were, and had no problems with it, so I don't see why I should have any problems with it, now. Personal experience doesn't give me any reason to think the candidate will abuse the buttons. Good luck! – Luna Santin (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support No question about this one at all. κaτaʟavenoTC 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support, no problems here.--Wizardman 01:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Rather late, but super strong support as co-nom - a great candidate (just read the noms :) ) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support undoubtedly an excellent candidate. —Anas talk? 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Another user whom I had already accepted as an admin. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support I've seen him around, very good editor, no worry to give him admin tools. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Knowledge and experience with XfDs should allow him to close the most controversial of discussions. –Pomte 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support It's a shame there aren't more candidates like you HornandsoccerTalk 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support You seem trustworthy, and the image backlogs need all the attention admins are willing to give them. I especially like that you linked to specific examples where you didn't handle conflict well, and explained how you changed your approach after that. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I know it seems glib, but "Er, what? Yeah." applies here. Teke 05:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Pile-on support I don't need to read the whole rigmarole. I know this user, and I trust him. YechielMan 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Yea, verily. Tomertalk 07:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Good candidate. -LakersTalk 07:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Absolutely - I have only ever had pleasant interactions with this user, and I can't see a reason to withhold the tools. ♠PMC♠ 09:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - No doubts here. Khukri 10:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support--MONGO 10:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support per good answers and overall experience. Addhoc 10:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - I have to resort to the cliche: I though you were already and admin! : ) - jc37 11:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. I've only ever seen good contributions from this user, too. Sandstein 13:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

[edit] Hemlock Martinis

Voice your opinion (25/8/2); Scheduled to end 06:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hemlock Martinis (talk • contribs) - Hello everybody. I'm nominating myself for adminship primarily so that I can assist with clearing up the backlog of WP:CFD. I am deeply troubled that there are discussions there that remain unclosed even after being open for almost two weeks. On Wikipedia, I consider myself something of a specialist: some editors are vandalfighters, some are writers, some are proofreaders, and some are photographers. Personally, I try to focus my efforts on categorization. I got my start with categorization when I manually diffused around 1200 pages in Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. Since then, I have been working on categorizing articles in Category:Uncategorized pages and monitoring categories in Category:Categories requiring diffusion. I've also tried to assist with WP:CSD, and during my Dante-like travels through the horror that can be Category:Uncategorized pages at times, I've nominated over 300 articles for speedy deletion, most of which were successful. I'd be perfectly willing to stand open to recall should my nomination succeed. Hemlock Martinis 05:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my nomination. --Hemlock Martinis 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: First and foremost, I want to help clear the backlog on WP:CFD and make sure that it stays unclogged. As I said above, the existence of nominations that are twelve days old and still unclosed is unacceptable, and I would like to do something about it. Past that, I'll assist in anything that involves categorization.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with all the categorization work I have done, most notably the aforementioned Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States and my continual monitoring of Category:European Union. When it comes to actual articles, my cleanup of Law in Star Trek was especially pleasing - the shift from parenthetical citations to proper wikiformatting made the page far more readable. Also, in that same vein, I am currently working on an article similar to Law in Star Trek, except dealing mostly with the medical aspect of it and how it influences and is influenced by the real world.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've tried to keep all my contact with other Wikipedians civil and hopefully have been successful at this. Occasionally, I encounter differences of opinion as to how best to diffuse or categorize, such as this recent debate over the categorization of congressional subcommittees but I was pleased with how it was resolved (even if I was wrong about the matter at hand! :D). Thankfully, my encounters with my fellow Wikipedians has been nothing but civil, which is one of my reasons for continuing to stay with the project.
Optional question by After Midnight 0001
4. You may have done a deal of category editing, but I only see you having contributed to 3 CFDs. Can you please discuss more your qualification to be closing these discussions?
A: You are quite correct in that I have only done three CFDs. However, I do have an extensive understanding of categorization policy and how it works, as shown through my work that I've mentioned previously. In addition, I'd also like to mention that when it comes to categories, one can apply the I know it when I see it concept to them. This is why many of the CFD debate usually follow the lines of "Keep", "Delete" and "Merge" rather than the longwinded discussions that often occur on AfDs. It doesn't take a scholar to disseminate whether or not a category is appropriate - you simply know it when you see it, based off of the current category naming conventions and community consensus. I hope this answers your question. --Hemlock Martinis 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Question from Kelly Martin
5. What is, in your own words, the purpose of the English Wikipedia? How does the English Wikipedia fit into the broader purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation? How have your contributions helped to forward those purposes? How will you contribute toward them in the future?
A: To me, Wikipedia is a perfect tool to fight ignorance. By allowing people a free NPOV open-ended encyclopedia, we are opening them up to entirely new worlds and ideas, new people and places, and most of all, new viewpoints. However, Wikipedia's currently a bit haphazard when it comes to cohesion. My work on categorization allows for people to more quickly access information by putting it in places that they can find it. Sure, I may not pound out featured articles every week, but I'd like to think that I am in some part making Wikipedia a better place. And that's really what it's all about. --Hemlock Martinis 23:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Akhilleus
6. Above you said "It doesn't take a scholar to disseminate whether or not a category is appropriate - you simply know it when you see it, based off of the current category naming conventions and community consensus." Yet some category disputes become protracted and acrimonious because Wikipedians disagree about whether they're appropriate. Have you seen category discussions, either on articles or at WP:CFD, that were cases of reasonable people disagreeing? If you were closing such a discussion, how would you proceed?
A: An excellent question. One that springs to mind is one that actually involves me: a debate about whether or not EU categories should follow national naming conventions. In this case, both people have reasonable contentions. Those for renaming argue that by placing the European Union categories in the same naming conventions as national articles, we would be misleading unknowing readers into believing that the EU was a country. Those who argue for keeping the category as-is (like myself) note that the EU does carry out functions similar to an actual country, and that by changing it for just the EU we'd be disrupting the naming conventions. Now, I can't fairly evaluate how I would close this one since I have participated in it. There are two important guidelines to follow in a case like you've described. One is part of WP:DGFA: "4. When in doubt, don't delete." The second is that one must evaluate the arguments made on both sides; that is, are they effectively disproved by the other side? Is the majority of votes simply a parroting of one argument, or are there multiple arguments brought up by multiple editors? That's my closing philosophy. --Hemlock Martinis 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. Very reasonable request, very experienced in category space where he intends to use the admin tools most of the time, last 500 contributions don't show any problems, and has a very kickass username. Grandmasterka 08:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    I see an incident where you removed two speedy tags instead of using {{hangon}}. However, the editor who added them was being disruptive and this was an appropriate application of WP:IAR. Grandmasterka 08:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Terence 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I'll give a support on the basis that once you get more involved with admin tasks and using the tools then your user Talk editcount will skyrocket past the >500 edits as of this timestamp. (aeropagitica) 11:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - A promising candidate who does lot of helpful work for Wikipedia such as category sorting and article re-naming. Also seems to be well experienced in Wikipedia policies and admin work. Camaron1 | Chris 11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support -As per Grandmasterka. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support convincing nomination. I'll always support one who works on categories and does his work well. Nice user name, by the way. :-) —Anas talk? 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I have no doubt you will use the tools wisely and effectively. --Ozgod 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Per all above comments. -Mschel 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. A generally good editor, friendly, helpful. I think he could use those admin tools very skillfully. Retiono Virginian 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. ANYONE with the experience that wants to help unclog WP:CFD has my full support. I have been very frustrated with this in the past. Good Luck! --Bfissa 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Candidate is good, even with the little WP:CfD experience as other users have pointed out. Captain panda 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Looks good to me. Picaroon 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Great editor. Have tag-teamed with him a few times through CAT:U. No worries at all that he'll abuse the tools. --Slowking Man 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support the opponents' reasons aren't strong enough to oppose, IMO, and his experience is sufficient for adminship. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Someone who's willing to help with backlogs?! Grab 'em quick before they change their mind ;) Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support per criteria set out on my user page. Edivorce 01:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. After careful consideration, I am supporting this nomination. Hemlock's answers are not bad, but not great either. I had a discussion with him on IRC which was unconvincing, and I think he has unreasonable expectations about category management on Wikipedia. However, he seems to have some grasp of most of the key Wikipedia principles and appears capable of both contemplation and civil discourse. Certainly not the first person I would seek out to offer adminship to, but also not someone who I think adminship needs to be withheld from. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - Adminship is no big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. Second that. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support My first response was 'hell no' a category-geek not a well-rounded wikipedian. But then, he works at an important job where no-one else wants to work, why should we ask him to go and compete with the FA crowd, or be an also-run voter at AfD. Keep up the good work, and if the mop helps, here let's chuck you one.--Docg 20:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support: As in "I thought he was one" support. Use the tools well (like you won't).  ~Steptrip 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Huh? you went from Neutral to Support on the basis of you already thought he was one? If you thought that, why were you Neutral in the first place? --After Midnight 0001 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. SupportI too have a bit of concern regarding the lack of CFD experience. However, he is unquestionably well versed in the larger catagorization work and think that gives him a good basis for growth. As someone as said, his answer to #1 is rather narrow but then sometimes it is useful to have someone a bit more specialized. There is no evidence to suggest he will be abusive. JBEvans 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Changed from neutral - trust is all that matters. YechielMan 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support looks experienced enough.-- danntm T C 03:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, candidate is qualified and seems to be unlikely to ab/misuse the tools. He will make an excellent administrator, I'm sure. --Rory096 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Weak support. I do advise that he start slowly as he gains experience with admin tools. ChazBeckett 12:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Unless your explanation to After Midnight really surprises, I don't see having the experience necessary to succeed in helping with CfD closures, the area in which you wish to specialize. Nice name, though, :) and I admire those open to recall; I'll be happy to support in a few months. Xoloz 15:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - weak answer to Q1, lowish project space, low talk page and user talk page edits. Addhoc 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Addhoc. I'd like to see a broader range of experience. Michael 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Due to lack of experience and weak answers--$UIT 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per answer to my optional question. --After Midnight 0001 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Could you please explain what it is about my answer that made you change to Oppose? --Hemlock Martinis 02:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Basically, I feel that your concept may work fine for the discussions that are obvious, but the backlog primarily exists on the discussions that are difficult and or contentious. I just don't believe that someone who hasn't participated in those discussions is someone who I want to be making the tough closing decisions. --After Midnight 0001 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    It would be wrong of me to participate in discussions that I might have to close. --Hemlock Martinis 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    You are misunderstanding me; allow me try to be more clear. If you have no history of participating in these discussions, then I do not believe that you have the experience to be able to make decisions regarding how to close them now. I am not saying that you should close discussions that you have been party to, but rather that you need that experience to do the job effectively. --After Midnight 0001 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Sorry but I think that your focus is a little too single issue and your edit count in general and particularly at Wikipedia (148) is not broad enough for my support at this time.--VS talk 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Again, the answers are not necessarily what we need. What we need is your take on Wikipedia, not categorisation-it does not describe you, a lá VirtualSteve. (note:you seem to contradict yourself when you say that Wikipedia has a NPOV, yet you talk about viewpoints.) -HuBmaN!!!! 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I was referring to the multitude of pages on Wikipedia about different viewpoints. --Hemlock Martinis 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Insufficient project space experience, only 158 project edits, and 9 project talk edits. Needs more community participation. Has not been very active for the last 5 months. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    I've done a fair bit of CSD work over the past two months, which may help explain why my edit count is lower as of late. --Hemlock Martinis 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral pending answer to optional question. --After Midnight 0001 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC) changing to oppose --After Midnight 0001 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral I noticed the lack of CFD experience in my editor review of this candidate. I have no reason to distrust him, but I think a little more XFD experience would be a desideratum. YechielMan 18:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Changed to support because of the response. YechielMan 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral: He clearly shows that he could do much more with the tools than clearing a category backlog. If you will do vandalism work / page protections, then I will gladly change my vote.  ~Steptrip 01:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I've Changed my vote to support.  ~Steptrip 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not saying that CFD is all that I'll do, I was just explaining that the mess that it is is the primary reason for my RfA. For example, part of what I like to do is monitor Category:Uncategorized pages. While going through it, I often see articles that are vandalism and articles that have been vandalized and I've speedy deleted over 300 articles while doing so. Sure, that may seem small compared to veteran vandal hunters, but this is Wikipedia. Every little bit helps. --Hemlock Martinis 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    To throw in my two cents, few admins use all of the admin abilities consistently. I've pretty much never edited MediaWiki pages, for instance, and some admins almost never block, but do tons of deletions as part of closing AfDs. We need all the (good) admins we can get. --Slowking Man 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I see both sides on this one. I see that this user has done lots of work with categories, but I think he could use some more Wikipedia namespace edits. I'm split. Gutworth 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuhghettaboutit

Voice your opinion (47/3/0); Scheduled to end 01:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit (talk • contribs) - I'm proud to present a prolific Wikipedian, Fuhghettaboutit, who has racked up 13180 edits in mainspace, 3642 in user talk, and 2527 in Wikipedia space. What caught my eyes, though, were some very good answers he gave on the help desk. I am surprised that he's not an admin already (yes, yes, I know), and this RfA is long overdue. fuhghettaboutit has contributed this project since 10 December 2005. A civil and helpful editor who readily admits when he makes a mistake, fuhghettaboutit is an active NP patroller and DYK participant, so he can really use some tools. I have no doubt that he will wield the tools responsibly. Let's give him the mop. Xiner (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Fuhghettaboutit is a fantastic Wikipedian. He deeply understands that this is an encyclopedia. If he has to find references from 1887 newspapers, he does it. This is no gnome, either - Fuhghettaboutit spends most of his WP time actually writing articles, and has created quite a number of them, straight into B-Class or better. Yet somehow also had not only the time but the understanding of how Wikipedia works to be the main architect of the books notability guideline. I interact with him a lot in a WikiProject. Ever-civil, always uses edit summaries (that make sense), does not revert war, doesn't pick fights, just generally makes sense most of the time. He is quick to fix vandalism, knows templating, is helpful to newbies and experienced editors alike, and has a well-founded understanding of policy/guidelines, XfD, consensus building, and how to build really good articles. I think it's time he got a bucket. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and thank you Xiner and SmMcCandlish for the nominations.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In the hope that no one will strain a typing muscle trying to avoid an improper pronoun, as I have seen in past nominations, please feel free to use he / him / his where appropriate.


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I do a good deal of new pages patrol and contemplate continuing in that activity. The ability to delete clear WP:CSD candidates without a middle man would be immensely helpful in that enterprise, not to mention more efficient. Lending a hand at CAT:CSD would be a natural offshoot of this. I have participated in numerous afd debates (I would estimate over 500) and anticipate performing closes, though I would be leery of tackling controversial ones until gaining experience. I also anticipate assisting with requested moves, and at WP:ERRORS, where I have reported problems a number of times.
I am strangely attracted to fixing page histories and though I have no experience in the actual methodology (how could I), I have reviewed WP:CPMV. I've had twelve self-nominated articles listed on DYK and two for other users, so I am familiar with process there and foresee adding my name to available updaters. Another prospect is helping out with copyright violations which I have some experience with in real life. I've been interested enough here that I created {{nothanks-drm}} after noting the ubiquitous failure of users to read the text of {{copyvio}} regarding creation of a temporary page. Finally, though until now I have sparingly contributed at WP:AN and its various subsections, I do monitor at times, and would assist where appropriate.
I am a bit of a dilettante and it's a safe bet that I would expand into different roles over time. The rollback button may be occasionally useful, but I don’t think I will need it often. I dislike recent changes patrol so most simple vandalism I encounter is of the drive-by, rather than spree variety, and limited to my [ever-expanding] watchlist. Of course, there's no telling what the future may bring that will occasion more contact with vandals. I'm sure someone will note that I have only a few edits to WP:AIAV; this is the reason.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: This may come off as pollyanna, but I am pleased with most of my contributions. I don't do things if I don't think they’re worthwhile and doing things that I think are worthwhile pleases me. Okay, if you pin me down: I am most pleased with having written much of the non-stub billiard content on Wikipedia—numerous articles, including two GAs (carom billiards and Irving Crane); as well as balkline and straight rail (probably the article I am most proud of; a very difficult historical research project); cowboy pool; cushion caroms; bottle pool; kelly pool; the billiards glossary all these articles use and many others. I have two other GAs, Lope de Barrientos and Trabancos River, both translations of featured articles on the Spanish Wikipedia drafted with the collaboration of the Spanish language majority author (a real treat). I am also pleased by the promotion to guideline of Wikipedia:Notability (books) which I wrote with a good deal of help from Pascal.Tesson. I also enjoy helping out at the help desk, New contributors' help page, occasionally at various sections of the Reference desk and responding to {{help me}}.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Some minor conflicts—mostly shouting and hand waving because a user’s article that I tagged got deleted. There was this exchange at the help desk which led to this discussion. There was one rather unpleasant incident with an established user, now an admin, who accused me of tagging a user’s talk page with an improper blanking warning. After I pointed out the correctness of the tagging (the user was looking at the wrong article’s edit history because he didn't realize the blanked article had become a redirect in the interim), we had some words over his less than diplomatic manner and actions. I will provide further details with diffs if requested to, but I think it's of a let-sleeping-dogs-lie nature.
I've had few content disputes. The only ones that come to mind are here, when I was a new user, and the heated discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (books). I don’t find this stressful. I enjoy debate (and do my best not to climb large German senatorial buildings in costume). What I find stressful is making harmful mistakes. For example, this should not have been necessary. There are other edits I regret—a few harsh edit summaries, one afd where I should have been more civil, and one over-the-top post at the village pump—but these few incidents loom large in my memory and I try not to repeat past errors.


Optional question 4 from ViridaeTalk
4. You stated you want to help out with CAT:CSD. Under what circumstances can an article be deleted for not being notable?
A: To the extent prod may be considered a form of speedy deletion (though it is not speedy per se, it shares lack of debate on the merits of the article), a prodded article on the basis of notability could be deleted after running its course. Otherwise, there are no such circumstances—at least not as you have posed the question. There are no speedy deletion criteria on the basis of notability. The only notability-related criteria, A7, has to do with whether there is an assertion of notability. An article that asserts notability, though one may think it patently non-notable, is not a candidate for speedy deletion on that basis. Please see the edit history of this article, edited by me earlier today.
Optional question by Gmaxwell
5. How would you describe, in your own words, the mission of the English Wikipedia and how does that mission fit into the overall mission of the Wikimedia Foundation? What actions have you taken as a community member to further these missions and what actions do you see yourself taking in the future to further these missions?
A: Wikipedia is about free dissemination of knowledge. A database that is capable of near infinite expansion, and with the resource of all people (well, those with computers) given free access to collaborate in that process. It's a great model. There's a bit of devil in the details, but we're working on it. I really am not sure how to answer the second part of your question. A free encyclopedia is one aspect of the goal stated above. The Wikimedia Foundation also oversees other aspects, but it's all about the goal of free and open collaborative access to knowledge. A free dictionary, species directory, news service, library, etc. They are all about the same thing. As for the third question, why I've helped to increase that knowledge. Along the way I've been also pruning and debating improvements to the structure to achieve that goal. I value my time and wouldn't spend one more second creating articles and helping here if I didn't believe in the goal.
5(continued): Thank you for your answer, I like it but I would like to drill in a bit deeper into your thoughts on this stuff. Going purely hypothetical here, if the goal is about the free dissemination of knowledge, why are we writing instead of just copying Encyclopedia Britannica and trying to battle it out in court? or why aren't we instead using all our man power to raise money to use to pay publishers to allow us to display their books at no cost?
A: I turned in my truncheon at the door. From a feasibility standpoint, we would never win either battle you've posed. The statement "free dissemination of knowledge" is not a mantra interpreted in a vacuum. We do have a structure; a particular type of software platform; particular policies that make this a tertiary source encyclopedia, and there is nothing about this that puts us at odds with intellectual property law; we are not a knowledge-at-any-cost-free-for-all-anarchy. In any case, why would we want to assimiliate Encyclopædia Britannica? It can't compete in breadth or in depth (certainly not in the long run). Regarding the second hypothetical, displaying books has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Wikisource of course does function in that sphere, but once again we function within the bounds of society and its laws. I would be more worried if the Wikimedia foundation was run by Pinky and the Brain.
Optional question from Kelly Martin
6. You have contributed 100 images to Wikipedia since January 2006 (and eight on Wikimedia Commons). Thirty-nine of these images have since been deleted. Could you please describe the circumstances surrounding the deletion of these contributions?
A: Sure. All but 3 of the following 14 images, were fair use dvd/vhs covers replaced by more desirable original movie poster images. When the images became orphaned, I requested deletion under G7: (deletion log entries) [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] (<--replaced by a commons image) and [16] (<--and two others images relating to the same movie under similar names because I was dissatisfied with the images).
These 4 are in the same boat but I missed them on my watchlist, so they were deleted as orphaned fair use image + seven days: [17][18][19][20]
All 21 remaining deleted images were of dog breeds uploaded in one day (after a number of hours of work) my second month on Wikipedia. All contained fair use rationales but I learned from a kind user the problem with these images and fair use. Here is my response to learning all were to be deleted.


General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as co-nominator. Xiner (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I don't even need to look at this user's answers to the questions. I know this user will make a great administrator, and I look forward to seeing him out there, making Wikipedia a better place. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 02:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support as co-nominator of course! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support well qualified, overdue HornandsoccerTalk 03:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. He was one of the first Wikipedians I encountered here, and it was the kind of interaction that made me want to stick around. Looking at his more recent contributions confirms my impression that he would make an excellent admin.--Kubigula (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - Everything looks good--$UIT 03:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Michael 04:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - bumped into this guy many times. Great editor & will make an equally good admin - Alison☺ 05:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support per answers to all questions, paticuarly my optional one. That was the answer I was looking for~ ViridaeTalk 06:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Changing to Super duper strong support per answers to questions. Candidate is polite, level-headed and knows his policy. Whats not to like. Good luck! ViridaeTalk 06:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kusma (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Terence 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I see no problems here. (aeropagitica) 11:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - long overdue. Addhoc 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support good, all-rounded user who can be very helpful with the tools in his hands. —Anas talk? 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. He'll be a very good administrator. He's been looking out for me since I was a newbie, patiently and courteously answering my questions and correcting my errors, and I've been quietly admiring his work expanding the billiards articles. I've never seen him other than civil; he knows Wikipedia policy and contributes in a variety of different ways. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support My collaboration with Fuhghettaboutit on WP:BK has convinced me that he/she is level-headed and I'm confident he will do well with the admin tools. Pascal.Tesson 14:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Plenty of experience. If problems were going to surface they would have done so by now. DurovaCharge! 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Excellent candidate; cliche moment. Xoloz 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support His mistakes with the fair use criteria seem only to have increased his knowledge of the policy, and I love the civil, thoughtful response. We don't need admins that never make mistakes, only ones that admit them civilly, deal with them, and learn from them. Dina 15:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Certainly. Retiono Virginian 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - Trustworthy user who understands process. Q5 seems more of a test, which Fuhghettaboutit passed. Q6 answer shows learning from mistakes. -- Jreferee 16:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Excellent candidate with an impressive range of contributions to the project. JavaTenor 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support I am getting annoyed by all the RfAs saying that they are "Amazed the user isn't an admin yet," but still, the user is definately good enough for adminship. Captain panda 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose - user has not signed acceptance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Despite appearances, the above is actually a support vote (see HTML comments in it). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support good one. feydey 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support no problems whatsoever Scottydude talk 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Seen him everywhere. (Been here much longer than me) Brilliant wikipedian.--Anthony.bradbury 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Of course, long history of being a useful contributor. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support When I've seen him around he's a solid and responsible editor, Modernist 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Wow! This user is a great all around guy. I think he's ready for adminship. Gutworth 02:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. Looks like another great candidate. Rockpocket 06:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Great candidate who deserves a mop. KrakatoaKatie 10:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support I can't fault his level of support of Wiki and his constant work ethic.--VS talk 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Yes please. —Cryptic 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support per above. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. A valuable contributor who will make good use of the tools. -- Satori Son 14:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. I feel the above questions have been answered well and I am happy for him to be given a mop. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Wow, can we look forward to this loyalty test in future RfAs? Sheesh. --W.marsh 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Boy do I second that comment! Pascal.Tesson 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support More than 13,000 edits, and has more than the needed experiance in time.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. I'll admit I haven't scrutinized this user's history, but I like the answers to the questions. I especially like the response to the question about the deleted images: Fuhgehettaboutit cleaned up after the images he uploaded were orphaned, and in another case realized he didn't fully understand the fair use criteria and decided to focus his contributions on areas where he did understand the policy. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Moreover, I like his explanation of en.wiki's mission. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support I didn't even know what WP:ERRORS was! I want to say something clever here, but whatever. YechielMan 06:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support, per (co-)nom, an experiment user and oppose arguments does not convinced me. Carlosguitar 07:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support, -LakersTalk 07:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose due to unacceptable answers to questions regarding core policy on nonfree content. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    How on earth could his answer hae been any better? Mind pointing out for the rest of us where his answers are so unacceptable? ViridaeTalk 04:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I second that clarification request; Fuhghettaboutit actually demonstrates a very clear understanding of WP:COPY. User talk:Kelly Martin has been notified that a clarification has been requested here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: 07:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry to pile on, but I third that. What answer would you have found acceptable? Pascal.Tesson 07:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Fuhghettaboutit's response to Question 5, above, indicates that he believes the reason we do not use nonfree content on Wikipedia is to avoid being sued. Regretfully, this is not correct; that he gave this as the primary reason not to use nonfree material indicates that he does not support Wikipedia's principal goal of being a freely-reusable encyclopedia. Regrettably, Fuhghettaboutit does not appear to sufficiently support Wikipedia's core mission for me to consider him suitable for adminship, and so I have opposed his candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I am further strengthening my opposition in light of the subject's inappropriate response to my comments to Xiner, below. My comments were directed more to Xiner than to Fuhghettaboutit and were of a structural nature regarding the RFA process itself, but he took them personally and even took offense at them -- going so far as to call them absurd. I therefore strongly question whether he has the appropriate temperament to be an admin; admins will constantly be faced with such situations and if that's how he reacts... Kelly Martin (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    With all due respect Kelly, your comment below was strongly suggesting that you had little respect for the bot-like contributions of Fuhghettaboutit. His response was firm but perfectly civil. Pascal.Tesson 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, regretfully. I too was not satisfied with Fuhghettaboutit's responses. We need to have administrators who understand, are committed to, and can explain our core mission. At best, I believe Fuhghettaboutit's responses clearly failed to explain even if he really does understand. It is simply not enough that we can legally disseminate our content, it has to preserve the recipients freedom. Even this simple distinction between free-content and no-cost content which is fundamental for even understanding the tagline of our project was completely unclear in Fuhghettaboutit responses. I asked questions about Fuhghettaboutit's position on these matters because it was not possible to determine it from the fairly small number of project discussion edits that he's made. I will not oppose, and may well support, Fuhghettaboutit in the future if his future actions remove my concerns. --Gmaxwell 14:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Can an editor make 13180 mainspace edits without understanding Wikipedia? We're producing an encyclopedia here, and Wikipedia talkspace edits are but a piece of that puzzle. Fuhghettaboutit has not only demonstrated his ability as a theoretician through policy formulations (WP:N/books), but practical application through his mainspace contributions. Xiner (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Can someone? sure. Especially when a lot (most?) of the 13k edits are simple tagging edits made at ~10 edits per minute[21]. Even ignoring an editors occasional bot-like tendencies, it's totally possible for someone to have written a dozen featured articles and not have any understanding that Wikipedia is more free than "you can view it on the web at no cost". It's all of our fault that we don't, as a community, help people understand this stuff better but we're certainly not getting better on that front if we grant adminship to more people who don't clearly get it. --Gmaxwell 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    If I thought for a second Fuhghettaboutit is anything like that, I'd not have supported him. Xiner (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I should point out that I racked up nearly 4000 mainspace edits in just under two months doing little more nothing but spelling corrections; at best what this demonstrates is that I have an automated spelling checker and know how to use it. Quite a lot of Fuhghettaboutit's mainspace edits appear to be semiautomated tagging; such edits demonstrate only that he knows how to use a bot framework, or simply how to edit really quickly. I know it is tempting to rely on edit counts to judge a candidate's merits, but doing so really is not defensible -- and merely encourages people to pad their edit counts with fluff edits in order to win the "admin game". Please refrain from making such arguments; they only hurt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to be the guy that disputes each oppose and I'd like to say that I appreciate your comments and respect the right of every user to oppose. However, there are a few things I'd like to clear up.
First, I do not and have never used any automated tools whatever. Those recent film edits are done by creating the code for the template offline carefully checking the Wikipedia filmography for a film director against imdb. Once done, and after saving the template here, I open up the many screens in separate windows, tag each page with the template and minimize. Once all the article are tagged, I maximize ten screens (because that's how many can fit in my browser bar at one time), click save and minimize for each one, then I maximize them all, go up to the close "X", and click ten times shutting them all. Repeat and wash until the process is done. I have, in fact, made thousands of these types of edits—the majority when I first started here—but if you had hit "older 500" just a few times in my contributions, you'd see that I also have thousands of contributions that are not of this nature: [22], [23], [24], [25]. [26] (arbitrary stop).
In the same vein, these are are just a few of my single edit postings of exhaustively researched and referenced to the best of my ability, complete articles written offline: [27] (about 20 kb), [28] (about 25 kb), [29], [30]. If written here instead of offline, just these samples from a larger article pool would translate to a huge number of edits. So if I was really trying to "pad...[my]...edit counts with fluff edits in order to win the "admin game", I certainly wouldn't waste all these 'valuable edit count inflators' writing this (non-fluff) material offline. On a less mechanical note, I find the implied notion that I or anyone would edit for 16 months and make 21,000 edits, regardless of their nature, all as a ruse to become an admin, frankly absurd.
And to Gmaxwell: I'm not sure that I can assuage your concerns, though I think that a question which specifically asks "why are we writing instead of just copying Encyclopedia Britannica and trying to battle it out in court?" does not, even now, make me think a response involving the ability to freely redistribute material is reflexively invited. However, I think this post, where I advised a user of free distribution under the GFDL, might be of some interest.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per [31]. Such a statement is contrary towards the goal of Wikipedia, and also what is expected of an admin. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I read [32] as someone who recognized one month ago that he had more study to do on Wikipedia's copyright/licensing schema and would refrain from such posts until he had more knowledge. Administrators should inform themselves before taking action, particularly in the difficult area of Wikipedia's copyright/licensing schema, and should recognize areas of weakness and refrain from acting in those areas until they are ready. I am not sure how the statement is contrary towards the goal of Wikipedia or expectations of admins. -- Jreferee 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    That diff is from February 2006, two months after Fuhghettaboutit began editing, not from a month ago. —Cryptic 19:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry but opposing on the basis of a thirteen month old diff, and a fairly innocuous one at that is just unfair. RfA candidates deserve better than frivolous opposition. Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Right. Grind axe too long, no axe. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

[edit] Smcafirst

Voice your opinion (8/12/2); Scheduled to end 00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Smcafirst (talk • contribs) - This is my second time requesting for Adminship. I have been here at Wikipedia for almost 8 months, but I have been active ever since November 2006 (5 months from now) In fact, during the last 5 months, I have been editing on Wikipedia on almost everyday. As a local resident in the Golden Horseshoe, I also started a Wikiproject named WP:GHR, in order to improve road stubs in the Golden Horseshoe area. In total, I have involved in several Wikiproject, which are WP:EiC, WikiProject ontario Highways, Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology, and in one of which, I am the creator and editor, editting my members' work, and wikify the articles if needed be. I also participated in WP:MOTTO, even though it is not a proper WikiProject. Frequently do I mark stubs, clean-up tags on articles that I think are short and lack of information. In many ways, I co-operate with others, and prevent vandalizing. During my spare time, I often patrol around in Wikipedia to monitor vandalizing, just like an administrator. In these past months, I made positive changes to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipediholic that made over 1500 edits in just 3 months, over 200 categories and articles in just 3 months. Most important of all, I marked stubs and wikify notices on articles for almost 500 times. Some of which are Steeles Avenue, and Simcoe County Road 8. I often drive 500 km, just to take a picture for Wikipedia, and often research until middle of the night, to write an article of something. Other than EN wikipedia, I also have another account at ZH wikipedia, which I made several articles and edits. I have been taking HTML Writing Class, Proofreading Class, and Chinese Typing Class, so that I could write bots, proofread others' work in a better degree, and contribute more to the Chinese Wikipedia community. I am also ready to expand my current project so that the WikiProject does not only include roads, but also other "geographic features" in the Golden Horseshoe. I also edit in various namespaces, including portals, mainspace, project pages, and user pages. Recently, I ahve been focusing to create navigational templates, so that all relevant articles would link to each other. In my contribution records, you might see lots of user page editing, actually, some of them are planning for articles. In the past, I have used userspaces to plan Castlemore Avenue, York Regional Road 71, and some other my wikiproject related articles. --Smcafirst (Talk) 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, I can complete chores to make Wikipedia a better community and encyclopedia. --Smcafirst (Talk) 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Some sysop chores that I would be counteracting vandalism, and help out at WP:AIV, and blocking vandals from editing Wikipedia. Another chore that I would like to do is to protecting heavy vandalized page. I would also help out at WP:AfD, closing discussions, and complete whatever the concensus suggest me to do. I would also like to help out my fellow Wikipedians.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: There are a few. In particular, List of York Regional Roads, Portal:Hamilton, Ontario WP:GHR (Despite it is a WikiProject), and List of Municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe (Currently under construction) . For the two lists and the portal, I believe they are a compile of all the available relevant information in Wikipedia, and ultimately the web. All of these articles/wikiProjects/portals, I have put lots of efforts into them.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: In November 2006, I have been in a conflict of editing in the past with another administrator, RaccoonFox (His account got hacked into, and presently named as RingtailedFox) I had created some lists of Regional Roads (such as List of York Regional Roads) However, as an administrator, RaccoonFox reverted my edits into what I think were misleading names (such as List of York Region, Ontario roads). We finally talked together on a talk page, and compromised. He admitted the names are difficult to understand at times, and he let me to rename all of the categories into their proper names again. In the future, I will do the same thing, because I believe talking on a talk page, discussing conflicts, and compromise is a better way of editing than reverting each other's edits over and over again.
Optional questions from User:Gwernol
4. When you come across a vandal, either in general editing or when you see a report at WP:AIV what is the right process for an admin deal with them? In particular, when do you warn them and when do you block them? If you decide to block them, how long should you block them for?
A: When I come across a vandal, I would, first of all, undo all the vandalism (like I always do), and check the IP vandal/user's contribution. If they had vandalize more than once, I would warn them first. I did similar cases with IP Address 216.209.122.141, about his/her vandalism of the article A.D.H.S. I would block them if they still continue their vandalize habit, and receive at least 3 warnings (depending on the seriousness of the vandalized page, whether they posted on sexual images or words, or other violence that cannot be tolerate; the moderate ones (like posting personal comments on certain article) could wait for 3 warnings before blocking them.) If I decide to block them, like I said before, I would block the ones who posted inappropriate comments (sexual images, violence phrases) for approximately 30 days hours for their second time of vandalism, and increasingly more (and possible permanantly) if the vandalism continues after he/she got unblocked. I would block the ones who posted personal comments on certain articles for about 15 days hours (that is , after 3 warnings), and increasingly more if the vandalism continues. In share IP Address (shuch as libraries, or school), I would give them relatively more chances (say 4-5 chances), before blocking them, just to make sure it is the same one person who vandalized. The blocking time of these addresses would be shorter, as it is a shared one, 7-15 days hours would be sufficient. --Smcafirst (Talk) 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC) This is just my suggested way of blocking vandals, but the blocking policy would be still followed. I understand my blocking standard may seem different than what other admins would have done, but I would observe WP:BLOCK and also my own standard before blocking vandals. I believe vandals should not be blocked for such a short period (1-3 days is a VERY short time), and that's why I suggest this out. However, I would still follow Wikipedia's policy, enhancing my own suggestions.--Smcafirst (Talk) 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
5. What criteria would you use to judge when to semi-protect or fully protect an article? Under what circumstances would it not be appropriate for your to protect an article?
A: In this case, unlike Question 4, I would follow Wikipedia's protection policy. To fully protect an article for high visibility pages, special pages, closed discussions, and pages that are repeated re-created. (Although all special pages have already been fully protected). I would semi-protect articles which experiences heavy vandalism, biographies, and any other requested protections by other users (like user pages). I would also protect pages that are experiencing on-going movement to an inappropriate titles. When it is inappropriate for me to protect an article is when a concensus is reached by other users. Basically, I would follow WP:PROT. --Smcafirst (Talk) 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. Seems simple. Over 3,000 edits, (not that 3,000 is a cut off point!) Seems to interact well with others, writes articles, decent WP space contributions, involved in projects... I see no compelling reason to not support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support has improved since the last request. A much better user. Captain panda 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - Good answer to $UIT's oppose vote. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Clearly a better candidate than in the last request. Well involved, has plenty of helpful edits and contributions, and seems to know what his tasks will be if he becomes an admin. Camaron1 | Chris 11:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support seems good enough for me.-- danntm T C 14:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support: This user's answers and Dgies' answers are basically the same and they have both been on wikipedia for similar amounts of time, so I fail to see why his RfA is passing and this one is not. Per above reasons.  ~Steptrip 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support very simple w/ so many edits.B4rr4g3 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - I support every RfA. Adminship is no big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Due to your answer to question 1. Comment: You say you'll work at closing AFDs, yet you really only participated in one--$UIT 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I actually participated in a few, way back when. I will beginning to contribute more at AFDs, and I look forward to that. I am glad to help out at AfDs, and believe it or not, I started some contributions at AfDs recently. Also, I will not just work on AfDs, I will also help out in other projects of Wikipedia. AfDs is just one of the many.--Smcafirst (Talk) 02:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, I'm sorry but no, because you really don't have any experience on the chores that you intend on doing. In addition to the afd issue mentioned above, I looked at your contribs to WP:AIV. There were a total of 4 and none of the people you reported were blocked after the report. One of them was this, reporting a user that had vandalized an article 2 months earlier and was blocked for it (and had no edits since). Another was this, where an ip had one edit, which was adding "gsdfgsdfgdfgsdf" to an article. Similarly, since you consider those instances of vandalism serious enough to report, I'd have no confidence that you would only protect "heavy vandalized pages". You're supposed to have some clue on what you're supposed to do with the tools before getting them, so please familiarize yourself with the blocking and deletion policies and try again in a few months, thanks. - Bobet 12:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above and since this is the English Wikipedia.ERTalk 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Bobet. --After Midnight 0001 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Bobet. Although I commend your continued dedication, you still lack experience in those administrative areas in which you seek to help. Don't worry; just stick around, and you pick up the skills you need. Xoloz 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose sorry you are not ready yet. Your answer to my question 4 is fairly significantly at odds with our blocking policy. In your last RfA you were asked to change your signature. Although you have, its still very distracting and too long. I notice on this RfA you are not using your normal signature, but creating one by hand that matches WP:SIG, so it appears you know your normal signature is not appropriate and are trying to hide the fact for the purposes of this RfA. Your user and talk pages include a copyrighted image (Bouncywikilogo.gif from commons) which breaks our copyright rules. You also created a redirect from template space to subpage in your user space (which I've now deleted). Add all this to the problem Bobet pointed out and it adds up to an oppose. You need more experience and you need to read and demonstrate a better understanding of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Gwernol 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't understand why my signature is still too long. It is just like other users, where they include their name and their talk page link, and the time stamp. Other users that voiced their opinions above have the similar style of signature. Smcafirst(Talk)16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Your real signature - the one you use everywhere except this RfA - looks like this in edit mode <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF8C00;p1pxadding:;background:#228B22;">[[User:Smcafirst|<font color="#FFF"> Smcafirst </font>]]|[[User talk:Smcafirst|<font style="color:#FFF;background:#007F00;"> Chit-Chat </font>]]|[[User:Smcafirst/Guestbook|<font style="color:#FFF;background:#007F00;"> SIGN </font>]]</span></small>. That's about 350 characters long. Per WP:SIG#Length "Long signatures with a lot of HTML/wiki markup make page editing more difficult. A 200 character signature, for instance, is larger than many of the comments to which it is appended, making discussion more difficult". Admins are, rightly, expected to uphold the rules, so the excuse that "others break the rules, so I can" isn't a good one. There are users who vandalize, but that doesn't mean its okay for you to. And again, I'm concerned why you don't use this standard signature when editing this RfA. Given you had signature issues on your last RfA, it realy looks like you're trying to hide something. Gwernol 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I am changing my signature right before this RfA. Although in some posts, where my prior signature still appears, but from now on, I will stick to this signature. --Smcafirst (Talk) 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per your answer to question 4, which is at odds with the blocking policy. The most serious issue I see if when you mention that you would block shared IP addresses 'for shorter periods of time' - then give '7 - 15 days' as an example, despite the fact that WP:BLOCK states that "Dynamic IPs: up to 31 hours. Range blocks: about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and 31 at most, to avoid collateral damage." While it is true they are guidlelines, I would be very reluctant to give a user sysop tools if they intend to block shared IP addresses for 2 weeks due to one user vandalising. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I am not convinced that you understand blocking policy. I recognise that you have changed days to hours throughout your answer to Q.4, but the fact that this is a consistent change throughout indicates that you were thinking "days" when you wrote it.--Anthony.bradbury 00:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Although you are a great user, it has been demonstrated here that you have neither the experience nor knowledge to become an admin. I suggest that you try again in a few months, and in so doing become a greater asset to the project. On the subject of blocks - 1-3 days is indeed a short time, but intentioally so. The thing to always remember is that blocks are never punitive, and should only be dealt out to prevent *immediate* damage. Hence we start of with short blocks, hoping that they have the desired effects, and can go up in block duration as repeat offences take place (it's not unusual to dish out very long blocks to shared IPs with a history of abuse (eg some schools)). Thanks, Martinp23 09:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose You really have to think about what you're doing when you block or report to AIV (at least I do), and I agree with Bobet and Ale_jrb that you just don't have the experience to have those tools yet. You want to stop them from vandalizing, not punish them for vandalizing. I think you're on the right track and I'd probably support in a few months with more RC patrolling. - KrakatoaKatie 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Sorry your answers as to why you want adminship seem rushed - indicating to me that you are not quite ready for even further complexity. I also think your edit count is not particularly strong or diverse enougth at this time - particularly wikipedia edits.--VS talk 13:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose I am sorry. You are a tireless worker. But it concerns me that your nom was poorly written. There are many grammatical errors which should have been cleaned up before submitting it. What we do here is write. Therefore, it matters to me when you do not stop long enough to carefully prepare your own nom. I do not think you will abuse the tools. I just think you may need to wait a while longer, gain more experience in the areas you wish to work in and better prepare a nom. JBEvans 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am sorry you feel that way about my grammar. I understand that grammar skills are extremely poor, and that's why in my self-description, I have mentioned that I am taking proofreading classes, and which I believe have improved my writing skills a lot. (From what I see in the report card, in the first term, I got a B-, this term, I got an A-, and I have certain level of confidence that the score will be higher in the upcoming term. ) --Smcafirst (Talk) 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral leaning towards support. You say you would like to participate in AIV meanwhile you have only 4 edits/reports there. Most of your project-space contributions are in WikiProjects and the like, which you need not the tools to continue your work. You're an excellent user and editor, and have improved since your last RfA, however I'm not very convinced of your need for the tools. Good luck! :-) —Anas talk? 12:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral leaning towards oppose. While you have improved tremendously since the last RfA, a lack of relevant AIV contribs makes me nervous, and Bobet's oppose vote makes me wonder. If you don't get it, go at it with the vandal-whacking and there shouldn't be a problem with your next RfA. HornandsoccerTalk 14:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natl1

Voice your opinion (12/11/10); Scheduled to end 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Natl1 (talk • contribs) - As a user who has been with Wikipedia for about 5 1/2 months, I believe I would be able to help Wikipedia more if I became an admin. On Wikipedia, I patrol vandalism daily and the ability to block users and delete nonsense pages. I also help write articles on Wikipedia, bringing Coca-Cola to GA status and working on it becoming a GA. I hope the Wikipedia community trusts me to grant me admin tools so I can help Wikipedia even more. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nom.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: As mentioned in my nom above, I anticipate helping Wikipedia with admin tools by deleting nonsense pages and other speedy deletion candidates. Also I intend to block troublesome vandals I come across and the ones that are reported at WP:AIV. In addition, I may semi-protect some pages experiencing very heavy vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: In the main space, I am proud of my contributions to Coca-Cola, mentioned above in the nom. Also I am very pleased with my creation of WP:IFU, which allows unregistered users to submit photos to Wikipedia.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: In my time on Wikipedia, I tried and try to stay ou of edit conflicts and other conflicts by assuming good faith. However, one such incident did occur to me when restoring versions on Campeonato Brasileiro Série A which had talk page consensus. The conflict ended when consensus was confirmed through a straw poll.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support An excellent candidate. I find the oppose vote by Xoloz frankly stupid. He has obviously not bothered to check if the candidate has indeed addressed the issues (almost all the concern was inexperience which Natl1 clearly has not got now). Over-eagerness is great, we need hardworkers and Natl1 is a hardworker. Lollipop Lady 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Lollipop Lady, there's no need for such hostility. Please observe WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Húsönd 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you, Husond, for the link which I have observed. Lollipop Lady 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Please note that Lollipop Lady (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has existed as an account only since late Jan., and has a total of only one week editing experience (as a registered user anyway). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    My dear, I think that is irrelevant here, don't you? Lollipop Lady 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, it is relevant. The more experience you have, the more your support means. And I agree with Husond, there's no need to be hostile, state your support in a polite and constructive manner, please. Thanks, HornandsoccerTalk 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    I already said I read the page didn't I? And it isn't experience that matters, it's the quality of the vote. Next time I vote in an RFA I will try to be nicer. And now, I think I'll go and have a cup of tea and a hot cross bun. Lollipop Lady 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Personally I would like to see more substantive contribtions, however the user has shown admirable dedication to reverting vandalism and similar maintainence. Since admin powers are useless for the former and very useful for the latter, I hope this nomination succeeds. Mark83 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Seems good. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Experience is not just time, but also activity. TRhis editor shows, I think, enough meaningful activity to warrant the mop and bucket.--Anthony.bradbury 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per criteria set out on my user page. Edivorce 22:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I want you be an administrator. Jet123 ~~My talk page~~ 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support per last time, and since the candidate addressed my only (very minor) concern. Grandmasterka 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support My oppose last RfA was somewhat frivolous and thus I support you now. Captain panda 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support It appears you have done a good job and that you will continue to. JBEvans 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I checked the records and see no reason to oppose. Excellent editor. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - Adminship is no big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong support. Who cares if his last RfA was two months ago? That's a long time, and the reasons for opposition there, frankly, sucked anyway, and many aren't applicable now. This user has been here for 5 months and edited nearly 3,500 times. Who cares if he doesn't have XFD experience, if he's not going to be an admin who closes XFDs, per his answer to question 1? Who cares if there are suspicious support votes? You might recall that one of our fundamental policies requires us to assume good faith. How do you know that this account is Natl1, and if it's not, why does it affect how well he'd do as an administrator? Who cares if someone else didn't nominate him? That doesn't change his ability to be an admin! --Rory096 18:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yes but sysops are expected to have good policy knowledge and with respect to him/her, I dont think this user knows the policy of a high enogh standard to be promoted, the user seems to think all admins do is block people per Q1 answer, I think he needs more experience in a wider range of areas, XFD would help.Tellyaddict 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Question 1 does not ask "What do admins do?" It asks what the candidate intends to do. This candidate doesn't intend to close XFDs, he intends to speedy delete things and block vandals. So what? Admins aren't required to use every single power that they have. How do you know he doesn't have enough policy experience to not screw up with the tools? Isn't that all that he needs, to be effective with the mop? --Rory096 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Insufficient time has elapsed since first RfA for the editor to have addressed the issues raised therein. Editor seems over-eager, often a negative indicator. Especially given concerns raised last time about candidate's judgment, this nomination leaves me uneasy. Xoloz 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Xoloz. I would prefer more experience and a more noticeable attempt at addressing past concerns. Michael 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. I can't in good conscience support RfA's for anyone with less than 8K (3K mainspace) edits and a year of at least semi-regular editing, and a lot of evidence of XfD participation, vandal fighting (there's more to it that using VP; where's the AIV involvement?), and/or (preferably and) policy/guideline page participation, and other signs of deep participation (starting successful WikiProjects - WP:IFU is pretty interesting, but of questionable utility for the encyclopedia - or helping with various non-admin backlogs like stub sorting, or helping get more articles to at least GA if not FA status, etc.). At only twelve edits in the "Wikipedia talk:" namespace, I do not believe it is even vaguely possible that this editor could have learned the ropes enough to be a useful admin. Agree with Xoloz's concerns about overeagerness. Adminship isn't a rank or a prize, and I'm skeptical that Natl1 has enough experience with the "guts" of WP processes to make proper use of the tools. Try again considerably later and with some accomplishments under your belt and clear evidence of participation in and understanding of the core metapedian processes, and it will probably go swimmingly. PS: On the plus side I think Natl1's answers to the questions in the first RfA were quite well-reasoned, esp. with regard to dealing with IP vandals. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    I haven't yet researched this candidate, but have to point out that your criteria are exceptionally rigorous, and would probably exclude the vast majority of RfA candidates, including myself, at the time of my RfA in January and even today. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    That's okay by me. >;-) But please note I use "or" a lot. I'm not saying anyone should have done everything I mentioned up there. But just because someone is earnest, uses Vandal Proof a lot (heck, I don't; I patrol manually and look for more subtle, difficult vandalism to fix, but recognize the value of nuking the obvious stuff instantly, of course), and can study and provide good answers to tough questions doesn't mean they'll have a deep enough understanding when things get tricky. My main concern is the near-zero participation in "Wikipedia talk:". It is simply impossible in my view to come to a rounded understanding of WP internals without, um, ever discussing them with anyone. (Update: That said, there are plenty of admins who learn most of it all on-the-fly.) I don't expect an RfA candidate to have the very high Wikipedia:/Wikipedia talk:-space relative edit ratio that I have, mind you. Not everyone is that metapedian. But my experiences suggest to me that the more metapedian a candidate is the more likely they are to make a useful admin, just as a matter of statistics. There are exceptions, and this might be one. But Natl1 won't keel over and die, and WP won't fall apart, while Natl1 gains more and broader experience and tries again later. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    I was reacting more to your criteria of 8,000 edits and a full year of editing, which are standards that many extremely well-qualified RfA candidates haven't yet attained. But given your change of !vote, discussion should probably continue elsewhere, if at all; feel free to refactor this subthread to talk. Newyorkbrad 00:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, well I stand by those personal criteria. This is not the Wikipedia of 2004 any longer. Some sockpuppeteers have been around longer than a year at this point. To me, admin candidates need serious and consistent track records, not just evidently ardent good intentions. Consider me a curmudgeon if you like. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Not much has changed since his previous self-nomination. For example, there are already suspicious support votes, similarly to last time. — CharlotteWebb 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Again, sorry, but not enough time has passed for me to reconsider yet. --After Midnight 0001 04:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. This, only six-or-so weeks ago, makes me wonder if you actually know what you're doing on Wikipedia. I hope you now know what the issue is with that comment - the second and third lines - but will it take similar mistakes in judgement at AfD and AN/3RR for you to learn as well? Remembering that administrators can practically destroy other contributor's reputation with one bad-placed block, often causing massive amounts of disruption from Wikidrama and lost contributors, I am not satisfied with your potential knowledge and ability as an administrator to support. Daniel Bryant 07:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose You could pass in the future but you are way to eager for adminship, yes this is not always a bad thing but you have not had enough time to address the issues raised in your last RfA, it would be good to see some WP:XFD work, your last RfA was only 2 or so months ago, leave it for about four months and do some other work like cleanup etc, their is more to Wikipedia than being a sysop. Your answers to the standard questions especially about how yuo would use the tools are very weak, you seem to think that blocking vandals is all the admins do. Leave it for a few months and get more experience. Also the first sentence of you RfA is written in a format as if another user nominated you (e.g A user who has been around for 5 and a half months).Tellyaddict 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    I agree in whole or part with all of that, but the last. Natl1 said (emphasis added), "As a user who has been with Wikipedia for about 5 1/2 months, I [more...]" That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say about oneself even if perhaps not the most important qualification to stress (my curmudgeonliness about the topic notwithstanding). I think maybe you misread it or something. Natl1 is not pulling a Bob Dole and speaking about him/herself in third person or anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe I was being a little picky there, but I still stand by everything else what I said.Tellyaddict 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - per Daniel Bryant and seeming over-eagerness. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Daniel Bryant. KrakatoaKatie 10:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose When I saw this RfA, I was looking for the diff Daniel Bryant had provided. That sort of attitude gives me the impression that you have a lack of understanding of the idea of adminship. Also, I've always thought you came across as someone too trigger-happy. Not directly really a reason to oppose, but it does make me doubt your judgment. Nishkid64 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Could you provide diffs? I don't think I am too trigger happy. Unless t was when I made three errors "in my first days on Wikipedia" when I first used Vandalproof. (I think the errors came from inexpenreince at looking at diffs) Since then I have been very cautious about pulling the trigger.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Nishkid64, what does it mean to be "trigger happy"?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 00:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Sorry, but your answers to the questions weren't impressive, and your over-eagerness might be a problem... Also, Daniel.Bryant has a good point (and link). · AO Talk 23:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Still not ready. Tomertalk 07:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong Oppose Sorry I do not agree with this over-eager nomination. I also think the comments above in the oppose group are highly relevant and your answers inclusive of their spelling errors do not show a measured contributor ready for adminship.--VS talk 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral I think that you're on the right track for acquiring the admin tools but it has been just about seven weeks since your previous RfA closed and I would like to see you a little more rounded as an editor when you receive them. Extensive use of VandalProof demonstrates application to the ever-present task of vandal reversion but there's more to being an admin than that. Persuasion, negotiation, user education and demonstration of your knowledge of the policies and guidelines are all qualities that I would like to see you demonstrate in order to slide me over to support. If you have diffs for these things and others right now then I would love to see them as evidence of your competency for the role. (aeropagitica) 21:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    You may be interested in an AMA request to which I responded which shows my knowledge of policy, and [33] and [34] for user education.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Pretty much per (aeropagitica), although a 7-week period between RFAs doesn't constitute a problem for me. However, I do feel like more evidence of Natl1's preparedness is needed (e.g. more reports to WP:AIV).--Húsönd 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per above. I'm leaning towards support, but I would've liked to see your nomination after a few more months of contributions. —Anas talk? 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - changing my !vote from Oppose. I remain concerned about the near-total lack of "Wikipedia talk:" participation. While I don't think WP:IFU is revolutionarily useful, it does serve a purpose and candidate obviously put a lot of work into it with the best interests of WP in mind. I think these self-nominations are premature, but re-reading candidate's responses to previous in-depth questions, I'm actually convincing myself that while the Natl1 would make some blunders at first due to lack of in-depth understanding of policy subtleties, (s)he would learn fast. The main thing shifting my position is that I so far, after a fair amount of digging see zero evidence of badfaith actions, editwarring (other than what was copped to), personal attacks, POV pushing or other problem behaviors. Good person, basically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - answers are underwhelming, particularly #3. I must be missing something, because you have never edited Campeonato Brasileiro Série B and that article doesn't have a talk page. Also, as mentioned above, SPA support on both RFAs is suspicious, but barring actual evidence, I won't oppose on those grounds. --BigDT 03:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Looks like the actual article for that incident is Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. –Pomte 09:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ok ... thanks for pointing it out. Natl1 has four career edits to that page and one to the talk page. That isn't a lot either, but does make me curious. --BigDT 12:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral per Daniel.Bryant. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, for now, needs more time. Terence 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral - As per Terence Anas and Daniel. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Kinda leaning towards oppose. It's just experience. You are a great candidate, overall, but you just need more experience with negotiations. Try again in a few months if you don't get it this time. HornandsoccerTalk 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral - not such a good self-nom, adminship is no big deal but also no prize; this would make a better nom by someone else. +sj + 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dgies

Voice your opinion (66/1/0); Scheduled to end 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dgies (talk • contribs) - I am honored to submit user Dgies for your consideration, whom for quite some time now has steadily been growing as a dedicated, experienced, trustworthy, remarkable user. Dgies underwent close scrutiny by me and Terence Ong through the admin coaching program. It is my firm belief that Dgies fulfils all the requirements to become an administrator, he undoubtedly possesses the knowledge and character to be entrusted with the admin tools. His contributions reveal a polyvalent user interacting with the most diverse areas of Wikipedia. Dgies is an outstanding vandalfighter, with countless adequate reports to WP:AIV and WP:RPP. He also often participates in WP:XFD, WP:RT, WP:RFCN, WP:ANI, WP:HD, etc. Dgies is a very polite, civil and communicative user. He will definitely make a fine administrator and I expect my fellow Wikipedians to provide him with all the support he genuinely deserves. Húsönd 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Terence

Dgies is a good user with lots of experience in both the writing and the administrative side of things. He can be trusted and will become a good administrator. His all-rounded contributions balances both the writing and the administrative side of things on Wikipedia. Civility has never been a problem for him and is a friendly and helpful editor. He is dedicated to his work on Wikipedia, and has the knowledge on what is expected of an administrator and the tasks to do. Under the admin coaching programme with Husond, Dgies is now ready for adminship. Terence 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —dgiestc 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I enjoy vandal fighting so I would start out with WP:AIV. I'm familiar with the blocking policy so I know when to block and when not to; I've occasionally cleared invalid reports and left the reporter a message such as {{uw-aiv}}. I would also help with WP:RPP and its neglected cousin Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. I've done quite a bit of CSD tagging previously and know the criteria well so I feel I could help clear CAT:CSD. I might occasionally help with TfD, RfD, and MfD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: On the more metapedian side, after stumbling upon Wikipedia:Requested templates I did a lot of work clearing out old requests and answering more recent ones, and I like to think I helped bring this project back to life. I'm also proud of the templates I made for requests there. More recently, I found a request I liked at WP:SPATRA and took it upon myself to translate the original es:Hernandarias into Hernando Arias de Saavedra, which I then expanded and added references; it was later featured on "Did you know?". I am also pleased with the work I did on Mother insult in which I took what was formerly a nonsense page converted to a redirect, and managed to make a well-referenced stub in an encyclopedic tone. I also like finding references and was pleased when I managed to add this fairly obscure old one.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: One time I had a feud over table formatting where we both (almost) broke 3RR. I posted a message on the talk page to request a straw poll. It went against me but I could understand others' reasoning and accepted the outcome. I've also dealt with an editor who kept reverting an article to their preferred version. I made many attempts to get them to discuss it, even opening an RfC, but they never responded. The article got fully protected and it seems the other person gave up. I've had miscellaneous times where other editors made remarks to or about me that were either uncivil or failed to assume good faith. In these cases, I take a deep breath, count to ten, and as calmly as possible, explain the motivation for my actions, citing relevant policies/guidelines. I've found a dispassionate response works best to avoid escalating the dispute. Lastly for obvious trolling, I fall back on some variant of Revert, block, ignore (where for block, substitute WP:AIV).
4. What is your opinion of the Wikimedia policy on unlicensed images?
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Beat-the-nom support. Heimstern Läufer 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support seen this user around AIV, and his reports are always very good, would do great work Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I've seen this user around, and he's doing good as an editor. No reason to oppose. Wooyi 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support This user looks very promising, and has gained experience in the needed areas. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Comes highly recommended and is even polyvalent! Uses automation quite a bit on RC patrol, but actually leaves real human messages when interacting with established editors. A big win for the project if Dgies gets the mop. A Traintalk 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Although I had a disagreement with this user over his MfD on User:Cremepuff222's subpages, he was helpful and civil at all times. Also has impressive experience. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Finally. Can't wait for you to start helping out. John Reaves (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support user has proved himself to be an excellent vandal fighter, will benefit the project with the acquisition of the tools. —Anas talk? 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - I have seen this editor around and have seen nothing to be concerned about. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I've seen Dgies around Wikipedia a lot - I've noticed he often acts like admin, removing invalid AIV reports (as in his answer to question 1) and I'd intended to nominate him had he not been having admin coaching. He seems to be a well-rounded editor, experienced and will put the admin tools to good use. Best of luck. Majorly (o rly?) 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Excellent anti-vandal fighter with quality and with good judgement.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support as nom.--Húsönd 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Obligatory "You mean he isn't one?" Support. He'll do good things. Shimeru 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Khoikhoi 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Of course. alphachimp 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Appears to be an active vandal-fighter and editor; no reason to oppose. Coemgenus 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Moderate Support Like Xiner, I didn't have a good initial contact with this user either, but I'm willing to overlook that for the benefits of Dgies being an admin, as it (the initial problem) was technically my fault. Acalamari 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Great vandal-fighter, does excellent work, especially in the Template space. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support like Acalamari's. bibliomaniac15 20:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Looks good and has good potential for admin tasks. (aeropagitica) 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. No concerns here. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 21:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support, a great user with experience in even the most discreet ares of Wikipedia. Two thumbs up! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support, Lakers 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support, he's always around the RFAs. I honestly thought he was one a long time ago. The Evil Clown my contributions 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Suport - per above. Addhoc 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support-Your not an admin yet? Great user. He's at AIV all the time. We need someone to clear those backlogs. Who better? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Qualified support: I've encountered Dgies enough times to know that this is a very good-faith and quite civil editor. I don't have any horror stories for you, sorry. :-) My main concerns are (in no particular order): The user is less than 1 year wikiold. However, I find the spread of edits to be both sufficient and very consistent with genuine vandal fighting, and proper vandal fighting; the high level of User talk:-space edits (and discussion at User:Dgies/Admin coaching) demonstrates that Dgies knows how to use, and does use, the user warning templates. But Dgies may not have enough intuitive understanding yet of consensus, notability, conflicts of interest, etc. Dgies's questions for the coaches at User:Dgies/Admin coaching even from less than a month ago, to me indicate a lack of deep understanding of the nature of such wikibeasts. I think that admins need to "feel" these things, not simply have a stock of well-memorized answers to various situations. I'm also concerned that Dgies may be too "nice". The answer to the first question at User:Dgies/Admin coaching#Terence strikes me as far too forgiving (in the scenario laid out, the "well-known and liked in the community" sockpuppetteer is dreadfully, cynically exploiting and manipulating the community, in one of the worst ways possible, and should be dealt with on those terms.) Some of the other answers to questions there seemed a bit similarly wishy-washy to me. On the other hand, I feel that Dgies has a very good handle on various admin processes, on own NPOV and mediation/behavior, is very clearly not an editwarrior, is quite vigilant for vandalism and POV nonsense, and seems to understand the interplay of things like V, NPOV, NOR, RS and N pretty well. I think that Dgies would become a great admin over time, if cautious in the early days, but is unlikely to be a "great" admin right out of the gate due to still having so many questions and uncertainties. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support, I think I actually scribbled his name down on a sticky pad somewhere as a good reporter at AIV. Would be fine with the tools, especially after the rather extensive involvement with his nominators. Truly, an odd set of opposes so far. Kuru talk 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. SupportHas been a good contributor and great editor. I'm sure he'll find good use for the tools.Ganfon 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Absolutely support. I have noticed this user around Wikipedia a lot in recent months and have been very impressed. Great contributions to project space, particularly WP:AIV too. As a side issue, never have I been more confused about oppose votes than I was when reading the ones below. Will (aka Wimt) 01:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Just the guy that should get the tools. Captain panda 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support seen him around, will make a good admin. James086Talk | Email 03:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Anything to stop him from clogging up AIV ;) – Riana ऋ 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per nom. If I remember correctly, I offered to nominate him in the past. These oppose !votes are beyond bogus. Grandmasterka 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. All my interactions with this editor have been positive.--ragesoss 05:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. I have had good experiences of interacting with this user in a number of areas. Trustworthy AIV reporter. Has the relevant experience and is definitely trustworthy. Opposes seem rather weak, especially given that blocking vandal only accounts is not only sensible but standard practice. WjBscribe 05:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Clichéd support - good luck! The Rambling Man 06:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - per the opposers, the "opinions" of whom the closing bureaucrat must surely disregard as not creditable. Come on, really. One theoretically guess, VoA's almost always get indefed, one oppose where I can't work out the actual reason for opposing, and one non-oppose per the actions of others - bureaucrat, have balls, ignore, please! Consensus that is not. Moreschi Request a recording? 08:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Often I see Dgies' AIV reports as I am posting my own. He has done good work and I can only see good coming from his adminship. --Valley2city₪‽ 08:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support per nom (and per the well thought-out and civilly formulated arguments by SMcCandlish below). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. S extremely good anti vandal worker. --KZ Talk • Contribs 11:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support - NL-Ninane 13:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - Per nominator, and especially the point: "Dgies is a very polite, civil and communicative user." We need more polite, civil and communicative users to become admins. Smee 15:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
  44. Support as co-nominator. Terence 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support From Dgies's entire record, Dgies comes across as a trusted user who understands policy. -- Jreferee 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support A good user, excellent with AIV reports, however I think the opposers are unfairly criticising Xiner (talk • contribs) for having his own opinion! Tellyaddict 17:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support The name certainly rings a bell. Seems to me like he'd make a good, well-rounded admin. -- Seed 2.0 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support excellent user.-- danntm T C 20:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. Michael 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Good editor. --Carioca 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support General activity suggests will be a valuable adddition to the team.--Anthony.bradbury 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support I have had encountered Dgies on a few occasions and think him to be possessed of the good judgment and generally even temperament the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite propitious. One can, it seems plain, conclude with some significant measure of confidence that the net effect on the project of Dgies' being sysopped should be positive. Joe 01:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support per Husond, nice edit count in several areas, and a quick review of his answers in User:Dgies/Admin coaching. Has good answers to tricky policy questions. His two efforts to perform non-admin closure of AfDs looked all right. EdJohnston 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support, no reason not to. SorryGuy 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support I've seen you around often, and you've always left a good impression. · AO Talk 11:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. Strong support A serious wikipedian. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support: Per alphachimp. Seems to be a very active vandal-fighter.  ~Steptrip 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. Yes :) Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 01:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. Looks good! -Mschel 13:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. Rounded candidate, obviously versed in policy and reasoned of action. Pigman 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support Yes - Edit count is particularly rounded in terms of mainspace and wikipedia numbers - Dgies is obviously keen on pursuing both user and admin duties.--VS talk 22:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support per nom and comments already given by other editors above. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Active in areas of the community I watch, so personal experience leads me to believe you'll be a fine admin. Email is enabled. Not aware of any reason to think they'll abuse the buttons. Maybe be a little careful with username blocks, at first (unless I have you mixed up with somebody else, on that), but overall I think you'll be a good asset for the project. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support Excellent choice for the community. --alidoostzadeh 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Oppose

Oppose. I sense a trigger-happy admin. HP 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Disallowing vote per voting guidelines. --KZ Talk • Contribs 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide specific examples where he is shown to be "trigger-happy"? Wooyi 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, if you provide examples it will help others make their decisions, and lend credibility to you opposition. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's theoretic. For example, you see a one liner stub tagged for deletion, do you delete or do you check good or the page history to make sure its a legit deletion request.
Checking AIV, it's where you report bad users. do you make sure its the final warning and if it is do you indefblock or give a 24 hour block. I am judging based on his tolerance. HP 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your concerns, obviously a CSD must be checked for previous valid revisions. I don't believe I've ever tagged a page as WP:CSD#A1 when it was previously substantive. For AIV, I know someone must have a recent warning mentioning a block before they can be blocked, and an initial block should be short. There are exceptions though, such as cases of obvious sockpuppetry by a banned user. —dgiestc 16:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Theoretic? So there is no actual action this user has taken that you object to? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I fear he might act unilaterally. HP 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
But are you basing this on anything? Or is it just a hunch? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Before getting into a tizzy about this user's oppose, I suggest having a look at his talk page. No offense intended, but I would suggest that he's a bit too new to have a good handle on RfA. A Traintalk 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No tizzy, just trying to figure out his reasoning. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Honda Pilot (talk • contribs) ("HP" above) is almost certainly a sockpuppet. The account has existed for less than one day, yet headed straight for: a) RfA, b) AN/I (with edit summaries like 'don't condone initial indefblocks' - this is no newbie!), and c) various articles in which he/she has caused trouble (see the blowback on his talk page, cited just above). I believe this user to be a sockpuppet of Uninsured Driver (talk • contribs) (or rather, that both are socks controlled by the same party; see more information below about Jeff Defender being another related puppet); I would say why I believe this in more detail, but doing so would tip off the puppetmaster on his "tell", and I don't want to do that before investigating more likely puppets of this person and taking the matter to WP:SSP. Any well-established user (i.e. obvious non-sock) user is welcome to e-mail me for the details. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sock puppet reported. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Strong Oppose, per his answer to question #7. Blocking "VOA" accounts could provoke SockPuppetry. A 24 hour block cools him down, an indefblock make it only worse. Jeff Defender 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    First, there is not question 7 (there are only 3 questions) so I think you made a typo; second, what is VOA account, do you mean vandal account? Wooyi 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps the message went to the wrong RfA? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I read his User:Dgies/Admin coaching page. Many more questions and answers. Jeff Defender 16:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. Well if it is any consolation that answer is in line with both the blocking policy and current practice. Vandal only accounts are indef blocked all the time, I think to the benefit of the community. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    He's willing to have a zero-tolerance attitude. Is he here to block wayward newbies or will he AGF and indefblock only as a last resort? Jeff Defender 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    There is strong evidence that Jeff Defender (talk • contribs) (along with at least one other, Uninsured Driver (talk • contribs) a.k.a. Uninsureddriver a.k.a. NoInsurance) is a sockpuppet of a wikispammer (GoldenRoad.net sound familiar to anyone?); files WP:POINT bad-faith AfDs (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfredo DeOro), attacks RfAs of editors who have thwarted or are likely to thwart his disruptive activities (such as identifying one of his sockpuppets or opposing one of his spamvertising "articles"). Masquerades as a newbie, but knows all about various WP policies, guidelines, the RfA process, how to file AfDs, and even really obscure WP essays, which he cites in WP:LAWYER fashion to try to game the system. There are probably various others, as both of these accounts are rarely used to do anything but !vote in RfA or AfD; other likely ones include 68.237.229.68 (talk • contribs), Karim Prince1 (talk • contribs), Honda Pilot (talk • contribs) and Jbl1975 (talk • contribs), which may be the puppetmaster. See paragraph of well-linked documentation at the Alfredo de Oro AfD. This set of users have not been run through WP:SSP yet, but will be soon. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sock puppet reported. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    OpposeUmpired by Jreferee Dgies edited my RfA, unsuccessfully MfD'd my adoptee without consulting me or him first, and then supported my RfA at the last moment. Xiner (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps Dgies should have consulted Cremepuff222 when nominating his various user subpages, but what is concerning about him supporting your RfA? Majorly (o rly?) 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I've never come across the user before or since, so my only chance of obtaining an impression of Dgies is from what I stated above. It is more about the aggregation of the three actions that makes me wonder about his motives. Perhaps I wanted to hide my edits. Xiner (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    His editing of your RFA is procedural, and regarding to his last minute support to your RFA I can't find any misconduct pertaining to that. Also the MFD is not serious enough to oppose a candidate. Wooyi 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    It's not a serious enough reason to oppose in your estimation. Xiner is entitled to his opinion. A Traintalk 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with A train, thre is no need to snap at a user because of his comments which were not inappropriate, everyone has the right to the own opinion.Tellyaddict 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Hi Xiner - I know you through being on the same side on several issues. However, your reasoning for opposing is not coming through. RfA is about determining whether the nominee is a trusted user who understand policy. Dgies corrected your edit stats for your RfA, which is something I would have done had I known they were wrong (as any good editor would have). Dgies corrections to your RfA made you look better as they increased your stats and Dgies supported your RfA. From either of these, can you say that Dgies is untrustworthy and/or does not understand policy? ***** If you look at Dgies' contributions to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship between March 10 and March 15, you will see that Dgies tries to participate in just about all RfAs. Dgies's last minute support of your RfA was his last edit on March 13th and after which he took a break. Supporting your RfA with "better late than never" shows that Dgies knew that he was late in supporting you, probably because it was something he meant to do earlier but got busy elsewhere. If you look at Dgies' contributions around that time, it is easy to see why he was distracted from supporting your RfA earlier - he was busy doing Admin-type work. It also seems likely that his March 7th edit to your RfA caused him to think that he already participated in your RfA and only came to realize that he hadn't at the last minute before your RfA closed. ***** Dgies did add more stats to you RfA edit summary, which was done after Dgies discussed the matter at WT:RFA[35] Similar stats were added to Dgies's RfA edit summary, so it probably reflected an RfA procedure change. ***** In nominating Cremepuff222's 45 sub user pages for deletion, Dgies may have wielded a heavy hand in nominating Cremepuff222 for deletion as well, even if Cremepuff222 made only 83 main space edits but over 1200 edits to Cremepuff222's own user space. Something went wrong in Cremepuff222's use of Wikipedia as a Myspace and that MfD seemed to put Cremepuff222 back on track so I do not think you can fault Dgies's judgment on this one. Dgies probably could have notified Cremepuff222 and I am not clear on whether Dgies knew about the adoption relationship, but that MfD was on incident and was a month ago, so it probably is not representative of Dgies. Dgies probably could have handled that situation differently, but it certainly is not something to draw a conclusion that Dgies is untrustworthy and/or does not understand policy. ***** Dgies' revising your RfA edit summary on March 7th and then MfD'd your adoptee on March 8th appear to have been by happenstance and not directed at you. If Dgies opposed your RfA with something silly like 'Xiner is not trustworthy because he has an adoptee that had user space issues,' then I would be here questioning Dgies's judgment. However, Dgies correctly supported your RfA as being from a trustworthy user who knows policy by looking at your contributions to Wikipedia in the whole. Take a look at W.marsh recent support position in another RfA. To me, this said a lot about W.marsh's character. Your oppose position has the weight of three to four support positions. From Dgies's entire record, Dgies comes across as a trusted user who understands policy. -- Jreferee 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    (changing to support) Oppose per harassment of oppose voters. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Lol...it was us that "harassed" the oppose votes (and i wouldn't term is harassment), not the user dgies himself. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    There's been no harrassment anywhere, especially by the candidate. This is a discussion, you're allowed to respond to comments. Majorly (o rly?) 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed; the closing bureaucrat will utterly ignore that oppose !vote as frivolous. And "harassment" doesn't apply to sockpuppets anyway. If anything it is Dgies who is being harassed. (Cf. my own RfA for User:Uninsured Driver - same person as User:Honda Pilot - actually successfully sabotaging my RfA because I outed his other User:Jeff Defender sockpuppet. Don't let that happen to Dgies.) If someone adds another ranty oppose vote here (or in any RfA for that matter) actually investigate to see if the allegations are valid and the user (like Xiner) is a real one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    All three sock puppets reported. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    The question is not whether the closing bureaucrat will ignore it as an oppose vote, the question is if he recognizes the wp:point (please read WP:CITINGPOLICYINLOWERCASE) I'm trying to make. Dgies, I am already supporting you in spirit and I will catch up with my vote later. I just don't understand the amount of attention sockpuppet opposes can gain. It's so totally not worth it. Why not just support Dgies and not feed the troll? And Xiner: Your oppose totally rocks</irony>. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have no interest in your vain attempt to change years of WP shortcut tradition (and which is a redlink, by the way). Anyway, yes it is the point that that the closer will ignore the (non-sockpuppet) comment by KNcyu38, who should re-examine his/her reading of this page and either change the vote to neutral or support, or give a rational reason for the oppose. Has nothing to do with the sockpuppets. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

[edit] J Milburn

Voice your opinion (46/0/0); Scheduled to end 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

J Milburn (talk • contribs) - This is my second nomination. The general consensus after my first was to wait a few months, and then nominate myself again, and so that is what I am doing now. Several concerns were raised at the last RfA, that I have tried to address. Primarily, the concerns were that I was accepting the request from someone who many people considering my request thought an odd editor, instead of waiting until I myself was ready, and that I wasn't taking part in enough admin-related activities. Since then, I have taken a much more active part in AfD, as well as continuing new page patrol and nominating hundreds of articles for speedy deletion where appropriate. I feel I have an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policy, and I would make excellent use of admin tools. J Milburn 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! J Milburn 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Primarily, I intend to work to reduce the constant backlog we have at CSD. However, other, smaller areas I intend to work with would be the Main Page error reports, the spam whitelist and administrator intervention against vandalism, all of which I would add to my watchlist straight away. I would also love to start contributing at the other noticeboards, but I wouldn't start doing that instantly. However, I feel that I am happy to help Wikipedia in whatever way it needs to be helped, and so I would be very happy to do whatever was requested of me, and use admin tools to take care of things that no other admin can really be bothered with.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I guess there are four articles that I consider my 'best'. Askam and Ireleth is not too far from featured level, and has been a good article for a while; I worked on that with other editors. I was also responsible for bringing Voltaire (musician) up to good article, but there was already a substantial article there when I started to edit it. Gordon Park and especially Celestiial (which I created from scratch) have been much more my own work. Perhaps another article that deserves a mention is dire animal, which I wrote as a stress relief. It isn't a particuarly good article, but it is pretty long. I feel happy when I sit back and look at a long, relatively complete article, with lots of references, a good amount pictures, well structured sections and appropriate categories. It gives me a great sense of satisfaction to see a good article that I feel responsible for, but I choose articles I start to work on carefully, because I feel a lot of commitment to articles once I start working with them.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes. This was another matter that caused problems at my last nomination; I had never really been in any disputes. I find that reference to the policies and guidelines and lots of discussion is the answer. I don't think any matter is too small to discuss, and so avoid getting into edit wars by requesting discussion as soon as it looks like a war may be brewing. I take the idea that Wikipedia has no time limit to heart, and I am a lover of procedure and debate. I wouldn't say that I get stressed from editing, and I have certainly recieved plenty of abuse while I have been here (see this for instance- that editor managed to hit me with every insult that has been used agaisnt me on Wikipedia) as well as threats of blackmail and physical threats from an editor who lived geographically close to me. I do not believe that getting angry will solve anything, and it has occurred to me that all threats and abuse that is given to me is pretty empty, so it doesn't bother me. As for debate, I have been in some rather messy discussions, but I have always made an effort to go back and make amends with users afterwards. For instance, a discussion here spilled over on to both our talk pages, and the article talk page, making for some pretty lengthy discussion. However, at the end of it all, the article was much better off, and I contacted the editor to ensure that there were no hard feelings here, and he assured me that there wasn't. Requests for informal help in discussions, such as on the IRC channel, have also proved useful, as often small, informal help in matters can be much more beneficial than larger, more formal requests for help.
General comments
  • See J Milburn's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I feel ready to act as an administrator, and I think that Wikipedia will benefit by giving me the mop. J Milburn 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • See first RFA here.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - Seems like a good editor who would not abuse the sysop tools, and be helpful to new users looking for a helping hand on the wiki. Bmg916SpeakSign 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I Support Sethdoe92 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. I'd like to see a willingness to tackle some more backlogs, but other than that, looks good. John Reaves (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. He will not abuse or misuse the tools.. -Mschel 17:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - you've improved on the areas that made me opt for neutral last time round, good work so far and good luck from here on out... The Rambling Man 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Michael 19:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - looks okay to me. Deb 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - A helpful editor that would not abuse the tools if given them. He knows how to react to heated situations and has gotten involved in some admin areas like AfD. Camaron1 | Chris 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support: Although you might want to participate in AIV more often than specified.  ~Steptrip 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support per all other users above. :) Captain panda In vino veritas 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support-- Nick t 21:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support has been involved in a lot more admin-related tasks and policy page contributions since the last RfA, so this in addition to regular editorial duties makes for a shift from neutral to support. (aeropagitica) 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Candidate appears to have the relevant experience in the areas outlined in answer 1 and the statement, and certainly shows a need for the admin tools. He can certainly be trusted, good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 22:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Good user, seems trustworthy. —Anas talk? 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Well deserved. Good luck! --Infrangible 01:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I made myself clear in the last request that that one should have passed, and barring some earth-shattering new revelation, nothing's changed since then. Grandmasterka 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. --dario vet (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Will not abuse the tools (or we will take them away :). feydey 12:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support per all above. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - Trustworthy, willing to see or decipher the constructive aspects of criticism by others and use it to better himself. Good policy experience. -- Jreferee 17:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support looks good to me.-- danntm T C 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - seems trustworthy, nothing broken. Good candidate. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. What I have seen from this user (e.g at Speedy deletion) indicates a good knowledge of policies and a level head. Fram 14:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Terence 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support looks like a well-rounded contributor who will be an asset to the project.--Anthony.bradbury 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support knows what he is on about, so would be a great asset as admin. Asics talk Editor review! 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support--The Joke 23:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Candidate seems to have a very level head, has improved significantly HornandsoccerTalk 03:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support No evidence that admin tools will be abused.--MONGO 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I see no reason not to. Go for it! James086Talk | Email 06:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support → It seems that he'll be a good admin. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 09:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 10:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support No reason not to trust. Pascal.Tesson 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - seems like a good editor and user to me! Ale_Jrbtalk 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Seems trustworthy and willing to help with backlogs. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support He's worked with me in the past and has been 100% helpful, curteous, and spot-on in terms of Wikipedia policy, etc. Just about as good of an admin as there will be. Rockstar915 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support I had an encounter with J Milburn at Afd, and his knowledge of policy was matched only by his character and civility during an argument. --Tractorkingsfan 05:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. Good contributor. utcursch | talk 08:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Good attitude, answers. Obviously worked with suggestions from the previous RfA. Fly the colours. Pigman 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Looked around a bit, even in some of the more obscure namespaces like image talk (oh, heavens!), and didn't find any obvious skeletons in the closet. Appears reasonable and responsive to criticism and requests -- seems to have addressed concerns raised at previous RfA. Seems familiar with deletion processes and unlikely to abuse tools. Clearly dedicated to the project. Oh, and email's enabled, even. Good luck! – Luna Santin (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 02:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support good candidate. -LakersTalk 07:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

[edit] Angusmclellan

Voice your opinion (70/0/1); Scheduled to end 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Angusmclellan (talk • contribs) - I would like to nominate myself. I have been editing Wikipedia regularly since the start of 2006. I also edit as Amcl (talk • contribs), using WP:AWB to implement WP:CFD/W changes. I don't think I've been too dim, too often. I have done things I'd change and I've had to eat my words more than once. I have reported some persistent vandals to WP:AIV, added to the WP:CSD backlogs, pontificated at WP:AFD and WP:DRV from time to time, and even closed some AFDs. I've also closed a heap of things at WP:CFD, not entirely in line with WP:DPR it's true, but I haven't had that many complaints. I've contributed to featured and good articles, written lots of stubs, created redirects and disambiguation pages, categorised things, and done other maintenance tasks. I've convinced myself that I'm usually civil-ish, and not too WP:BITEy, but I might be wrong. If I were granted sysop rights I probably wouldn't be using them every day, but there are things I could do which would help out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: CFD first of all, and perhaps WP:CFDU too. WP:CP could do with some spring cleaning. I'd help out if there were backlogs at other XFD areas, WP:RFPP, WP:PER, WP:AIV, and article categories of WP:CSD, although those things get quite a lot of attention as is. I don't have much experience of image policy in action, but I'd like to help out there. I would start on the easier things, like the large numbers of {{ncd}}- and {{nrd}}-tagged images, and moving on to {{rfu}} ones once I was sure I understood the process. I enjoy article writing and translating, and don't propose to stop if I should become an administrator. So, between CFD, CP, simple image-related clean-up, and general editing, there would be more than enough to keep me busy for a while.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm happy with the work I've done at CFD, even if it wasn't done strictly according the Rules. Of the articles I've worked on, I'm rather pleased with Óengus I of the Picts, which I started as a stub in March 2005 and helped work up into a featured article. There's a list of the pages I've written, translated, or significantly revised on my user page for people who like that kind of thing. Lately I've been working off and on to get Flann Sinna up to FA standard. On the other hand, there are quite a lot of things I've done that I'm not at all happy with. In retrospect the ISO 693 language templates were a really, really bad idea, and I've managed to bite at least one new editor by slapping an inappropriate {{attack}} tag on their user page. I'm certain there will be other blunders out there.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have had, do have, and will have disagreements with other editors, but disagreements are unavoidable in a collaborative project and only unreasonable people can expect to have their arguments accepted every time. Having said that, I'm surprised at how uneventful my time here has been. I don't have any particular peace-making triumphs to point to, but I haven't had any long-term conflicts with other editors either. Probably the longest-running dispute - me against the world it seems - is over the origins of Dál Riata. It's not something I can get worked up about so I've left it alone for now. There are over a million articles to work on, and millions more still to be written. It's easy enough to find something else to work, so why get stressed? Only fanatics can't change their minds and won't change the subject.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support Good edior, got nomintated - must be good. Twenty Years 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, this is a self-nomination. Majorly (o rly?) 14:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    This user has made several of these edits, all identical, on other RFA's, in a 2 minute span. Just thought I'd mention it. The Rambling Man 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Why is that important? You don't need a meaningful rationale for a Support vote, only for an Oppose. Twenty Years is entitled to support whichever candidates he/she wishes, and there's no rule against Xeroxing your votes. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support Even though I have never met you, you are a great and capable user, 100% edit summary usage, approximately 24000 edits which 14K in the Mainspace, definitely can be trusted. Good luck! Tellyaddict 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support a very good editor with massive contributions across wikispace and the mainspace. Good luck. The Rambling Man 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Surely admins are needed at the area of expertise of Angusmclellan. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I really think I have absolutely no doubt. Seen Angus all over the place and has always left a good impression. Bubba hotep 14:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Great user, will make a good admin. - Anas talk? 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Always been impressed by his work around here, appears level-headed. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Never seen you around (or at least I don't remember), but you look like an excellent editor from your work. · AO Talk 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Aye nae tother a' ball--Docg 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Genuine cliche moment, actually. Xoloz 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I've only ever seen good things from Angus, so I expect he'll make a good administrator. Good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Same reasoning as Bubba hotep. Xiner (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Total Support - I've seen Angus on here for years around Irish articles. Flawless editor and will make an excellent admin - Alison☺ 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong support good self-nomination and contributions. Plus, I thought this user was already an admin. Acalamari 16:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Duh. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Obvious support. Been around long enough to know the ropes; no demonstrated tendency to cause any trouble. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. — Lost(talk) 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support of course.-- danntm T C 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. I've run across this user's contributions a few times and been pleased. I don't see any issues. Rigadoun (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Michael 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support, asset to CFD, and after RobertG's departure he almost IS CFD, the sooner we give him the tools the better! I'll write a long co-nom esque support if need be :)--Wizardman 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. - Denny 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support No problems here, would make a good admin. (aeropagitica) 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support a fine user. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support All good and superb. Pigman 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support No reason not to. -- Nick t 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support, nothing objectionable as far as I am concerned. SorryGuy 22:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support, no reason to oppose. I have seen some requests for protected edits that would not be needed with the sysop bit, which is a clear justification for tools. CMummert · talk 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Good job! --Infrangible 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Good editor, quite civil, rather productive (lately about 160 edits per day). I did run across him in connection with a CfD vote. He says above "I've also closed a heap of things at WP:CFD, not entirely in line with WP:DPR it's true.." If he does get elected admin, I hope he seriously follows the deletion process. I think his closure of the deletion debate on Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor was a bit eccentric. Nonetheless I'm supporting. I'm aware that there's a shortage of people willing to close CfDs, and it's a necessary but thankless task. EdJohnston 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support--MONGO 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support He can be absolutely trusted with the tools. He'll be a good admin. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 06:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support appears trustworthy enough for the job. RFerreira 07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support An excellent editor and will make a fine sysop. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Everyking 08:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. I have no problems with that. >Radiant< 09:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support exemplary editor. Catchpole 10:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per above and the FA push of the king of Picts. Wooyi 15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support - Angus for us. Very trustworthy and will make a good sysop. -- Jreferee 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Nothing more I can add, really. Shimeru 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. I don't think I've had any interaction with Angus, but his contributions look good enough that I'm willing to play a hunch here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Obviously. --Folantin 20:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support He welcomed me to Wikipedia when I first started contributing, so it's a name I've kept an eye open for ever since - his contributions show him to be mop-trustworthy. Bencherlite 00:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Good, hardworking and levelheaded editor. I would trust him with the tools. --Elonka 01:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. I've seen Angus around and I trust him. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support definitely, trustworthy, capable, civil. – Riana ऋ 04:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Trustworthy and friendly. Fram 14:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Terence 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support seems trustworthy of the tools. Darthgriz98 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support - experienced, fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 00:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support - I revewed his edits--he seems neutral and observant. --TigranTheGreat 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support, Lakers 03:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. Strong support --Guinnog 09:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. Strong support Angus, I would have nominated you if I had known you were planning to ask for a mop. DurovaCharge! 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support - I have only had good interactions with this candidate. --After Midnight 0001 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Dina 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support... about time.--Isotope23 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. Great editors (almost always) make great admins. He is one of those who will. Rockpocket 06:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. Yeah. — CharlotteWebb 09:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support ---- Artaxiad 10:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support - exactly the type of admins that we most need, editors with a strong committment to quality mainspace editing.--Aldux 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. I offered to nominate him a couple of months back, so Support Jaranda wat's sup 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support. I've seen him do consistently excellent work. Haukur 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support: Hardworking great editor. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  69. SupportParticipated in more than enough backlogs, and has the experiance.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support, -LakersTalk 07:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Double vote removed. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support Great set of mainspace edits - plenty of work in Wikipedia edits. --VS talk 08:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Couple of questions — I've got a couple of questions for you:
    • You wrote: "I'm happy with the work I've done at CFD, even if it wasn't done strictly according the Rules..." — So, which rules did you bend? Generally, under which circumstances do you think it would be acceptable for an administrator to bend the rules?
    • In particular, do you think there are circumstances where wikipedians should not feel obliged to comply with wp:civ? I come across an increasing number of wikipedians who might give lip service to complying with wp:civ, but have some kind of rationalization for why they shouldn't feel obliged to wp:civ under this or that circumstances. I'd prefer that we refrain from promoting any more wikipedians to administrator who think wp:civ doesn't apply to them. But if you are committed to complying with the wikipedia's policies, then best wishes. -- Geo Swan 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    For the first question, Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions says non-admins should only close unambiguous keep decisions. The simple, but far from elegant, nature of the wiki category system means that many things which would be done in article space by normal editing such as merges, redirects, and moves, need to be listed at CFD. With the exception of a couple of closes when I started, including the one mentioned by Ed, I've generally closed only unambiguous decisions, whether the result was keep, merge, rename, delete, listify, or something else.
    For the second question, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF are needed to keep this collaborative project running as smoothly as possible and they have apply to everyone. I'm willing to make exceptions in some circumstances, but not for myself. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mikeblas

Voice your opinion (31/0/1); Scheduled to end 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mikeblas (talk • contribs) - I am nominating User:Mikeblas for adminship. He has over 10,000 edits on Wikipedia, having been an active editor for about a year and a half. He has a lot of experience in maintaining article quality, in areas of disambiguation, merging, unsourced material and original research, NPOV, copyright, and external links. You can read his userpage for thoughts about accuracy and credibility issues.

I believe he is very responsible and has good judgment, is extremely unlikely to abuse admin tools. His services would be a benefit to the project. He communicates well, is civil and reacts well to trolling [36]. In real life he is a software architect. (His home page has more information about his personal and professional life. You can also find books he has written, on Amazon.)

Before anyone considers opposing due to lack of extensive experience in AFDs and such, I would like to emphasize that character and responsibility are much more important things to look for, and if he lacks experience in any particular area I'm sure he will be careful and learn quickly.

—Quarl (talk) 2007-04-02 10:53Z

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


Thanks for your help with the RfA process, Quarl. I accept, and I've filled out everything below. I'm sure there will be follow-up questions, so I'll wait here. -- Mikeblas 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've participated in tens of dozens of AfDs; both those that I've initiated and those that I've contributed to. I've done a few CfDs and lots of speedies, too. I don't think there's a way to search for these, since deleted content is deleted. Hmm, I guess I could look through all my contributions to find the project pages ... -- Mikeblas 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I don't consider myself part of the "Wikipedia counter-terrorism unit", or whatever they like to call themselves, but I do revert vandalism and nonsense where I find it. I'd probably contribute in this area as an admin, with managing semi- and full-protection on various pages.
As Quarl noted, I'm a published author and I write software. I've personally been very directly affected by problems with people stealing my hard work, and as such I'm very sensitive to copyright issues. I like copyvio tagging, and would want to help with examining and resolving copyvio issues.
Pretend you're new to Wikipedia. Then, try to go find help with something about Wikipedia within less than a few minutes, without getting flamed about RTFP by some jerkwad. I don't know what I can do directly; I'm not a welcome wagon kind of guy, but I think Wikipedia could be more approachable in many ways. If I had all day, I think this is what I'd work on first.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've done a lot of work on the multimeter article, and I'm happy with it. The references could be better, but it's funny how academic references for a ubiquitous tool are kind of hard to come by. I completely re-wrote and cleaned up the Mitsubishi 3000GT article before it was merged into Mitsubish GTO, and that was lots of fun; in doing the research, I learned a lot about the car. There are a few articles that I've strictly edited -- contributed to only by incrementally improving and not writing for. The Notorious B.I.G., Kottonmouth Kings, Kid Rock, and America's Next Top Model, and several database-related and programming-related articles (SQL, Delete (SQL), Stored procedure, and so on) are examples of articles that I've contributed to by cleaning up, policing for vandalism, copyvio, and unsourced edits -- even though I'm mostly not interested in the subject at hand.
I like to treat Wikipedia with an approach common among hikers: after I visit, I try to leave it better than I found it. Nailing down references is really important. As Wikipedia becomes more popular, more and more people take this ocntent as definitive reference every day.
Offline, I've done some interesting work with the Wikipedia database dumps. It's lots of fun to play with the corpus, study (well, research, mostly!) the Wiki markup language, and so on. As these mature, I'd like to find a way to publish the results. It's probably odd that happy playtime for me involves fooling around with a terabyte of data, but I am what I am.
Capacitor plague was another sizeable cleanup and fact-check effort, as was The Diplomats.
I like working on fixing links to disambiguation pages, and converting crappy ASCII art to real wikitables when I find them. Disambiguation pages are fun to work because they offer an easy "tour" of the site; drawing me to articles I'd otherwise not look at. This has led to fun cleanup efforts (like AfDing scores of non-notable "rappers" and "indie" bands).
I like doing WP:MOSDAB cleanup, too.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Stress? Come on -- editing should be fun. People who can remember this aren't subject to stress. I'm not emotionally involved in edits I make, or *FDs I initiate, or anything. If the concensus says differently, then that's fine; that shows me the status quo and I know how to proceed.
Editing the work of others shouldn't be stressful, though it should be done with care and consideration.
I've had editing conflict problems, sure. Some satanists thought I was trying to quash their whole religion by AfD'ing an article; I got flamed to pieces for editing one word in the bio of a mathemetician/economistref; I still don't understand the flame wars over at Steve Hoffman, and people are always happy to jump to the conclusion that I'm personally invalidating them just because I delete or change a part of their article. I think this kind of stuff happens to almost everybody who edits boldly here, and it's just a matter of handling it gracefully when it does happen.

Optional Question by Wizardman

4. What is your interpretation of WP:N? Let's say you had an article that was a borderline case in terms of notability, how would you prove/disprove notability in it, assuming it is in an area that the policy does not cover 100% directly?
Wow! This is pretty bottomless. I'm not sure I can nail something specific down, so please feel free to ask any follow-ups you have. Meanwhile, I'll try to surround it.
WP:N, like all Wikipedia guidelines, is really fluid. It changes as the tone of the site changes, and is being shaped as we go on and achieve consensus. Right now, there's even a dispute about it being a policy or a guideline! Having 49 edits in the nine days just passed is quite remarkable for something that's regarded by most to be the rule that defines the site's scope.
I like how there's notability criteria for specific subjects, like Music. I think this is far more scaleable than trying to get a policy that snaps around everything in the universe adequately defined. It's easiest to apply these, since they're more focused than WP:N.
Anyway, I don't think proving or disproving notability is up to an individual editor, or even an individual administrator. It's up to the consensus process, through AfD or policy change. That has obvious benefits: more than one point of view, more than one person doing the research, more likely to find an expert in the subject, and so on. I've recently opened a couple of such conversations: about "Inherent notability" and the notability of computer commands.
Hypothetically, if it's personally up to me for some reason, outside the status quo? With a math-science background, I take "prove" as a pretty high standard, and I don't think I could prove something as non-notable. Showing the subject of an article notable would mean finding verifiable references that both demonstrate the substance of the topic and substantiate the facts of the article, and further meet the criteria for source material set forth in the current revision of WP:N. -- Mikeblas 06:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-02 11:13Z
  2. Support From what I have seen, this editor will do great. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Great user. bibliomaniac15 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Great contributions. Great Answers. Excellent user. Gutworth 02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Michael 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak Support. Seems to be a good editor, and there is no indication he would abuse the tools. I think more time needs to be spent discussing issues on talk pages, though.···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Annoyed me in some AfD and I hope he doesn't become a regular DRV attendee by acting too much on his deletion opinions, but nothing really to suggest he'd be irresponsible. Opposing would be petty here based on facts in evidence so far. --W.marsh 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support seems like a good canidate. - Denny 06:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I can't see any problems. Good luck. The Rambling Man 06:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. I have no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. He is prolific and productive. However, I would encourage him to engage other users more often. Vassyana 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. He is a good editor and his answers to the questions were very good. -Mschel 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Good edior, got nomintated, must be good. Twenty Years 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Excellent work. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Ample experience. Thoughtful responses to questions. IMHO, seems to fully understand what Wikipedia is all about and where it is going. KatalavenoTC 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support per all the words above, I don't need to add more. Wooyi 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support well experienced editor.-- danntm T C 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - prolific editor and reasonable answers. Not much counter vandalism or consensus building, however no reason to believe he would misuse the buttons. Addhoc 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Yes to Mikeblas. -- Nick t 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support I'll give a support on the basis that once you get more involved with admin tasks and using the tools then your user Talk editcount will skyrocket past the >500 edits as of this timestamp. (aeropagitica) 22:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support seems good enough. —Anas talk? 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support sounds like a good candidate from what I've read. Acalamari 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Why are they not an admin already? --Infrangible 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - Trustworthy and knows policy. W.marsh's support speaks well for Mikeblas and for W.marsh. -- Jreferee 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. Limited interaction with this user aside from Mitsubishi 3000GT before it was merged. Seems civilized, and haven't seen evidence of gaps in his knowledge about policy (something I can't say for every incumbent admin I've ever come across...) And since his sentiments regarding stress and emotional uninvolvement tie in closely with my own approach, I give 'im the thumbs up. --DeLarge 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) PS Darn it. I had some good arguments for his Logitech MX Revolution AfD, but it was closed before I could get there.
  27. Support--MONGO 04:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Terence 07:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - +sj + 23:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. I trust him. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support More than 10,000 edits!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose. I'm sorry, but I'm very iffy about you as an admin. W.marsh's reason for a weaker support is important to look into, but combined with the criticism of lack of discussion on talk pages, this means I don't have much to do on in terms of how you would handle criticism other then w.marsh's reference. I'm willing to change my vote, it's more a bad feeling than concrete evidence.--Wizardman 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what a good ratio (or, even, a bad ratio!) for talk edits is. The numbers posted in the talk page here show I've got 10577 edits total, 1034 of those on talk pages -- a rato near 9.7%. If that seems low, one reason might be my involvement in projects like disambiguation links, which causes a large number of edits without much interaction. Because Wikipedia is a very cumbersome mechanism for communication (Is there any guideline for indenting ettiquette?), I also prefer to use "email this user". Anyway, if there's a specific question you have, I hope you'll add an additional question to the three above. -- Mikeblas 04:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright. The talk page edit count seems fine to me (looking them over I really don't have a problem with it as much as I remember), and I went and asked a kinda vague question which will probably change my vote. I'll withdraw it pending an answer.--Wizardman 03:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Edit count and most everything is great but at this stage I am concerned by what appears to be a general WP:NPA in answer to question 1. I understand the point about his concern over the RTFP approach by some editors (including admins) but does that make them, as he puts it jerkwads or do they just have a different approach?--VS talk 08:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Reading his Talk page, Mike appears civil enough, and I like his efforts to clean up articles. However, in the AfD cited above by User:W.marsh, Mike seemed argumentative. He was the nominator of the AfD, and later in the debate he added 15 more comments. At some point, one should just let the debate evolve. This might be a bad example; in another one I looked at, where he was the nominator, he made 6 additional comments. Since I haven't worked with him directly, and can only skim his contributions, I don't feel I have enough basis to support him at this time. EdJohnston 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    My understanding is that the AfD process is a discussion, and that the nominator is free to participate in that same discussion. (Is that not the case?) I've also responded to one of them by suggesting ways the product at the subject of the AfD'ed article could be shown notable. In the mouse AfDs, I've been responding to people who have been telling me that I have some specific agenda by plainly explaining that I don't. Given assertions like that, I must assume that my reasons for making the nomination aren't clear; and so I'm adding the responses to add clarity. Do you think there's a more appropriate way to do that? -- Mikeblas 04:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny

Voice your opinion (223/75/7); Scheduled to end 00:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny (talk • contribs)

It is my pleasure to nominate Danny for adminship on the English Wikipedia. For those of you who don't know, allow me to catch you up on some history. Danny was first directly appointed to the role of admin by Jimbo, and then later, in 2003, his adminship was confirmed by RFa election. He recently resigned his adminship upon resigning from official employment at the Foundation (where had been Grants Coordinator since 2005). He resigned his adminship (as well as stewardship) to prevent any perceived conflicts of interest following leaving employment at WMF. He hasn't yet revealed his reasons for resigning his role from the Foundation, but know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of disagreement with anything that Wikipedia itself stands for. He also has extensive experience working on Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, and the Hebrew Wikipedia. His work on Wikipedia more than stands on its own, even ignoring any contributions he made in official capacities.

Danny is not done with his work on Wikipedia, not by a long shot, and it would help him in his continued work for the project to gain adminship rights back. There isn't a single person in the entire world more familiar with Wikipedia than Danny. Whereas Jimbo has been more of an absentee God-king, Danny was in the office every day from 9-5 working on some of the trickiest issues that Wikipedia faces, and then would often log on after work and help write articles. He has an ungodly number of edits for anyone who cares about those kinds of things. He's also handled all sorts of behind-the-scenes stuff that few have ever heard about, but was vital all the same.

Danny has been making huge contributions to Wikipedia since before most current Wikipedians even ever heard about it. For instance, he wrote the original biography infoboxes and put them on all of the articles on US presidents. This was a harder task than it now seems, because neither templates nor wiki table syntax had even been coded yet, so Danny learned HTML and created all of those infoboxes from scratch. Most people with high edit counts have done a lot of counter-vandalism work; in contrast, Danny has done very little. Nearly all of his edits have been significant edits improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Danny's excellent judgment, skills, and unparalleled knowledge of Wikipedia make him the perfect administrator candidate.

Making Danny an administrator again is as obvious a decision as any we're liable to find on Wikipedia. Yes, Danny has been involved in some controversy, but that's utterly unavoidable when you consider how much time he spent working here and how many controversial situations his position required him to get involved in (for instance, almost every WP:OFFICE case). The qualification for adminship is simply "do we trust him?", and I can't think of anyone I would answer that question about more strongly in the affirmative for than someone who has been deeply involved with Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation for five years.

--Cyde Weys 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Danny 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I don't think there is a valid answer to this question because it limits the role of the sysop. I believe that a sysop is a janitor, a person who helps to clean up the site and keep it functioning. If I were asked, in an interview for a janitorial position, what tasks I anticipate, would I be exempt from any other tasks that needed doing? If I said I would clean up spills, I would still have to fix broken windows. So, I simply anticipate doing what needs to be done and is within the scope of my ability. Surprise me. Danny
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Five years. I am particularly pleased that I stuck it out for five years. I've seen lots of changes, lots of people come and go, I have had exhilirating moments and extremely frustrating moments, but I am still here. Of that I am proud. Danny
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: You can't be involved with editing without being involved in conflict. You can't be involved in Wikipedia without seeing your blood pressure rise on occasion. And you can't have one single way to deal with each situation. Danny

Optional question by User:Xiner

4. Would you like to respond to the concerns brought up by AnonEMouse and trialsanderrors?
A: I don't think thet are concerns. I think they are misconceptions. I believe that administrators have a responsibility for the site, i.e., they have to be willing to make decisions, and they have to recognize that sometimes their decisions will be unpopular, because there is no single answer that will please everyone. No matter what is said, the spammer will still complain that spam was removed, the person writing a vanity article about themselves will complain that it was removed, the person posting a copyright violation will complain that it is removed. Not everything has to be discussed ad nauseum, because that only provides greater ammunition to the spammer, the vanity author, and the copyright violator. They come back thinking, "Hey, I convinced some people. If I push a little harder, perhaps I can convince more." In fact, that is what happened with the Israel News Agency, a man who I spoke to, who told me on the phone that I have a responsibility as a Jew to allow him to use Wikipedia for his own SEO purposes and to promote his pet (POV) causes. I believe that Wikipedia has to enforce its own rules, rather than continuously water them down in an attempt to please everyone. With some 10 thousand spam links a day being added to Wikipedia, and people calling regularly to ask about how they can promote themselves or their businesses, it is time to act. I realize that this may be an unpopular view, but it is not something I would compromise on. Decide accordingly. I will not water down my views to win a vote.
B: That said, I do not believe I am infallible. I have made mistakes, and can list much better examples than those brought here. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a product that allows for mistakes, because mistakes are so easy to fix. If other admins or other users disagree with me, that is fine. I will present my opinions, listen to theirs, and if no compromise is attainable, accept the verdict of the majority. I have done so in the past, and I do not see myself acting differently in the future. The beauty is that even if I was wrong, it can be corrected. The good thing is that I can accept if I was wrong, instead of feeling a need to argue the point till the cows come home, which is more and more frequently what is happening on Wikipedia, on the talk pages and on the mailing lists. Do we want to build an encyclopedia or read our opinions on line? If it is the latter, I suggest that the blogosphere is a better place for it.
C: As for edit summaries--I have been around for a very long time, from a time, in fact, where edit summaries were not common practice. It takes some time for an old dog to learn new tricks. At the suggestion of someone below, I have changed my preferences to require me to add edit summaries. That said, I think, and have always thought, that far too much emphasis is being placed on the way an edit is made than on the quality of the contribution. That is unfortunate. On that same note, I think far too much onus is placed on the fluff answers people want to see than on the honest answers people should see. Danny 05:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Optional question by trialsanderrors

5. I would actually like to make this more specific: Why do think that the contributions by Ekraam (talk • contribs), who added an (attributed) copy of the Computing Business article on HSBC senior executive Rumi Contractor warrants a month-long block without warning or explanation rather than to point him/her towards out copyright and inclusion policies ?
A: I think my answer above explains my position. To be more specific, this was obviously spam intended to promote someone who would not be included in a normal encycloepdia--a regional CIO? C'mon? Do we have an article about Carolyn Doran (the COO of the WMF), of the CIO of Suntrust Bank (my bank)? As for using a copyrighted text, that is generally done when people do not want us to be able to edit the content. On the phone I have heard numerous times, "That is the official bio, and it shoudl not have to be edited." I do not believe spammers are coming to Wikipedia in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. They are coming to promote a POV agenda, and should be treated as such. Their interests are not our interests, and it behooves us to realize that now, before it is too late. Once again, I realize that this will be an unpopular answer, and I invite you to vote accordingly. Danny 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Geogre

6. What is the value and role of IRC for an administrator to Wikipedia? What is the value and role of an ostensibly private and "admins-only" discussion forum that cannot be examined for violations of decorum or policy? Finally, what is the responsibility of those "in charge" of such fora to be 100% aware of the on-wiki controversies and polemics of the participants in such channels, and especially those with "operator" access? (I wish that I had never needed to ask this.) Geogre 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A: There are several questions here, and I will try to respond to all of them. First, I believe that IRC is a valuable forum, though its importance is over-emphasized. I do believe that communications are vital for the success of everything we do, and that IRC provides one venue for such communication, but it should not be the only venue. I also think that too much time is wasted on IRC in general chats, gossip, and, frankly, pretty stupid discussions at times. This is detrimental to the project, but it is, unfortunately, also inevitable given our size, and given the fact that people want to be doing something, but aren't quite sure what it is they should be doing. Many months ago, I wrote an essay on this very topic. I also think it helps promotes cliques and factions, though not to the extreme that some people would have us think. After all, in a project of this size, with this number of contributors, all with slightly different views, cliques and factions ar inevitable. Finally, I think IRC or some equivalent would inevitably have emerged, whether people want it to or not. On the other hand, you seem to be indicating the admin channel in particular. I was one of the people that advocated the creation of that channels, so that hot-button topics could be dealt with quickly and effectively. I believe that should still be the goal of the admin channel, though that is not always the case. I do not believe it should be limited to admins (I am on the channel, though I am not presently an admin), but at the same time, I do not believe we should not institute a new category of "trusted users." I believe that certain matters need to be discussed in confidence among certain very active users who have proved themselves (for example, vandalism that could have very negative legal or press implications), but I do not believe that this is necessarily the role played by the admin channel today. Finally, I believe that people have to look beyond the status of any of these titles--admin, bureaucrat, steward, office--thinking that by obtaining one they are climbing in stature within Wikipedia. It is not about status, but about improving the encyclopedia, which is what all fora for communication should be about. Danny 12:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by A. B.

7. Would you add your name to the Category:Administrators open to recall?--A. B. (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A: The question of admin recall reminds me of a very old question (early 2003, I believe) of reconfirming admins. I believed in it, and set an example by being the first admin to run for reconfirmation. I passed, and that gave greater justification to my adminship, since before that I was actually appointed (there were no elections once). I gave up my adminship again some months later, while on a wikibreak, and asked to be reelected. I succeeded and was still an admin until last week, when I volutarily relinquished it again because my status in the foundation changed, and I did not want anyone thinking that my adminship was a relic of that status. In fact, I was an admin before there was even a foundation. I think these actions speak louder than any list. I have relinquished my adminship. Danny 17:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Clarification, please: your history certainly speaks louder than membership in a category, but will you also add yourself to that category, if only as a formality, or will you not do so, as a rejection of the idea of that category? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that such a process should fall on all admins, without exception, not just those who are willing to list their names. I would support a poll for regular reconfirmation of admins. I would not link myself to that category. In general, I think categories should be used to classify content, not contributors. Danny 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by Dragons flight

8. In your OFFICE role, you have had the luxury of asserting a greater authority than ordinary admins. For good or ill, the community generally would have had little recourse to challenge your decisions. Obviously there are times when the nature of your OFFICE role required action (including possibly secret action) that would deviate from the normal policies, process, and standards of behavior for ordinary admins on Wikipedia. However, the issue raised by some of the opposers is whether your behavior differed from that normally expected of admins even at times when there wasn't a pressing reason to do so. I would like you address whether or not you feel your actions in the past have been consistent with the normal standards for admin behavior, and whether you are prepared to abide by the expectations laid out in policies such as WP:DEL, WP:CSD, WP:BLOCK, and WP:BITE even if you disagree with aspects of how those policies are currently constructed. Dragons flight 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A. The whole issue of using OFFICE is a red herring. I only used office as Dannyisme, and even then, there were only 28 edits made using that name, 13 to the main namespace, and all of those on the same 4 or 5 articles at the request of Jimmy or Brad. Anything else I did (with the exception of the first time I used OFFICE, which was as Danny), was done under this user name. I feel that, as Danny, I have followed the policies mentioned above, though I did not take them to ridiculous extremes. In fact, it was me who came up with the idea of BLP tagging in the first place, so I am quite comfortable that I behaved accordingly, based on information that I had. The only issue I see as possibly valid is WP:BITE, and as I indicated before, I do not think that spammers and the like should be regarded as "harmless newbies, trying to help build an encyclopedia." They are here with an agenda--to promote their product, cause, self, etc., and frankly, they don't give a damn about our own policies, except as means of self-promotion. When I am told on the phone that Fleshlight is interested in having its article in the main namespace solely as a means of promotion, I have no qualms about deleting it. In cases of spam or obvious bad intent, I will continue to bite. Danny 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Xiner

9. My chief concerns about your candidacy is best laid out in an essay about the vested contributor. Could you address it?
A: I disagree with the assumption of the article. Experience has a role to play in all aspects of life, including editing a wiki. To assume otherwise is patent nonsense. Danny 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:ChazBeckett

10. Why do you believe nearly 25% of particants in this RfA are opposed to granting adminship? If this RfA succeeds, will this relatively high level of opposition affect your behavior as an admin? ChazBeckett 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I really cannot speak for all of the people who are opposed. I think their concerns are genuine, though I think that they are overlooking some of the other things i have done. I am not one for tooting my own horn, and I don't intend to list them all here, but I have been a successful mediator, I turned down checkuser because I thought I had too much power as it is, and I was the first to initiate mentoring of vandals. In fact, I advocated strongly for two people who I thought could continue to make significant contributions to Wikipedia despite the fact that they were immediately tagged as vandals (Mike Garcia and Wik). In that I believe I took a more concilliatory approach than many of the people opposing me here. I also think that RfA is not a reflection of the community--it is more a reflection of the RfA patrollers. Too many good, established users avoid it. That is unfortunate. I think that "Assume good faith" has lost its meaning, and is now used as a bludgeon against people--rather than genuinely assuming good faith themselves, people are more apt to point out when someone else did not assume good faith. In that alone, Wikipedia is losing some of its moral highground, and it saddens me. Finally, I am disturbed by some of the advice I am getting--"Tell them what they want to hear." I can only question the efficacy of a process in which people are encouraged to not say what they really think to win a vote. I have been very honest in my answers. I don't believe that there is one pat solution for every problem, or one single way to act. I think each situation should be judged as unique and responded to accordingly. So, in response to your last question, I will not give the pat answer everyone would like to see, and which no one really keeps to anyways. I will act as I have said I will. I will evaluate each situation, make judgments based on experience, and act accordingly. As for conflicts I have been in, that is certainly true. I have been in conflicts in the past. I anticipate being in conflicts in the future, whether I am an admin or not. How can I be involved with seeing Wikipedia grow and flourish, overcome problems, and become the amazing resource it can be if I am not willing to get my hands dirty every now and again? Danny 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:ElinorD

11. Recently I have seen discussion about whether or not it is permissable (and whether or not it should be permissable) to link to sites such as Encyclopaedia Dramatica, Daniel Brandt's site, and Wikipedia Review, which either attack individual editors/administrators, or post their personal details (or in some cases do both). There is also the question as to whether posting a nowiki'd URL in the case of a site which has been blacklisted is (or should be) allowed. If you had the power to make (or vote on) such decisions, what position would you take? ElinorD (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I do not understand the question: 1. How does linking to these sites enhance the quality of the encyclopedia we are trying to build? 2. How does this impact my performance as an admin? Danny 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: Okay, I'll clarify. How does linking to these sites enhance the quality of the encyclopaedia? There is currently an article about Daniel Brandt. Should it or should it not have links to his site? There was an article about Encyclopaedia Dramatica. While I'm not familiar with all the details, I think it was deleted in part because the existence of such an article was inviting the posting of links to it, if not on the article itself, then on the talk page. When that article existed, should links to it have been permitted? With regard to the relevance this has to your performance as an admin, admins have the power to block people who post links to sites that give names and addresses of editors. Admins have the power to delete such links from page histories. They have the power to protect a page where such links are being posted. They also have the power to undo such blocks, deletions, and protections performed by other admins. Some editors feel that allowing such links is condoning and enabling real-life stalking. Other editors feel that forbidding such links is a form of censorship. Since every prospective admin will, if the RfA is successful, be given tools that will enable him to strengthen one or other of those two conflicting positions, it would be useful, before voting, to know which side you would support. ElinorD (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If it is the policy of the Foundation not to link to those sites, I will enforce it. As an admin, I do not make policy. Danny 18:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Irpen

11. Since the administrators are very much involved in hot issues that include the live users and content creators, be it the conflict resolutions or policies that do not have the clear cut interpretations and require case by case approach, it is very important that the administrators do not loose touch with the editors' concerns through remaining continuously involved in content writing themselves. In view of this, I am concerned with your answer to Q2. Are you able to demonstrate by your relatively recent contributions that you still did not loose interest in the content writing, which is the main purpose of this project?
A Iran-Iraq boundary is the most recent article I am most proud of. I have also done a lot of content adding to Wikisource, linking it to Wikipedia to provide resources for articles. Danny 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Pascal.Tesson

13 I'm not so comfortable with some of your above answers to editor questions. You certainly realize that many are unhappy about your occasional disregard of policy, common practice and the community in general. I'm sure you believed you acted for the greater good of Wikipedia but the community doesn't give someone admin rights because they think that person knows better than anyone what's right for Wikipedia. We give them these rights because we trust that they will follow the rules and practices we have set up and will consult with the community should they choose otherwise or find that these rules need to be changed. Are you confident that your position of authority hasn't made you lose track of that principle? For instance, do you still believe that it's currently ok to issue prolonged blocks without warning to users you believe are spammers? Pascal.Tesson 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Actually, I am opposed to the excessive legalism and process that has emerged over the past few years. I think there are way too many rules--too many in fact to get on with the real task in hand, which is creating a font of knowledge. I have no idea how many rules pages there are now, but they number in the thousands. I would prefer a much simpler approach, a single page. Esperanto grammar has sixteen rules. We can model ourselves on that. Or even more simply, I would suggest a greater adherence to the Five Pillars, including the last one. Or do we not really mean that. As for the opposition to me and what I am saying, I tend to look at a glass as being three-quarters full, rather than one-quarter empty. And I am glad that people are actually considering some of the issues I am raising (as you are doing, just by asking this question). Maybe change is possible. Danny 21:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Bastique

14 There have been several remarks about the nature of your office actions. Can you provide further explanation about what an office action is and in what context you were performing them?
A: I find the whole question of office actions moot. To be clear, there were 7 office actions performed--6 under Dannyisme and only one under this user name. In each instance, I did not make the decision, but was instructed to do so by the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation in response to a looming legal threat. I never had the authority to do or undo office actions, despite the misperception, because I was the one who actually put the tag in place. The last time I did so was Nov. 7, i.e., 5 months ago. Because of the high visibility office actions engendered, they were essentially abandoned. Danny 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Cool Cat

15 I was wondering if you could provide some examples of your offline/online office actions you were involved in. What kinds of issues did you deal with? -- Cat chi? 22:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A: First and foremost, I dealt with everyday money issues. I worked closely with the bank, helped with the audit, worked on the fundraiser, went in search of grants and donations. I did pretty well at that. I also answered the phone--again and again and again. It was a hiodgepodge of people from senators and congressmen (remember when they were changing Wikipedia?) -- to celebrities when we got the facts wrong -- to people who wanted articles about themselves (I was number 18 on American Idol. How am I supposed to get famous if there is no article about me) -- to publicity hounds (Osama Bin Laden's mistress comes to mind) who want their articles to say what they want -- to spammers ("Hey, I am trying to advertise my company on your website and someone changed what I wrote. Can you lock it? If not I will sue you and your family.") -- to kooks -- to serious legal threats -- to people asking how to get the coyotes out of their backyard. Yesterday I had dinner with someone who was in the office one day. He said that in the two hours he was there I field four calls that impressed him. I don't remember the first, but there was the family of a child actor who was being stalked, Osama's lady friend, and the police in Wisconsin who wanted someone who could read runes (don't ask, but suffice it to say they were written in blood). Then there were schools, lots of schools, calling because rival schools called their football team faggots or their computer club, idiot savants, or some teacher, a pedophile. And I can go on and on ... Get me drunk and will tell you about the Elders of of Mother Earth, calling from Deutschland ... that is Germany ... on Gaia ... which is the planet Earth ... Danny 23:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Murgh

16 Since it seems many take issue with episodes of past interactions, and the form of your answers neglect to butter up what a fundamentally nice person you are, I'd like to ask, do you view it as important to be patient and courteous in communication with your fellow wikipedians? MURGH disc. 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I think it is important to be patient and courteous to everyone who has the best interests of the project at heart. Danny 15:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not So Optional questions from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Hi Danny! I'm retired now from the project but I hope you don't mind if I pop by to ask you a few questions:

  • To help shut down the gossip and second-guessing, would you please explain why you suddenly resigned from all your positions of power and authority last month?
  • As I have said before, I will make my positions known during the upcoming board election. For now, suffice it to say that I believe that the board has not completely met the expectations I had of it, both as a Wikipedian and an employee. I believe that at this point in my life, I can be a greater asset to the WMF as a board member than I can as an employee. Danny 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is common knowledge that you recommended Essjay to Ms. Stacey Schiff to interview as a "model" Wikipedian. But what role, if any, did you have in the Foundation's hiring of Ryan Jordan? And what, if any, actions did you take when the extent of his fraud became apparent?
  • I recommended several people to Stacy Schiff, among the Essjay. She interviewed several of them, but the Essjay story was certainly intriguing. Hey, I was also interviewed, but the editors decided to cut the piece about me. As for the next question, the Foundation did not hire Ryan Jordan. Wikia did, and as I am not employed by Wikia, I cannot comment on that. I had nothing to do with it. I took no actions when what you call the "fraud" became apparent. I do not agree with what Ryan did, and would not do so myself, but I do not think he should be thrown to the dogs. He made a mistake, as have I on many occassions, as have we all. Let's move on, instead of throwing him to the dogs. Danny 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you please explain This edit and This one? And do you really find consensus building to be "tiresome" and prefer just to delete out of process when in doubt? And if so, how is this approach compatible with the building of an encyclopedia by a community governed by consensus and trust?
  • Above I explained that Joel Leyden called the office and expressed that his sole purpose was to spam Wikipedia. I have worked in Israeli media, and I know many prominent people in Israeli news media. None had ever heard of him. It was an obvious attempt at spamming and POV-pushing, and that conclusion was drawn by investigating the matter beyond just looking at the web. I also found that he used sock and meat puppets to influence the vote on his VfD. In effect, I was following policy, and he was trolling. YOu need only read his blog to see the ludicrous degree he has taken this. And no, I do not support al-Qaeda, and the only reason we did not speak Hebrew on the phone was that I spoke too quickly for him to understand.
  • How do you respond to board chair Florence "Anthere" Devouard's recent charge that you don't work well with others and you discourage transparancy?
  • I disagree with both those statements, and suggest that you ask people who have worked with me if I am really that difficult to work with. Leading up to another question, I worked with Erik over the past few months, and believe that, despite differences in approach, we worked rather well together. In fact, my respect for him grew as a result of that experience. And yes, I still continue to disagree with him on some important issues. Danny 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Due to your seemingly quick temper and trigger-finger to match, you've been dubbed the Living landmine of Wikipedia by some, how do you respond to that?
  • I think that my attitude with regard to this RfA would indicate that my temper is not as quick as people would think. Wikitruth also compared Brad Patrick to a pussy cat, when I can assure you that he is a dog owner. Danny 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • With regard to the preceding link, Eric Moeller has done a tremendous amount for this project, so how do you explain why you felt the sudden need last year, to revoke all his privileges and lock him out for 48 hours?
  • There were circumstances that I will not go into that led to the blocking of Erik. I believe that Erik and I have made peace over what happened. We both understand the circumstances better. I will decline to say any more than that. Danny 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and answers,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Now it is my turn to ask you a question. Why did you decide to come out of a lengthy retirement to ask me these questions. Danny 19:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from FlatGenius

18 There is speculation as to the extent of your further political aspirations within the WMF, to which this RfA (as opposed to simply asking to be given your admin bit back, something you could have easily done) would be a first step. Your answer above, I can be a greater asset to the WMF as a board member than I can as an employee seemingly reinforces this idea. I would like to hear your side to this speculation, and your current plans as member of Wikipedia. Do you intend to be just another admin and work in the trenches, or do you indeed hold political plans within WMF in the future?
A: I have made no secret of my intent to run for the Board. I may win. I may not. Whatever happens, I still intend to contribute to Wikipedia and the other projects in any way I can. Danny 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Just H

19: If someone had enough influence in the Wikipedian political process suddenly decided to put falsehoods in articles or harrassed users in a way that could cause real world legal action, what could be done to correct the situation without creating undue bad feelings? Just H 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
AI would ban them. Danny 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Ravedave

20 Jon Stewart the other night said something along the lines of "Bush won 50% of the vote but doesn't act like he is president of 100% of the population", do you intend to listen to the dissenters and change your behavior based on the feedback in the "oppose" section? Please start with a yes/no. Thank you! -Ravedave 23:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
A: The question is moot. I have 75 percent. Do they intend to change their attitudes seeing that 75 percent support me? Danny 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Expanding.' Are you somehow implying that none of the (so far) 59 opposers have a valid criticism that could help you improve, or that you have no room for improvement, or that you are not interested in listening to the constructive criticism expressed by many of them? Any of these options may be inferred from your answer above. A clarification wouldn't hurt. FlatGenius 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hightly pertinent question from Doc

21. What's the capital of Uzbekishtan ? --Docg 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Tashkent--I know because I made the map. Danny

Question from Flcelloguy

22. Danny, this is going to be a long question, so please bear with me as I give some background on the situation that led to Erik's desysopping and indefinite blocking by yourself. Also recognize that I - and I'm sure all of us - appreciate a lot of the work you have done here; your contributions are valued. However, I would like some additional answers - or at least a clarification of the situation - regarding this incident in April. I note that you've addressed this incident directly above, commenting that "there were circumstances that I will not go into that led to the blocking of Erik," and that you "will decline to say any more than that." While you are free to decline to say any more on this matter, I just wanted to give you this opportunity to elucidate on the situation more or answer some of my questions, if you would like, or otherwise, state that there were circumstances, legal or other, that cannot be discussed in public. So here goes:
The situation began with your stubbing and protection of NewsMax.com and Christopher Ruddy, with you citing "POV qualms" in your edit summary. In your protection, there was no indication at all that the protection and stubbing arose from any communication in the office. You used the standard {{protected}} template, even though I had created {{office}} [37], a specific template, so that it would be more explicit which articles were protected because of legal reasons and which ones were not, and had informed you of its creation, which you acknowledged. Some editors noticed this stubbing and wondered whether or not it should be considered an OFFICE action, and raised a query at Wikipedia talk:Office Actions. Splash, at this point, asked Danny for clarification, and Danny replied, saying that "if I do something like that, please assume it is with office authority." This was pointed out on the thread at Wikipedia talk:Office Actions, and another editor listed both of the pages under the section of protected and stubbed articles. This editor, who was not an administrator, also requested on the talk page that an administrator tag the articles with the appropriate template or at least place them in the category of Office actions. Because I had that page watchlist, I obliged with the request, per Danny's indication that they were Office actions. I was comfortable doing so because Danny had already indicated that they were Office actions in his response, and because he had mistakenly used the generic {{protected}} tag in the past before and had not raised objections to people changing it to the newly-created {{office}} template.
However, my edits were soon reverted and deleted by Kelly Martin. She deleted my edit and changed it back to the {{protected}} tag, and also sent an email to me advising me that she knew what she was doing. It was at this point that I noticed that another administrator had already changed the tag once before, per the discussion and Danny's own response, and had been reverted, using admin rollback, by Danny himself. This admin rollback was not only problematic in that it was not being used to remove vandalism but a good-faith edit, but also was still unclear about whether the article should have been tagged with Office. (Was he removing the tag because they were not office actions? Was he removing them because he didn't want them tagged?) These two edits had also been deleted by Kelly Martin, and because I did not check the deleted history of the page, was unaware of this. Thus, these four edits - two changings of the tags, one by myself, and another by ContiE, each citing Danny's own words and believing that he simply forgot to use the appropriate tag, were deleted. (They are still in the deleted history today.)
Danny also made a comment to the thread on Wikipedia talk:Office Actions, commenting "Undone. Please assume good faith." The entirety of his comment was vague and ambigious, and discussion followed - although Danny himself did not comment any further - about whether or not the action should be construed as being under the OFFICE tag. Other admins later re-added the article to the Office protected category, and the {{Office}} tag was re-added at least once.
During all of this, Erik Moller, another highly respected sysop and now a Board member, noticed the protections and disagreed with them. Believing them to be a standard administrative action, he unprotected the articles, though he did not revert the stubbing, and left a note on the talk page. Erik's post on the mailing list goes into more detail about this: [38], and another post elucidates further [39]. Though his actions may not have been optimal, they were in no way dangerous or explicitly wrong; he saw an administrative action he disagreed with, a protection of an article for "POV qualms", and unprotected it, leaving a note for discussion. However, Danny then proceeded to immediately desysop Erik both here and on Meta, and indefinitely blocked him on Meta as well as here, citing "reckless endangerment - OFFICE" as the entirety of his reason. This block was then reversed (see the block log) by The Epopt, who cited in his unblock log that he was "revers[ing] insane indefinite block". Danny then reblocked again, with no comments at all, again for an indefinite period and placing "recklessness" in his block log. After a large public outcry after Erik's appeal on the mailing list, Danny then proceeded to shorten the block to 48 hours, saying "recklessness--as agreed with erik and counsel--acting in office capacity". Jimbo then stepped in at this point, unblocking Erik from enWiki (Angela unblocked him on Meta), and asking that his sysop rights be restored on both Meta and enWiki, which they were.
Now, this whole situation is summarized in a Signpost article, but I feel that I've given a more complete account of the events. To this day, there has not been an explanation or apology from Danny, though I'm happy to see the two have since reconciled. (See question number four in this interview with Erik I did for the Signpost.) However, to quote Erik, Danny's actions and judgment at this time were a bit of an "overreaction". What I would like to know, Danny, is whether or not you consider this incident one the mistakes you have made. Was it? If not, why were you not more forthcoming in the whole debacle? A lack of communications was a huge problem, but all it would have taken was a short note explaining that there were legal issues that could not be publicly disclosed. Yet throughout this whole incident and afterwards, you did not elucidate, clarify, or in any way comment on what happened - the sudden and uncalled for indefinite blocking and desysopping of one of our longtime contributors - and even refused to talk to Erik when he called you to inquire about what happened. I'm just asking you and giving you, Danny, this opportunity to elucidate on what happened. Of course, you are under no obligation at all to answer the question, given your reticence and reluctance to speak about the topic in the earlier question, but I - and I'm sure many others - would love to hear your point of view and your comments on this.
Thank you very much, Danny, and congratulations if you've (you referring to the reader, not Danny) read through all of this without skimming. :-) (If you did skim, I encourage you to go back and read all of it carefully; it was a very complex situation.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions from badlydrawnjeff

23. My first major interaction with you concerned your actions surrounding the article Fleshlight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Do you still feel your actions were warranted in this situation, do you feel the community consensus is proper, and is this an action we'd expect in a similar way from you in the future?
24. Do you believe that you, in general, are a good model for new editors? Would you suggest that new editors emulate your style in editing and administrative-style work, given your long resume?
25. Regarding question 20, do you really believe that the 60+ editors who oppose your reconfirmation need to "change their attitudes?" If so, about what? If not, how should we interpret that answer, as a comment at the talk page suggested that the question may have been somewhat of a set up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(Deleted fun questions 26, 27 and 28 that serve only to distract readers from the serious debate going on here. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

Question from Wooyi

29 Danny, you stated that your actions on WP:OFFICE were intended to prevent libel suit against the foundation. While I wholeheartedly believe your statement is true and I appreciate your efforts, I'd like to inquire that, the website Wikitruth has posted those deleted libelous materials that were once on Wikipedia, why hasn't anyone sued Wikitruth for those libelous materials? If Wikitruth would not be sued for those materials, why Wikipedia would be? WooyiTalk, Editor review 05:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments
  • See Danny's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I will appreciate your support, and will understand your hesitation. Danny 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The January 2004 RfA.
    • I would ask the 'crat closing this to take into account the vast amount of WP:ILIKEIT "votes" in their final decision. Just H 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • ILIKEIT is about people who think articles shouldn't be deleted because they like it or find them interesting. People just voting or something close isn't too odd, nor should their opinion be discredited because of that. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I think you are mistaken, Just H. RFA/B's are requests for the community to demonstrate whether or not the editor has its (the community's) trust. If "you like him/her" and trust the editor, that is all that matters. This is not AfD, where we are judging an article's merits on the basis of notability, pertinence, or "encyclopædiness". -- Avi 02:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • If things continue as Í think they will, this may be a good example for others that, once you become respected by the community and showed at least as much respect towards Wikipedia, you really need to mess everything bad, too bad, to lose that respect. No candidate would be able to pass a RfA with those replies but few, very few ones. -- ReyBrujo 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with his replies? Responses to these questions are used to gauge how knowledgeable of and dedicated to Wikipedia someone is. In Danny's case, these questions are totally superfluous. I think his response to question 3, which is forged in bucketfuls of real world experience, is the most refreshingly honest and insightful answer I've ever seen. --Cyde Weys 03:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"How does this help Wikipedia?" That is something, without fail, Danny asks in each and every situation. In the few months I watched him work in the office Danny's first concern wasn't what people were saying, or who did what, or getting his face in the media. Danny's focus is on what helps the project most at that moment.

His ideas are always practical and solid. If Danny sees something that might work for Wikipedia as far as acquiring content or getting official endorsements from respected institutions or landing donations ... he will make it happen. He doesn't waste time generating massive discussion pages or disputing minor issues.

Most people help the project either by being contributors or by performing services (working at the office/networking/hardware/legal issues/donations/etc.). Danny is one of the few people that does both. I once watched him spend 12 hours answering phones, meeting with donors, giving projects to idle volunteers, solving travel problems, and a few other things I can't remember. He then went home and translated four Wikipedia pages into Hebrew.

Danny Wool is one of the project's greatest allies, and it would only suffer without his help administrating it.

Atshields0 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Danny's supplemental statement


Rather than answer all the remaining questions, I think that I will simply make a statement here. It may lose me votes, and I am fine with that. I asked to go through this process, and I intend to go through this process, even if the result is that I lose.

I've worn many different hats on the English Wikipedia. I have been a long-time contributor, an admin when adminship was still an appointed position, a bureaucrat, a steward, and even a member of the office staff—the only person entrusted with the dreaded WP:OFFICE. I have worked behind the scenes in ways that most people can't imagine, and handled complaints from irate people, famous and non-famous and infamous, in a respectful and courteous manner. In most cases, I have even been able to calm them down, though inevitably there were some who did not get what they want. Such is life.

I have dealt with the community on a professional and courteous level. No, I did not. I went beyond that. Just last night, I had the police in my house because there was a concern about a user's safety. It was not the first time I dealt with an issue like that, and for those who have been around long enough, it will probably not be the last. Suffice it to say that I had no idea who that user was—or is, but still I was ready to help—without making any value judgments.

I have risen just about as high as you can get in the Wikipedia hierarchy, and have been involved in some of the most contentious issues, whether visible to the community or not. I believe in openness. In fact, I would like to see even greater openness in many of our processes. On the other hand, that does not mean that I think everything should be an open book. We all agree that we should protect the right to privacy of our users, even if it means that sometimes people take advantage of our goodwill. Well, there are some other things that require privacy too, whether for personal reasons or for the well-being of the Foundation. In some way, I was charged with protecting that, and I will continue to do so, even now that I no longer work for the Foundation.

As for this RfA, I may have done something unprecedented here. I may have actually told the truth in all of my answers. As a writer, I could have come up with just the right answers. As a long time theology student, I could have painted myself as a penitent or martyr. I could have said all the "right things," but I chose not to. I chose to say it as I see it. As someone who has risen quite nearly to the pinnacle, I believe I have a fairly comprehensive view of the project, its aims, and the means of achieving them. And I believe that honesty, even if it is not always comfortable in the short term, is always the best policy.

So let me say it as I see it.

  1. I believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: This is first and foremost. The question we should ask ourselves is how does this benefit an encyclopedia. When I spoke to the owner of a laundromat, who wanted a page about his business on Wikipedia, I asked him what other encyclopedias he was approaching? Britannica? World Book? Columbia? I asked the same thing of Fleshlight, and was told that they thought of Wikipedia not as an encyclopedia but as a marketing tool. They did not understand.
  2. I believe that Wikipedia is revolutionary: We are reconfiguring how knowledge is transmitted, and many people don't like that. It is in their interest to show how this new model will fail, even if it means telling students to vandalize Wikipedia to show how bad it is.
  3. I believe that Wikipedia is of enormous commercial and advertising value: A page on Wikipedia is worth enormous amounts of money, and a positive review of a product or company or person is too. Of course, we do not do reviews—that is POV-pushing. But maybe, people think to themselves, we can do it subtly, so that no one will notice. Maybe we can convince people to support us. The fact is, they have, and that is unfortunate. It not only rips at the heart of the community by dividing it into factions. It also calls our credibility into question. People already ask, "So how do I know someone didn’t put that in just to promote themselves?"
  4. I believe that Wikipedia is anarchic: People can do what they want. People are encouraged to do what they want, and yet we have found out that in such a large community that does not always work. That is why there are so many rules, even though when I joined Wikipedia there were only three, and we say that all our rules can be boiled down to the Five Pillars. And yet, people have found ways of gaming the rules, and making new rules to avoid that only makes the existing rule system about as convoluted as this sentence. That is why I believe that the most pertinent rule of all is Common Sense.
  5. I believe that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Certain goals and principles are not up for negotiations and votes. If 50 percent of the community were to decide that we no longer insist on free content or that unsourced libel about living people is acceptable, we would not change our values. If the Foundation, as represented by the Board and General Counsel, determines that something endangers the very being of the project, it is not negotiable either.
  6. I believe that Wikipedia is vulnerable: Yes, and Seigenthaler and Porchesia and countless other examples have shown that. I believe in the principle of Assume Good Faith. In fact, I believe in it so much that I refuse to write it out as WP:AGF and declare it a policy. It is not a policy. It is a lofty sentiment and something we should all strive for. Of course, it does not mean that when someone does us harm, we should at once assume good faith. If someone gropes you in a bar and you turn around and smack them, they have no recourse to WP:AGF. If someone makes an effort to work against our goals, they should have no recourse to it either.
  7. I believe that Wikipedia can be the best informational resource in all of human history: And that, and that alone, is what we should be striving for.

That is what I believe, and will continue to believe. I have made mistakes, but have been corrected. I challenge anyone to show me someone who hasn't made mistakes. I realize that this very statement during a contentious RfA may be a mistake, and that I may lose votes because of it, but I am willing to make it anyways. That is because I am not willing to compromise my beliefs, which include an essential belief in the importance of Wikipedia and the basic goodness of its community. Danny 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Support

  1. Oppose - Candidate's failure to sign acceptance displays insufficient experience with Wikipedia :) - David Oberst 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Is this vote under the wrong section? // Internet Esquire 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    No. --Deskana (ya rly) 20:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support of course. Jkelly 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Jkelly kinda took the words out of my mouth. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support fabulous guy. Fabulous admin. Mak (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. WP:300 Support ViridaeTalk 01:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. "No reason not to" does not to Danny justice. "The most qualified candidate ever" might. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. But of course. Picaroon 01:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support-Usually I'd give a reason but none is needed for Danny. :) --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - Danny cares, he really gives a crap, and he knows what he is doing. While some of us admins back off from certain controversial situations, Danny with his berserker helmet and his battle axe charged onto the battlefield of issues and stabbed them in the crotch. As Wikimedia Officer he had to be on the phone with people (some acting rather naughty) and Danny dealt with them. Even while having a Foundation job, he fought spam (by setting it on fire), and, get this, IMPROVED ARTICLES. He also donated cash-money towards the cause of improving Wikipedia through his contests and, after three billion years of being a Wikipedian, he still cares. If you have a problem, he will be able to deal with it, battle axe in right hand, giant shield in left, and he will proceed to stab it in the crotch. He will definitely be a competant admin. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. RfA is about trust and Danny is certainly trustworthy. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support for a second I wondered: "is this the Danny?" - Anas talk? 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Yes, I know it's surprising. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    As I stated in the talk page, I would consider this unnecessary. However, if you plan on breaking Phaedriel's record, be my guest :-) Always remembering that adminship is not a prize, Danny has been very respectful in his position at the office, and unless someone is able to point to a serious abuse, I must support him. -- ReyBrujo 01:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Changing to Neutral. -- ReyBrujo 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Well, it is Danny. What's not to trust. User has shown sufficient knowledge, and prior excellent use of his tools. --theblueflamingoSquawk 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support.--ragesoss 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Quite simply, Danny is an integral part of Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Very much. — Dan | talk 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support - It is good to see someone who sets a continual example of the right way to approach WikiPedia!--Lmcelhiney 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Switch to Neutral--Lmcelhiney 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Most qualified candidate ever.--§hanel 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. (edit conflicted twice) Support - Completely without question. This is one of Wikipedia's most dedicated editors, and we will benefit greatly from him being a sysop (again) --Michael Billington (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Edit-conflicted support, obviously. My one very small gripe is I didn't like the way you jumped in and closed this debacle after not previously being that involved in RfA, if I remember correctly. But it's really not too big of a deal, especially now... Grandmasterka 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support, a proven track record demonstrating some of the best qualities in a Wikipedian. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Lkinkade 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Danny's enthusiasm for the work we do here is endless, contagious, and inspiring. --RobthTalk 02:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Belated April Fools' oppose. Because you deserve it. – Chacor 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (Yes, this is meant to be a support.)
  24. Support. When I saw this go up I knew I'd have to get my support in quick before the pile-on made additional supports look silly. I wanted to throw out a little fun trivial, as all know.. Danny is a high edit count user... we have quite a few people with high counts, but for most of them a substantial portion of their edits are semi-automated vandalism reverts. Not Danny, only 1.5% of his edits are obvious reverts. For comparison, User:SimonP is 6.7% obvious reverts... and many of the users with 20K plus edits are in the 50% range. --Gmaxwell 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support See discussion above. ~~ Atshields0
  27. Support per all the comments everyone else has made. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support per above. bibliomaniac15 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Of course. John Reaves (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Cleared for Adminship This one's a no-brainer. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Known sockpuppet (ab)user ;) quod erat supportum. — Feezo (Talk) 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support as PilotGuy said, a no brainer.↔NMajdan•talk 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Michael 03:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. חג שמח. El_C 03:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. It is hard to find people who are more qualified. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Just don't put salt in your eyes.-Ravedave 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support - if we can't trust Danny after all that he's done in the past few years, then it'd be hard to trust anyone. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. I'm tempted to oppose, because Danny could just have asked any bureaucrat to get his bits back, but meh. There isn't much to say here, as your outstanding contributions speak for themselves. Support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Strong Support. I haven't interacted directly with Danny, but I've seen his work, and seen how much good he has done for this project. I have absolutely no doubt he will use the tools wisely (as in the past) and will be a great benefit again as an admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support Danny is not the most communicative person in the world, and wasn't the best person to implement WP:OFFICE in its early days. However, despite my disagreements with his methods in the past, trusting him with adminship really is a "no-brainer." Xoloz 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (changed to oppose.)
  40. I don't think there was any reason for him to need to step down to do this in the first place. Support, of course. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per Mindspillage. Quite possibly the ultimate candidate given his previous work for the Foundation and on Wikipedia. --Coredesat 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Obvious Support Good fellow who was sorely missed with his not being a sysop for the past week or so, hehe gaillimhConas tá tú? 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. I have worked with Danny on a lot of issues related to Wikipedia and copyright, I found his insight and guidance to be the best I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I value his judgement, I would love for him to have adminship. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Seems dedicated to the project and trustworthy. --Mus Musculus 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. I've historically only voted for candidates with at least 60 months of expirience and 35,000 edits. Danny gives me a chance to WP:IAR, as I'll vote support, even though his edit count is still a couple thousand short of my standards. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    As the tone of this RFA has changed from triumphant to suspicious, I feel I should give a more serious reason. I've found Danny's approach to WP to be mature and encouraging. I wouldn't expect immaculate history and innocent/naive answers from someone with so much experience, and who had dealt with so much. Rather, I see some of the noted diffs and his answer to 20 as positives. Danny acts as if WP policy isn't set in stone, and WP admins aren't policy robots. I trust him to follow policy, to be an able representative of WP to new editors, and to continue to be Danny, all good reasons to support him. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. Obvious, experienced choice. - Denny 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Absolutely. Khoikhoi 06:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support per nom. Lakers 06:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Well, as he voluntarily relinquished sysop powers, couldn't he just ask a bureaucrat or the arbcom nicely? There is significant precedent, and there is no need to go through all of this (aside from the obvious ego-boost, popularity contest, reaffirmation thing for the candidate). In lieu, perfunctory support, but it would really save the community a fair amount of trouble to just bypass this whole process. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support per Cyde's nom. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Changing to abstention from voting. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Changing to oppose. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support — this nomination is unnecessary. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 09:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. I am especially pleased with the answer to Q3. It is one of the most realistic answers I have seen to the question. I would have preferred to see something a little more substantial in answer to Q2, though I understand the response. Vassyana 09:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support, Apple••w••o••r••m•• 10:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support, and appreciate what is more than just a gesture - submitting to review and asking for opinions. Shenme 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. dannyisme. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support One of the most experienced editors on here, who has helped shape Wikipedia to what it has become. As well as being an article writer – check his user page – his experience as an admin, and bureaucrat clearly shows he is more than capable of handling the admin tools. I trust him totally. In other words, I don't think Wikipedia is right without Danny as an admin. Best of luck! Majorly (o rly?) 10:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Strong Support. As a former employee he definitely knows what he is doing. -Mschel 11:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support- Yeah, I don't see why not. Retiono Virginian 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support - Of course! Fantastic user on all fronts. I don't really understand why he has to go through all this, but full marks to him for being willing to do so. Deb 11:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support thought he already was one... ;) Mangojuicetalk 11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support, the very willingness to voluntarily stand for community approval shows he deserves to get it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. As if there were any sensible option other than support. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'd support him twice if I could. >Radiant< 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Struck. There is more to this than I thought, and I need to think on this. >Radiant< 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support as self. Bastique 12:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support, Tom Harrison Talk 13:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Proved himself countless times. KatalavenoTC 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support Good edior, got nomintated, must be good. Twenty Years 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support Arfan 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support This person has been an admin for a long while without issues, this sort of reconfirmation seems unnecessary. We should not be making long standing admins take an RfA regardless of how they got their bit. This user may have made a few mistakes, but find one admin who has been at it for over a year who hasn't. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support; I've had nothing but positive interaction with Danny, both here and on other projects. --Spangineerws (háblame) 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support. Good contributor. utcursch | talk 14:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support - eminently qualified. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support - Excellent editor. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support and urge speedy promote I asked Danny's advice on a BLP issue last weak and was kinda horrified he couldn't read deleted edits. Absurd that we have to do this, but nevermind.--Docg 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Hell yes. (changed to oppose)I have to agree with the opposers/neutral-er below, Danny, when I say that your answers to the questions are quite weak. However, you've done a great job in the past, and I know you'll do a great job in the future. -- Kicking222 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support and a nice cup of tea. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support I see no reason to oppose this user. Wooyi 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  76. Duh. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Especially so in light of his response to a suicide threat made by a user yesterday. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support duh.-- danntm T C 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support --A. B. (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support, definitely. --JoanneB 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Switched to Oppose per opposers' motivation. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support. Though I am left mystified as to what Danny will actually do with his re-new-found adminship, I trust him enough not to screw up and he may as well have it since, when he does elect to use it, he could at least clear a few backlogs. :-) --Iamunknown 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support, although I'm not entirely sure why he has to go through RFA again. Oh well. PTO 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Switched to oppose 00:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support per everyone else. Acalamari 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral. Acalamari 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  82. Enough of this silliness, someone promote now please (come on, its the most obvious rfa in ages) -- Tawker 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    To be fair, there are some reasonable opposition and neutral comments that Danny should bear in mind for the future. Majorly (o rly?) 21:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support per above. feydey 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  84. D. Recorder 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support Dina 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support Davewild 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support, of course. --Rory096 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support, and on to WP:100! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  90. Support -- Nick t 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  91. Support. Rarely have I ever met anyone who better understands the core mission of our project, and always has its best interests in mind. Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  92. Edit conflict Pile-on support reconfirming admin status here. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  93. Good chap. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  94. Issues at the office should not have any bearing on his status as an admin, and I'd ask a bureaucrat, or have Danny ask a bureaucrat, to close this and instead promote him given the precedent of former, non-controversial admins being allowed to re-admin without community vote. Despite the opposition below, I believe that my comment still holds merit; the opposition has nothing to do with his de-adminship, it has to do with not liking unrelated actions. Ral315 » 22:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  95. Support <Scratches head> I could've sworn this user is already an admin. ;) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps I should say further that i find this reaffirmation a cleansing and useful thing, hopefully engendering thought and contemplation in both Danny, other admins and those who have been his most vocal detractors and defenders. Speaking out can be refreshing, if conducted in good faith. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    To emphasize teh above... I most definitely think it would speak to the further health of our project, if at least one or more folks who are opposing Danny would rethink their premises and find a way to assess Danny as a human being, with some opinions that are wrong, but do not detract from his essential human goodness. Even if Danny defends some of his wrong actions as per not agreeing them to be wrong, that is something that in the ultimo the arbcom can cure Danny from. As it is, on the balance, Danny is most unlikely to go off his rocker to harm wikipedia, or even troll to get the goat of others. I find it very curious that people would not count his long record of *not* losing the plot against him. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have no opinion on Danny as a human being. That's not under discussion here. What's under discussion here is that Danny asks for the sysop bit under the program, expressly repeated, that first time offenders should be blocked for six months. I find that uncondonable and hence I oppose his candidacy. ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    To be clear, I find both Dannys firm position and some other users firm opposition to same largely principled. I can totally get behind Bishonens reasoning in the totality of her oppose vote. My stance though is informed by the fact that we have the safety valve of the arbcom, who will *not*, I assure you, be intimidated by Dannys seniority, and can be expected to chop Danny down to size, should he get off the reservation with respect to our guidelines and best practises without sufficient justification. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 21:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    As soon as I have a strong suspicion that a candidate for admin will end up at ArbCom for his admin actions I cannot but oppose. It is my principle to not do anything as admin that would warrant a (non-frivolous) ArbCom case against me, and I think that's a standard that should hold for all admins. It is in fact very easy as long as you accept that adminship is not a tool to enhance your editorial opinions. ~ trialsanderrors 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  96. Support - A prime asset to the project.Bakaman 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  97. Support answers to questions are a little perfunctory for the average RfA candidate, but seeing as this isn't the average RfA candidate... pretty obvious support, if we've trusted him at OFFICE there's no reason why we can't trust him with 'delete', 'protect', 'block' and 'rollback'... – Riana ऋ 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  98. Support--MONGO 02:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  99. Drag him back kicking and screaming if need be. DS 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  100. Support. I disagree with some of his deletions, but the other arguments are empty. Also, I think we need more people with Danny's sort of honesty. — CharlotteWebb 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  101. Support - No reason not to. --WinHunter (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  102. Support I trust him.--cj | talk 05:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  103. Well, This makes this process a formailty. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  104. Full support In response to the rapid blocking of new users, Spammmer have an MO just like vandals. If we can block vandals for one or two edits (I know a lot of admins do this) if it fits a known vandalism pattern. Those involved anti-spam do the same thing. we see a lot of CIO and just pain spammers that wont listen to us or policy. Knowing these patterns we tend to act differntly if the case follows that of a spammer and not of a good user. (we also see countless companies promoting themselves on wikipedia also). Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  105. Support, obviously... Yonatan talk 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  106. Support. Danny is already familiar with the tools, and has already demonstrated considerable aplomb at using them. Give him his mop back! - jredmond 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  107. Support per nom. Despite all the words on the page, the nomination statement sums up most of what needs to be said. I find several of the oppose rationales to be frivolous; others, however, have more substance, and I trust the candidate to recognize that his new status will be that of "one of 1000 administrators" and that certain peremptory actions that might have been appropriate in his former role would no longer be in order today. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  108. Support I don't understand people who think that Danny can't be trusted unless he explains why he resigned in full detail. That was his personal choice and there is no reason to believe that he did so under circumstances that should have us questioning his commitment or indicating a potentially malevolent admin. Like most, I'm curious about it and would love to hear full disclosure on the issue but asking him in this context seems like using unfair leverage. As for edit summaries, well he says he'll use the force edit summary option and that's fine with me. Why waste the opportunity to give admin status to someone with such experience of Wikipedia? Pascal.Tesson 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  109. Support. Hemmingsen 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  110. Support Regardless of oppose number 10, where it is stated He also has a history of reverting another admin without explanation [40]. He deleted the article after I forgot to come back and delete it based on the correct policy. What he did was not "reverting another admin". I think that danny can be trusted. We should remember that adminship is not a big deal.. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  111. Support. I find most (not all) of the Oppose arguments ridiculous. Boils down to: can he be trusted with admin tools? Unequivocally, yes. -- LeCourT:C 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  112. Already throught he was an admin Support - Yes, I know the story.... --After Midnight 0001 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  113. Support - a very good editor, an experienced one, a dedicated one. JoeSmack Talk 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  114. Support. My pleasure. Danny's an experienced editor and admin who knows the project inside out. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  115. Support. Obvious, in my opinion. Bucketsofg 20:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  116. Support. Definitely an obvious candidate. -- ChrisO 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  117. Proud to Support! ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  118. Support, and before this RfA is over, they will know that even a god-king can bleed. Will 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  119. support a good wikipedian in good standing. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  120. Support. We are behind you our leader!--yidi 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  121. Support. Immense experience and dedication to this project, negatives are minor. - Merzbow 03:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  122. Support per nom. We need you back, Danny!  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  123. Support - I considered a protest oppose per Amarkov. Really, this process is unnecessary - according to the nomination, Danny was confirmed by an RFA four years ago and he voluntarily resigned under non-controversial circumstances, so his admin bit should be able to be restored on request. There's no reason for this process. --BigDT 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  124. Support - (of course!), and I agree it's unnecessary, but if this is the way we're playing it, give it back to him. Georgewilliamherbert 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  125. Support per answers to questions 4 - 7. Rockpocket 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  126. Support. Pcb21 Pete 09:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  127. Support - After initially seeming likely to set new records for overwhelming support this nom is now trending fail. In reference to the oppose reasons; I find Danny's standing for RFA despite not having to a very good thing, his answers to the questions were short but direct - and it isn't like I can't tell who Danny is without more info, I'm curious about his reasons for stepping down but see no reason I must have that information, and while I strongly agree that clear edit summaries are important to explain actions I understand a failure to adapt to them and accept his intent to do so going forward. I have a bigger problem with the severity of many actions Danny has taken in the past (e.g. a month long block with little/no warning) but in most cases not the 'general premise' behind them. For instance, spam is bad, most spammers won't stop just because we ask them to, but we should try to just talk them down first - because the extra effort required is more than offset by the benefits of the very few who DO 'get it' after discussion. I'd like to see Danny do some things differently, but he has been a great contributor and I don't see any reason to assume that he won't be willing to take these issues into account. --CBD 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  128. coming-out-of-retirement-from-process-matters-support. Danny has dealt with a very high number of remarkably difficult situations on behalf of the project. Anyone with the extent of his contributions will have many failings, real or apparent, exposed. We should not expect admins to be perfect, nor should we expect them to be more perfect the more committed they are. Regards, The Land 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  129. Support. Easy one. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  130. Support - employee or non-employee, Danny's wealth of experience is invaluable to us. He discreetly dealt with more tricky situations in a week than most other admins are faced with during their entire adminship. - Mark 13:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  131. Support His past history has demonstrated to me that he excercises good judgement and is worthy of a renewal of the trust wikipedia places in its admins. -- Avi 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  132. Support. Someone who's been around the project as long as Danny has, and who has the track record that he has, definitely has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. This is "requests for adminship", not "nominations for sainthood". --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  133. Support. Thatcher131 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  134. Support. I like the reasoning behind the answers. MURGH disc. 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  135. Support. seems a no-brainer to me. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  136. Support - is there really a question? I'm all for it. Danny will definitely not explode Wikipedia with administrator tools. The only reason Danny lost admin/crat priveleges in the first place was a voluntary resignation - not a scandal, not some kind of awful antitrust revelation, but a voluntary "I quit the Foundation, so I'll avoid a conflict of interest and resign adminship." Jimbo thought he was good enough once, and Danny hasn't done anything to damage his reputation since. I trust Jimbo's judgement, and the ethical integrity of this candidate. Give him back the big red buttons. ♠PMC♠ 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  137. support. I can't think of a better candidate. -- Cat chi? 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  138. Of course Danny is perfectly competent and qualified to work as an administrator. Some of the objections below are just incomprehensible and have no bearing on the matter being discussed; I hope people have the sense to weight them as such. Shimgray | talk | 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  139. Per the immediately preceeding support. – Steel 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  140. Support - if this one fails, it's proof that RFA is so broken it will need to be abolished immmediately - David Gerard 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'd support that. Based on the activity thus far I suspect I'd support it without the conditional. --Gmaxwell
  141. Support. We know Danny, he errs on the side of caution. Easy call. The oppose !votes? Well-meaning but misguided, in my view. Danny's first instinct is reliably and repeaably to protect the project. In the Olden Days peopel were unwilling to challenge him. Why? He seems like a reaosnable guy, his responses to me have always been fair. The All-Highest clearly trusts him, most of the people I know and trust, trust Danny. Let's not get bogged down in past issues tied to Foundation and office actions, take the man at face value. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  142. Support The whole of Wikimedias legal liability was placed in his hands, and we were fine, a mop isn't that much harder. -Mask? -00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  143. Without any hesitation. Danny has done an enormous ammount of good for Wikipedia, not to mention me personally, and I regret that the community and myself are not willing and able to reward him and encourage future good work to the degree necessary. I will, however, support this nomination wholeheartedly to do as much as I can. Thanks, Danny (this is Sean Black, by the way, heh).--KR | T 00:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  144. Support. I was hesitant at first, but answers to the additional questions have convinced me. Dorange 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  145. Support, boundless experience combined with a willingness to do what needs doing. --Stormie 01:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  146. Support. I do not see a reason why not. Despite the oppose voters' comments, I do not see Danny misuing the admin tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  147. Support. A no-brainer. older ≠ wiser 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  148. Support Is the project better off with him or without him? Duh. Also, because he shows no respect for the RfA process - definitely a clueful candidate. Stevage 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  149. Support — because adminship is no big deal and there is no reason not to; but primarily because I am rendered fanatically convinced by all the "oppose" comments below ➥the Epopt 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  150. Full Support Danny has been here long before most administrators, oversights, bureucrats, checkusers, and arbitrators have even heard of Wikipedia. He built the place. And, being a Steward, he could make himself a sysop here.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, he's not a Steward, according to the link you provided. -- PKtm 03:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  151. Support. His answers, particularly to the question by User:Xiner, show a realism and pragmatism that is no longer very common in the community. On multiple projects (particularly here and on the English Wikisource, where he is still an elected administrator) he has performed admirably as an administrator and as a member of the community. He has never abused his access, and has always been willing to resolve the situations that nobody else wanted to touch because of the unpopularity of any decision.

    I don't see what else we could seriously want in an administrator. I'm sure he could improve in some areas—such as edit summary usage—but those are improvements as an editor, not an administrator. Support wholeheartedly. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:33:04, 06 April 2007 (UTC)

  152. Support a productive, mature, and trustworthy long-term contributor whose answers reflect a degree of realism and flexibility not found among much of the opposition. Opabinia regalis 05:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  153. Support Danny has demonstrated that he can handle the tools. I really don't see this being such a huge big deal. alphachimp 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  154. Support Knows what he's doing, extensive experience. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  155. Support Everything worked pretty well when he was an admin. Committed, experienced user. Oppose voters unconvincing and many show a startling lack of understanding of WP:OFFICE, WP:OTRS, and WP:BLP. —Centrx→talk • 05:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  156. Support, absolutely. --Golbez 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  157. Kusma (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  158. Support Artaxiad 07:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  159. Support, for something that was once no big deal. Whether I trust Danny to know when an article needs to be deleted or a user blocked has nothing to do with policy; rather, I trust Danny's experience, which spans more facets of Wikipedia than most contributors even realize exist, and more time than most of us can claim. The question is whether he's trustworthy to help clean up and maintain the encyclopedia; the answer seems self-evident. -- phoebe/(talk) 07:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  160. Support, the answer to question 10, which I think is spot on, 10 convinced me Danny should be an admin (again) .FelisLeoTalk! 08:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  161. Support. We can ill-afford to lose his experience as an admin. Strong support. --Bduke 08:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  162. Support. Danny is a vital member of the community and a longtime overall great contributor to the project. --Merovingian ※ Talk 09:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  163. Support Trusted, valuable member of the community. --rogerd 10:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  164. Support , naturally. Secretlondon 11:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  165. Support per Newyorkbrad, and per fuller answer to my optional question posted today on my talk page. ElinorD (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  166. Support. I can't say I am up to speed with the drama being played out below, but I don't see any huge red flags, especially for someone who has demonstrated they won't run amok with the tools. Sandstein 12:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  167. Support - don't see a real good reason to oppose, and I trust him with the mop and bucket. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  168. Support. I fully understand his reasons for resignation first and seeking an explicit re-support from the community and completely support his approach. --AlisonW 13:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  169. Support despite evidence of biting and other flaws. Danny = WP. WP = Danny. There's nothing more to say. Give him the old timer's latitude he's earned. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  170. Support Excellent person to work with, both on and off wiki. Danny knows what he's doing, and that's what really counts. Shadow1 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  171. Support per, well, everyone. Coemgenus 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  172. SupportI've no doubt Danny has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and the wisdom to use these tools to that end. --InkSplotch 15:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  173. Support. Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  174. Support - I appreciate his honesty in answering the questions posed here, and trust he has the judgment to use the tools wisely. --Versageek 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  175. Support - Hasn't run screaming despite the nutjobs attacking him continuously, shows fortitude beyond the endurance of most humans. Stan 15:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  176. Support per above. —Moondyne 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  177. Support, trust has long been well established. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  178. Support Definitely. --Mbimmler 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  179. Support --- WAS 4.250 17:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  180. support --dario vet (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  181. Support It completely escapes me why so many people don't trust Danny with the tools. He is as measured and experienced as any of us. YechielMan 17:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  182. Support Voice-of-All 17:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  183. Support --Fabexplosive 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    this user has all of 7 edits on the en site, he has more than a few on the italian wiki, but this is an en vote --Michael Lynn 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  184. Support Trust: Yes. Period. MECU≈talk 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  185. Support. Benefits of adminship outweigh the risks. And adminship is NO BIG DEAL, remember?--Wizardman 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  186. Support per above Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  187. Support one of the most trusted members of the community must be permitted to get on with improving the project. Andreww 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  188. Strong Support Best ever. Known him for sometime now. Trust worthy. Done too much and knows too much. Can't afford not to have him as an admin. --Tarawneh 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  189. Strong support - Do I trust him with the powers that he will get as an admin? Yes. Greeves (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  190. Support. In the oppose section, I see a lot of foolishness and one legitimate point: that Danny's zero-tolerance spam policy amounts to newbie-biting. That may be, but I think Danny is right that corporate manipulation of Wikipedia policy is becoming enough of a problem that we should no longer consider those who participate good-faith newcomers. Chick Bowen 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  191. As nominator. --Cyde Weys 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  192. Support and there's nothing else to say really. If we keep getting rid of the so-called "newbie biters" then wikipedia will end as we know it. We can't give in to spammers, vandals, trolls and special interest groups. Call it newbie biting if you want, I call it keeping the encyclopedia credible. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ay, there's the rub, and it goes far beyond Danny. In my mind the encyclopedia will hardly be less credible if we generally AGF, and revert and warn clueless newbies a couple of times before we conclude they're worthless trolls, but it will erode in quality if the attitude of "my way or the highway" continues to grow. The diehard spammer or special interest group will find a way around having their account unceremoniously blocked for a month; the newbie testing the waters with a slightly inappropriate edit will not, and the impact on the atmosphere of having too many admins who feel entitled (with the best possible intentions) to behave in this way will increase burn-out rate amongst worthwhile contributors as that attitude makes its way into broader community interactions. Martinp 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Recalcitrant spammers need to stopped, there is no question, but if Danny blocks StringsMan (talk • contribs) for six months without warning or notification why we discourage autobiographies (Stringsman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)) this is far outside the bounds of the approach we take with first-time editors who add unwanted content. I get the impression that most supporters didn't bother to look at Danny's block log in detail. There is a pretty strong disconnect between long-time contributors who have internalized the policies and the general public who pretty much has no inkling how Wikipedia operates, and Danny's approach personifies this disconnect. ~ trialsanderrors 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    He has been an admin before and wikipedia is still here, so I have no doubt that having him as an admin will greatly help the project. I just don't subscribe to the "you need to assume good faith until your being overly politically correct" mantra. There's assuming good faith, then there's treating every "tester" like they'll be the next FA writer. Could they be? Maybe, but if they are then I bet that they'd stop after a friendly warning (test1/2). If they don't, then chances are they either a) go away away and stop vandalizing or b) continue onto test4/AIV. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see how this supports a six month block in lieu of a test1/2, or even a strongly worded "Don't spam Wikipedia" warning. You still seem to be unaware that there was no communication from Danny to any of the one-time offenders before or after he blocked them. Here is the whole extent of the exchange:
    • 16:08, November 23, 2006 StringsMan creates "Stringsman"
    • 16:08, November 23, 2006 Danny deletes "Stringsman"
    • 16:11, November 23, 2006 StringsMan creates "Stringsman"
    • 16:12, November 23, 2006 Danny deletes "Stringsman" (spamming)
    • 16:12, November 23, 2006 Danny blocks "StringsMan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (spammer)
    And that's not an isolated case. That's Danny's modus operandi. And I'm sad to see that this kind of Fuck off out of here attitude is condoned by the community. ~ trialsanderrors 04:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sad is one word for it. I have another word for my feelings about it: out-and-out disgusted. It's clearly all about power here. We have supporters stating that he has demonstrated he can handle the tools, that they trust Danny not to misuse the tools, yet it's clear (from the above and from many other provided examples) that he already has misused them, and has (from his statements) absolutely no qualms about doing so again. Despite the glaring presence of more than 50 comments in opposition, I suspect that the talk page pundits here are right: he's just gonna get approved (it's all about power), and to hell with us, to hell with WP precepts, etc. I hope I'm proved wrong, but it doesn't look like it's headed that way from where I sit. And frankly, it's why I don't edit here much anymore. -- PKtm 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    You know what's sad? The fact that most admins who have to step down/get desysoped have almost no chance of getting the bit through RFA again. Why? Because when your an admin you're guaranteed to piss off someone enough that they'll come back to your next RFA and yell about that one thing and enough sympathizers will come that you fail the RFA. I trust Danny. That is why I'm under the support column. And unless he's laundered money or stolen from the WMF in any way (which I very highly doubt), I don't think there's anything you can say that would get me to change my position. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Generally speaking, if an administrator isn't overly abusive, they don't struggle much at a reconfirmation. Danny's not unique - he was overly abusive and is being held accountable for it, although it appears that the massive opposition won't be enough for anything to be halted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  193. Support; I have no doubts regarding Danny's competence or devotion to the project. Kirill Lokshin 21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  194. Support. The idea that someone who has been around here for years and worked as the lawyer to the foundation with access to the most sensitive data cannot be trusted with admin tools is one I simply can't credit, with due respect to those who hold this view. Sam Blacketer 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Correction, I was never the lawyer for the Foundation. I worked in the Foundation office in St. Pete. Danny 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  195. Support I understand the concerns expressed by some oppose voters, bur surely the question is whether this editor understands policy, and can and will implement it. And the answers are yes, yes and yes.--Anthony.bradbury 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  196. Strong Support. Danny has more experience in the inner and outer workings of wikipedia and wikimedia then we could ever hope or want to know. He merits the admin tools once again. --Valley2city₪‽ 01:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  197. Support Experienced Fred Bauder 01:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  198. Support Of course he should be admin. The fact that there is this much contention is just silly. Witty lama 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  199. Support Experienced and willing to work. While I disagree with some of Danny's decisions, his clear and straightforward answers make me confident that we can work any disagreement out. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  200. Support WP:200? —freak(talk) 03:10, Apr. 7, 2007 (UTC)
  201. Danny stands for very similar ideals as I do regarding our treatement and processes when dealing with BLPs, and has shown in the past that he has more backbone than 90% of the current administrators when dealing with controversial issues. A splendid candidate who has shown loyalty beyond the call of duty in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Daniel Bryant 03:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  202. Strong Support for a lengthy and wide range of accomplishments. Modernist 03:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  203. Support Do I trust this user not to misuse or abuse the tools? Yes. Therefore support. James086Talk | Email 04:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  204. Hell yeah! MaxSem 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  205. Support, per James086. --Oldak Quill 06:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  206. Support. Hasn't broken Wikipedia yet, and he's had five years to do it. Remarkably patient and reasonable, given the crap he must have had to put up with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  207. Support I found some of Danny's actions contraversial but it is a fact that he had much more sensitive powers and the overall balance of his actions was positive. It seems ridiculous to deny him his mop and bucket. Alex Bakharev 07:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  208. Support A newbie mensch who's been here one day less than I. He deserves the support just for allowing himself to be put through this fucked-up process. Eclecticology 09:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  209. Support without hesitation. One of our most experienced, best-intentioned and competent users, let alone admins. Batmanand | Talk 13:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  210. Support I'm sure everyone screws up occasionally but the overall balance is the key. --Spartaz Humbug! 13:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  211. Support - A very good user, I have difficulties understanding some of the oppose votes.--Aldux 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  212. Yea, also per Aldux, I don't get why oppoing for making some bad b-crat decisions, this is RFA not RFB Jaranda wat's sup 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  213. I've had dinner with danny in person, and I think he's a decent fellow. Like anyone deeply involved with Wikipedia, he has made some controversial decisions, many likely due to the exasperation one encounters in dealing day-in-day-out with vandals, spammers, POV-pushers, and idiots. If there is anyone well qualified enough to quote and enforce wikipedia policy unapologetically, it's Danny. Give him the tools.—Perceval 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  214. Support. Clearly. The opposers and obsessive question-askers seem really bitter to me. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  215. Strong Support. I don't really see a reason to oppose Danny, and I think his prior record shows that he knows the tools backwards and forwards. Nishkid64 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  216. Support --Paloma Walker 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  217. Support - as someone said "I always thought he already was one :)" -- Arwel (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  218. Support John254 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  219. Support, but if support is bellow 70%, count my vote as an oppose because I don't want to see another contentious elevation. Cool Hand Luke 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    This is the most ridiculously phrased comment I've seen on any RFA anywhere. For the benefit of everyone involved, please decide whether you or not Danny will do a good job if re-elected admin, and support or oppose on that basis, not based on the numerical threshholds of others around you. —freak(talk) 00:54, Apr. 8, 2007 (UTC)
    There, there, some people like to be always on the winning side ;-) -- ReyBrujo 04:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think he will. Easily. He always was before. Though the oppose votes express a legitimate concern, I think some actions are necessary to defend the integrity of this encyclopedia. Blocking is a matter of protection, not of some imagined natural right. It so happens Danny has a good crap detector. However, I was opposed to the 'crats action during a previous request with many votes. I would rather he not be given the mop at this time than be elevated with a false consensus. Cool Hand Luke 05:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  220. Strong Support, after a bit of flip/flopping around and reading Danny's supplemental statement. We need more admins like Danny. // PTO 01:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  221. Support - looking over the candidate's contributions and log, I can't really spot any action so dastardly and unfair as to warrant the accusations posted by some oppose voters. I don't know much about the wiki-politics surrounding this nomination, but the assumption that someone formerly involved in an official position with the Wikimedia Foundation is incapable of making basic administrative decisions doesn't make much sense ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  222. Support As someone who's not familiar with Danny's edits (I've been under a rock, I suppose), I wasn't thrilled with the answers to Q 1-3. But the answers to the other questions tell me that, while I might disagree with some actions Danny might take, he's a thoughtful person who has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, so I'll support. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  223. Support, esp. per El_C, and congratulations on the RfA with the most questions ever. Tomertalk 07:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  224. Support. This is not a normal RfA, but rather the roundabout confirmation of a longtime admin. Being an admin can mean dealing with hundreds of users, articles, and thousands of edits. We can't expect 100% perfection, and we don't need to. While I certainly don't agree with every decision that Danny has made and am concerned about some issues, on the whole he's made a positive contribution to the project. I expect that if re-elected he'll be at least as helpful as the average admin. If I owned a restaurant I'd fire a chef who didn't show up in clean clothes at the start of his shift, and I'd also fire him if his clothes were still clean five hours later. -Will Beback · † · 10:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  225. Support. He has faithfully served Wikipedia for a long time already, and has demonstrated that he is trustworthy and can use the tools as well as any other admin. In his previous role, he has probably done more than any other contributor to keep Wikipedia running, by removing the threat of lawsuits and takedown notices by taking care of BLP vios. Thanks Danny - Martinp23 13:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Oppose

Oppose. I am very well aware of the immense amount of good work Danny has done for the project, both as an editor and in his position at WP:OFFICE. I did not agree with some of his promotions as a bureaucrat, but those were not big things and not relevant now. I regretfully have to oppose however per Danny's low usage of edit summaries, currently at 25% for major edits and 49% for minor edits. Yes I know that more edit summaries don't make a better admin, and I am fully aware that Danny has been a very busy guy at WP:OFFICE. However, the fact stands that edit summaries help others understand what you changed. Edit summaries are way of showing curtsey to other editors and a sign that you care about their time no less than about your own time. Danny will pass with or without my vote, and he fully deserves that. However, hereby I would like to ask Danny to use more edit summaries when he contributes. I will gladly remove my vote should Danny mention that he will try that, and/or if he changes his preferences so that he is warned when an edit is submitted without a summary. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
When I started editing, very few people ever filled in edit summaries, and I admit, I never got into the habit. I should have. I try to, but I often forget. On the other hand, I was just told that there is a box I can check in the preferences that will make me fill in the summaries. I will check that to help me remember. Danny 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I switched to support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate to jump in down here, but doesn't 25% of 26000 equal six thousand five hundred summarized edits? Atshields0 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The tool only check the last 150 major and minor edits, not all. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Protest oppose. This is a waste of time, and you show that you knew that with your non sequitur answers. You could at least pretend that there is any chance this will fail... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amarkov (talk • contribs).
    Could you please be a bit more specific about your reasons for opposing? - Mark 04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. -Amarkov moo! 04:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    It is not a waste of time. Danny had a lot of clout as the right hand of Jimbo and bureaucrat. And as mentioned in the nomination, such a hard job was not without controversies. Danny resigned, for his own reasons, and then wanted to see if he still had the community trust to be an admin. I believe Danny did the right thing to resign his adminship and bureaucratship together with his job at WP:OFFICE. You don't want some people to later offend you by saying that your current powers are leftover from better times or other unfair and obnoxious comments people are quite good at coming up with. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Then he should come up with better answers. The first answer is the only one that even fully addresses the question. Respect is the only reason this isn't a real oppose. -Amarkov moo! 05:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    You have an extraordinarily large corpus of work to draw from. I don't think Danny needs to spell out that he's a good editor (question 2) or that he's been in thousands of disputes (question 3), considering the fact that engaging in disputes was pretty much his job at WMF. YMMV, of course. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Years of work, moving 2000 miles, 26000 main page edits, and you're voting against him for adminship because you thought his response to nomination was "non sequitur"? Your criteria for admin are tough. I hope you're able to meet them yourself some day when you're old enough to drive. Atshields0 10:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    PLease keep this civil and respect the right of other editors to express their opinions on an RfA. ViridaeTalk 10:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am starting to get worried... Atshields0 comment here, Deskana's comment in the talk page... seems as, suddenly, high edit count is all that matters to justify "editing capabilities," when most are really picky with "common" candidates... -- ReyBrujo 12:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Eh, what I took away from Atshields0 was that Danny has done so *much* (as evidenced by the main namespace edits, among other things) that something more than a hand-waving claim of "non sequitur" responses should be provided for the oppose. I thought Danny's replies were pretty good. --Gmaxwell 13:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, apparently I need to clarify what my problem is. It is not that I can't properly evaluate his contributions; that would be incredibly stupid. The problem is the attitude, percieved or otherwise, of "I don't really need to do this". He doesn't, true. But how am I going to trust now that he won't do the same to other processes, which he does need to do? -Amarkov moo! 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I will agree with that with Danny's work at WP:OFFICE some controversy is unavoidable. However I feel that there are a number of situations where Danny plunged right into controversial and unilateral actions, and where the controversy was not related to OFFICE and were perfectly avoidable. His actions over Israel News Agency, where he made a second unilateral deletion after it had been legitimately undeleted following a full, and long DRV discussion constitutes wheel-warring in my opinion (and the deletion summary "this is tiresome" is just useless). In related matters, although that is a bureaucrat decision, he promoted Sean Black's adminship with considerably less than normal support, ignoring the opposers and substituting his own judgment for the consensus requirement. He supported Essjay for bureaucratship and decided to promote himself when the consensus was in the "discretion" range. I see that this RFA is passing anyway, but I feel that there are enough questionable actions, and ignorance of consensus and discussion, made with the admin tools which cannot be excused with OFFICE duties. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding the Israel News Agency: there was significant offline wrangling over that that you were not privy to. If you knew what actually happened, you wouldn't be faulting Danny over this one. Coming from someone who knows a bit more about that situation, I'd say that he did an extremely good job of it. --Cyde Weys 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    An important part of adminship is communication, and if there was significant offline wrangling over it, there should have been some information to the community as to why the results of two DRVs and two AFDs were set aside with apparently no discussion. Saying, "I am deleting this, I have reasons for this which you don't know of, please trust me" just does not cut it for me. It raises the level confusion, being done by a person in the position Danny had, even more so (what is going on here? Why is this suddenly deleted?). That an eventual third AFD did result in the article being deleted in an open and transparent manner illustrates that there was no need for short-circuiting the discussion here. It could have simply been nominated with a reason ("No sources" is pretty compelling), and it would probably be gone in a week without the confusion. For the record, I am not opposing because I want to be mean, or because I think Danny is a bad person (he is clearly a very dedicated contributor), it is because of my concerns over apparent lack of respect for consensus, unilateralism, and lack of communication when doing so. Danny was perfectly within his rights to not relenquish his adminship, and it would clearly have been justified for him to simply request return of sysop tools by simply asking a bureaucrat. When he did choose to ask for input at RFA, a very admirable decision, then he did accept the possibility of some opposition, right? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Dude, your ignorance is hanging out the back of your pants. "I am deleting this, I have reasons for this which you don't know of, please trust me" is the whole point of WP:OFFICE and if you haven't grasped that, you need to read it again, carefully. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I must apologise for causing such a ruckus, I never meant to be insulting (as insults go, it would have been kind of lame, not so?). I thought I was merely pointing out the obvious: if one of your friends had his fly open, wouldn't you mention it? —Phil | Talk 22:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Except even before the first deletion OFFICE indicated that Danny would use his alternate Dannyisme account for office actions, but he neither used that account nor (please correct me if I'm wrong) indicated anywhere that the deletions were office actions. If any other regular sysop did this, it would be a big issue. But if Danny isn't clear about when he's acting in an OFFICE capacity, then he's acting as a regular (rash) sysop or he isn't communicating.--Chaser - T 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sjakkalle, there is a policy on the English Wikipedia, one of our oldest and most important ones, which you have completely forgotten. It's the "assume good faith" policy. That policy says that if Danny tells you that an article has to be deleted for reasons that he cannot share with you, you are to assume that Danny is acting in good faith. Please reacquaint yourself with this highly important policy, and its unstated corollary: "You should not expect to be consulted on every decision." Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    AGF is not meant to quash administrative oversight. Danny, assuming good faith himself, should also have replied more often to questions regarding his actions. An "Oops, sorry that I used the wrong account... this is an OFFICE issue, should have used Dannyisme" would have been sufficient. I think your point, Ms. Martin, is not well-thought out. Xoloz 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Again, I am not opposing due to actions made due to WP:OFFICE. I realize that actions there occasionally need to be done without too much attention being given, privacy issues for instance. But the points I am concerned about are unrelated to OFFICE. Actions where OFFICE was not an issue have still been carried out rashly, and I think better communication is a key before I can entrust Danny with sysop tools. Regarding AGF, I have no doubt that Danny had the best of intentions when he did what he did, but the actions still concern me. Good faith or not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think it's as easy to tell which of his actions had to do with his work for the office and which didn't as you seem to think. Mak (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Dude, how much easier it would have been if he'd felt it was worth bothering to tell the little people. Grace Note 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, I can't help thinking that someone who resigned his adminship last month when he didn't need to does not have the best interest of the project at heart. I say wait a few months and try again. EnsRedShirt 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but I believe he resigned because he had never actually gone through an RfA before and had received his position as an artifact of working for the Wikimedia Foundation. Upon resigning from there, I believe he felt that it would be improper to keep the bit without requesting community input, hence this RfA. It seems to show a respect for the community and an effort to avoid any appearance of impropriety. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    From the above nomination:"Danny was first directly appointed to the role of admin by Jimbo, and then later, in 2003, his adminship was confirmed by RFa election. " He Has been through an RfA in the past, and should know better than most that to resign then come back a few weeks later should question his commitment to the project. EnsRedShirt 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Question his commitment to the project? How many jobs have you left for Wikipedia Ens? How many people did you convince to donate? How many years did you get yelled at on the phone? How many death threats did you have to deal with? How many contracts did you have to push for? "Question his commitment to the project". Amazing. I need to stop reading this page.
    FYI Danny decided to run for the board and wanted to climb the ladder from scratch just like everyone else, just as it said in his resignation letter. Try reading up on what's happening before voting against someone. Atshields0 11:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Exceptionally Weak Oppose, While Your a very dedicated Wikipedian and your almost 5 years of excellant contributions and work for the foundation make me a tad bit rather reluctant to oppose, Your leniency With Mike Garcia (banned again) a.k.a Johnny the Vandal and the role you played in getting him unbanned back in August 2004 and his subsequent years of deception and abusive sockpuppetry turns me away into disappointment. --Tom Riddle 19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    This user's third edit, the other two being in 15th June 2006. Read into that what you will. --Deskana (ya rly) 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Let's leave at this: he's in a position to know. Mackensen (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose appears to brush off criticism, I tended to disagree with his decision processes on WP:OFFICE, his answers to the first few questions above reads to me sorta like "I'm danny I dont really need to go through this process". Sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Changed to Oppose Extensive record of blocking newcomers for a month without so much of a warning for fairly innocuous additions (Creating an article on the CIO Europe of HSBC and linking to it from the HSBC article doesn't strike me as a bad faith effort, even if the article turned out to be a copyvio), various unacceptable edit summaries and general a WP:BITE attitude. ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    No change after response to Q5. We're all shaped by the environment we work in, and if Danny's previous job leads to a "Circle the wagons we're surrounded by enemies" mindset as he plainly admits that can only work to the detriment of the project. Maybe two or three months working in the trenches might be beneficial. ~ trialsanderrors 07:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Working in the trenches? Yes, while you were slaving away in your underwear generating terabytes of text on discussion pages, Danny was busy sipping champagne and cavorting about with European royalty at the St. Pete office. He could never possibly understand the horror of having a page he wrote on the plight of the blue power ranger deleted. "Trenches". Excellent choice of words, Oh noble soldier of Wikipedia. Atshields0 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    This is inappropriate sarcasm and is not helpful. Regardless of what we think of Danny's nomination let's keep the discussion civil, please. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Civility isn't telling a man that devoted the last few years of his personal and professional life that he needs to "spend some time in the trenches". Ridiculous statements require ridiculous responses. Atshields0 05:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose per above reasons. Naming Danny as an admin is anything but a supposedly "obvious decision" in my view. If it weren't for lamentable internal WP politics (i.e., people not wanting to speak up because of reprisals), this candidate would be seeing tons of opposition due to his behavior and demeanor in the past. -- PKtm 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Excuse me if I'm being naive but I can't imagine any wikipeda-related reprisals that anyone would actually fear. After all, what's the worst that's going to happen to anyone opposing Danny or anyone else for that matter? I swear this is an honest question. Pascal.Tesson 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    The Cabal will call in the Rouge Admin Death Squad on you, of course. That is to say, there is no Cabal, and there certainly is no Rouge Admin Death Squad that might be called in to quash dissenters. Nothing to see here, move along. ♠PMC♠ 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Relinquished positions of trust along with his resignation from WMF. This is in itself a good thing. But he does not explain his reasons for departure. I would be happy to support if this was explained. Danny linked his departure with those positions of trust, including the admin position. Of course he did not need to explain why he resigned, but once the linkage is forged I can't evaluate his fitness without understanding the full reasons for his giving them up. Edivorce 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose, switched from support - I've looked at Danny's actions in a way that ignores his service with the WMF, and I've found stuff that I would normally oppose a user for (newbie biting, exemption from rules, etc.). Not something that I would like in an admin, foundation guy or not. PTO 00:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Here is groupthink at its finest. I don't want in this discussion anymore. {PTO} {speak} 21:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per trialsanderrors. I am very surprised to find myself opposing but agree that his block log shows very harsh treatment of what look like fairly innocuous mistakes. I am also uncomfortable with supporting the request while his reasons for resigning remain unknown. WjBscribe 01:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am unconvinced by Danny's response to the questions. They only justify his conduct if one accepts that someone who adds spam to Wikipedia intends only to use it as a publicity vehicle rather than simply having misunderstood our policies (which the ordinary user of Wikipedia as an information source does not read). Given the unfortunate state of some articles it is an easy mistake to make. Were those contributors dealt with kindly they have the potential to become valuable members of the Community. I agree that a harsh line should be taken where warnings are not headed, but pre-emptive blocks that assume bad faith should not be what we are about. The fact that Danny sees nothing wrong with these types of blocks worries me and he would no doubt continue to use the block button in the same way. In don't think that's the sort of admin that will benefit the project- Danny skills and experience seem to me to come at too high a price. WjBscribe 07:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    The resignation letter that Wired magazine published was perfectly clear. Perhaps you should read it. Atshields0 05:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose, after review of his deletion history he seems to be fond of the speedy delete rather than openning the deletion up for discussion. I think that even in the cases where he had good reason to delete he was not right to take this upon himself to do without discussion. Of course there will always be some articles that are obvious canidates for speedy delete, but if you look at his deletion logs you will find a number of actions that are reverted by other admins. [41] [42] [43] [44] He also has a history of reverting another admin without explanation. [45] No-one, not even an admin is an expert on every topic, thats why the usual process is to nominate an article for deletion, so the community can come to an informed concensus. That community involvement is what the project is all about, if we wanted an encyclipedia where a small set of editors had 100% say over what was relevant and what wasnt we'd all be reading britanica still. Despite his other notable qualities I'd like to see him have to wait a while and demonstrate to the community that he cares about our input. Another complaint I have is that he is very poor at putting adequate comments in edit summaries[46][47], that further goes to the point of lack of respect for others in the community. --Michael Lynn 02:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    per Eagle101 I'm glad to hear that was the situation, but I'm still concerned about the other issues that show a preference for unilateral action over community concensus. I'm also concerned about his actions and retoric concerning new comers that is overly jaded at best, and outright xenophobic at worst --Michael Lynn 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Let's see what some of them were: #7 was: #7 was "In the Joshtafarian dictionary, Josh translates as 'Purebred legend' which if you ask me is pretty Wack, when josh in hebrew means God... i sense something divine is going on here..." I have commented on Fleshlight above--the creator admitted on the phone that he made teh article solely to advertise his website, and the company agreed because it was good advertising. YOu might want to read some of the deletion discussions there. I still contend that there is no need to include every contestant on every reality show on Wikipedia. In fact, there should be far stricter standards for BLP, which are the cause of most of our recurring legal issues. Danny 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    You were right to delete #7, you were even right to speedy delete it, the problem i have is your lack of documentation, you clearly had reasons to delete it, you just gave them to me, but none of those reasons were "blah blah" as your edit summary indicated. Edit summaries, especially for deleting a page, are not important for you, they are important to everyone that can't read your mind and doesn't have access to deleted content. regarding the fleshlight issue, yes it was an ad, yes they shouldnt have done it, but that doesnt mean the topic was not worthy of mention on the Wiki. The proper course of action would have been to remove all the advert content, leaving it a stub if need be, and if you were really unhappy about the article then you should have put it to an AfD vote. This was not a case of vandalism, and the topic itself was not nonsense. This was a clear case of you deleting something unilaterally because you didn't think it was worth talking about. I get that sort of editing from my father's copy of britanica thank you, I don't find it all that useful. Remember one of the biggest things that makes this project great is that the community gets to deside what is worthy of discussing. A good example was again in the Musa Cooper case. I agree it probably isnt notable enough to be there. If i were voting on it, i would vote to delete it. but as you can see from the AfD log after it was restored then put to a vote, i (and you) would have been overruled by the community. That is how the system is supposed to work. And I can't vote for someone that I don't think will respect the community concensus even when its contrary to their own opinion. --Michael Lynn 20:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose (Switched from support)→ Michael Lynn and the other opposers have made a good point. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per deletion history and other issues which have been cited above. RFerreira 07:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose due to his admin actions, particularly deletions. --SPUI (T - C) 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose; has used power irresponsibly too often to be trusted with it again. Everyking 08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Sjakalle, and I want to register my protest against the execrable rudeness and condescension voiced by some commentators against that highly respectable editor. I hope Phil is ashamed of himself. (No, I realize those comments weren't Danny's fault and they haven't affected my !vote. Registering an objection to them wouldn't have killed him, though.) Bishonen | talk 08:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
  15. Oppose Sorry - unsatisfactory answers to questions.--Runcorn 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I knew Danny could be gruff, and I knew he was a terrible b'crat (at least twice closing requests -- Sean Black RfA No. 2 and Essjay's RfB -- in which he voiced previous support, about the stupidest thing a b'crat could do.) I was unaware, however, that he was also unkind to newbies. Per Bishonen, it certainly doesn't help that many among his supporters have exhibited obnoxious behavior here. Answer to Question 5 also shows candidate's own hubris -- every newbie should be treated as a rational being who might be won over to the noble goals of the project with a little kindness. I'm not the most active editor in the world, and even I can think of three "spammers" that I have helped to "redeem". I cannot support this in good conscience any longer, and I urge Danny to take the opposers much more seriously than some of his supporters appear to. Xoloz 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. I'm not really sure what to make of this. Yeah, Danny seems to have done some good work at the office, and I mostly like his tough stance on crap, but I get the feeling he's on some sort of mission. I'd really just like to know what his motivations are, why he left the Foundation, etc. Trust is a two-way street. If he doesn't trust us enough to reveal any possible conflicts of interest, I can't see how we can trust him to be an administrator (and more, since I assume that is the direction you are heading). This is a unique situation, and it needs to be treated with a much higher level of scrutiny. --- RockMFR 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Even before Danny resigned, I was hearing a number of complaints about Danny's bruqueness, his tendency to just unilaterally do things and then refuse to discuss them afterwards etc. I don't doubt that Danny is a good contributor to Wikipedia, but I think he has got to used to getting his own way and that has made him out of touch. So, I would really like Danny to experience Wikipedia as a normal editor for three or four months before I would vote support, to ensure he knows what it's like for most of us. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose I have vacillated many times on this candidacy. First, I admire his position against using Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Second, he has done more at Wikipedia than 99% of us. Third and most importantly, I don't believe Danny had to resign his adminship (then again, I don't know the whole story). How could I vote against such a candidate? Well, I am reminded, after reading Danny's answers to my questions (thank you, btw, for taking the time and effort), of a user talk page I recently visited, a page periodically punctuated by the muted cries of helpless newbies. And unfortunately, that seals the deal for me. Xiner (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - (1) Lack of edit summaries is not a reason to oppose, but Danny's answer Q4.C. "far too much emphasis is being placed on the way an edit is made than on the quality of the contribution" shows a lack of respect for the consensus that brought us the important edit summary guidelines and a lack of understanding of the importance of using edit summaries as part of being civil. (2) A second, independent reason to oppose is trust. It is acceptable that you relinquished positions of trust along with resigning from WMF with out explaining. However, without knowing why you relinquished and resigned your positions, there is not enough information to judge whether you are a trusted user. Relinquished positions of trust along with resigning from WMF are very significant Wikipedia events for which full disclosure is required to put you back into a position of trust. You can be an editor with secret resignation reasons, but RfA's trust requirement does not permit you to have it both ways. (3) Failure to provide sufficient answers to the questions is reason enough to oppose all on its own. This tells me that when newcomers come to you for answers for an administrative action you took against them, it is unlikely that you will provide them the answers they need to understand your decision so that they will continue on their bad behavior to the disruption of Wikipedia. It shows a lack of respect for this RfA process and those who went through it. Alkivar's observation of the attitude "I'm Danny. I don't really need to go through this process" does come across in this very RfA and is not a basis to support a request for adminship. If you are tired, worn-out, and fed-up, consider taking a wikibreak. (4) Admins are "trusted users who understand policy." It appears that you use your well-developed reputation as a justification to yourself to avoid complying with policy and other process. You have used significant authority over others for so long that it appears that your skill in cultivating trust in others without that authority has diminished. Even if you understand policy, I am not convinced that you will comply with it or defer your judgment to the judgment of the consensus to the level that other admins do. Your significant Wikipedia experiences seem to work against you, as you seem to have become too jaded to become an administrator. Accordingly, I oppose this RfA. -- Jreferee 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Further on my comments: In this post that Denny made in another RfA on 5 April 2007 while Denny's RfA is pending, Denny threw gasoline on a fire that already was burning rather that to address the matter as an administrator would in posting, " I believe he posted it 4 times, but one was deleted? I think he violated 3rr on his own RfA." Compare SlimVirgin's post and Crum375's reasonable posts to Denny's post on that very thread. This tells me that as of this present RfA, Denny's is not ready to be an administrator. -- Jreferee 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Per Antandrus' comment below, my apology to Danny over my confusion of the Denny post as a Danny post. And thank you, Antandrus, for your kind nudge. -- Jreferee 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Are you sure you don't mean Denny, not Danny? Antandrus (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose For someone with such vast experience, there is a strange lack of knowledge of, or at least respect for, our rules and conventions.--Brownlee 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Neutral. I decided to pretend that this was not a foregone conclusion and actually research the candidate's contributions a bit. Unfortunately, what I found is ambiguous. 98% of his work is just great, adding entries to wikisource, free images, and the like, and there is a lot of that good work. Unfortunately, among that good work, there are a number of nitpicks, that don't disqualify, but are hardly model editor level either. Edit summary usage: 26% for major edits and 50% for minor edits. That's not very good. Here he removes a {{wikify}} tag without really wikifying the article - he wiki-linked one word, but didn't fix the (sole) section heading, and frankly, left the article a rather pitiful stub with bad references and WP:BLP concerns (uncited clearly controversial statements). Here he removes an unformatted external link from an article, leaving the article with no references whatsoever. The link should probably have read http://www.edakkunnitemple.org/html/wariam.html#ikkandawarrier but rather than spend a few minutes looking for that, and making the article a noticeably better stub, he just deleted. Why? Don't know, no edit summary in either case. Here he blocks a new user for a month for adding two external links to an article, without warnings. Now, sure, probably it wasn't a productive contributor. But was it really a hardened spammer that kept vandalizing after multiple warnings? What happened to blocks being preventative and not punitive? Heck, what happened to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? On the other hand, as everyone writes above, he has been through the fires of hell with WP:OFFICE, no doubt that has made him a bit rough around the edges. Anyway, maybe this will help someone else decide. It didn't help me enough. Now I'll go and clean up the issues I found. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Changing to Oppose, and I'm very sorry, because Danny has been admirably honest in stating his views. "In cases of spam or obvious bad intent, I will continue to bite." Yes, Fleshlight wanted their article to be an ad - that didn't mean we shouldn't have had an article, it just shouldn't have been an ad. It should have been stubbed down from an ad, and eventually made NPOV, which is what happened. We shouldn't delete articles "in revenge" for the bad intentions or behaviour of the article subject, those should be irrelevant (or we'd hardly have an article on Charles Manson, would we?). Arch Coal is another example that started as spam: an ad, explicitly written for pay by MyWikiBiz, but clearly notable. It was stubbed down, then improved to NPOV. Just a few sections below is the RfA of someone who started here with "obvious bad intent", far worse than adding two inappropriate links; had she been blocked for a month without warning after that first vandalism edit, would she be standing for RfA now? I am very sorry, since Danny has done more good for the encyclopedia than almost everyone, certainly more than I have. He is honest, forthright and honorable. Unfortunately, what he is honest about is just not what I want in an admin. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per the answer to question 8. Danny has been high handed and even rude on a few occaisions in the past. If he feels that this is acceptable behavior in an admin, I cannot support. Eluchil404 20:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Reluctant oppose. User has reatly contributed to the quality of the encyclopedia. However, there are many examples of where this user has failed to abide by WP:BLOCK, WP:BITE, and WP:CIVIL, all of which concern me. It seems likely this nomination will pass, but I cannot in good conscience support. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strongly oppose. I will not re-support rogue admins. Grace Note 23:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose per unsatisfactory answers to RFA questions, misuse of administrative tools and out of process actions, as well as apparent conflicts of interest when entrusted with elevating others to administrator status. Silensor 01:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose for answers to optional questions. PaddyM 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose per nom. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    You might want to expand on that. I'm pretty sure that as the nominatort Cyde (talk • contribs) supports Danny's RfA... Pascal.Tesson 04:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly. Allowing yourself to be nominated by Cyde shows a frightening lack of judgment. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    So...the friend of my enemy is my enemy? Have we sunk that far into blind factionalism? Bunch, you've always struck me before as a thoughtful commentator, and if you're actually making your decision on this basis, that gives me great concern about more than just this one RfA. I hope you can clarify or reconsider. --RobthTalk 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    This objection is meaningless and incomprehensible. I'd have happily nominated him if the matter arose; so would a dozen other people. Would that make him somehow a different, better, candidate? Shimgray | talk | 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    If I am not allowed to take my opinion of the nominator's character into account when evaluating candidates, why do we have nominators at all? Happy-fun window-dressing only? If Willy on Wheels nominated me for admin, would you be required to ignore that? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose for newbie-biting. I personally know a couple of people whose only contributions have been spam. They're smart, good-hearted people, and they could be possibly be turned into wonderful contributors if encouraged to write about topics other than their own companies. Kla'quot 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wow. This comment really blew me away. I honestly expected to view your contribs and see an empty page, ... but thats not the case, so I can't imagine how you've formed this position. Lets pretend for a moment that some person called you on the phone, screaming that they are going to sue Wikimedia because some users removed their advertisement and after you politely explain that how the foundation doesn't control the users and how we're not a free advertising service they are still screaming. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't go find their account, revert any of the missed spamming, then block them? ... Obviously that isn't what happened in all of Danny's spammer blocks, but it's what happened in more than a few of them. You can see from his contribs that he isn't an RC partoler, ... a lot of stuff came to his attention because people called the office. I've seen in first hand.
    If Danny hadn't blocked people like that, then I'd be opposing him. So whats a man to do? You'll oppose for doing something, I'd oppose for not doing something. At the end of the day he has to follow his heart and his judgment and do the best he can. It's funny that you think he was causing so much harm, but you never showed up to ask him about these 'bad blocks' when he was an admin. --Gmaxwell 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Considering Danny's reputation for retaliation and perceived/actual authority, are you really that surprised people didn't oppose him when he made actions as a foundation employee? -- nae'blis 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Danny's rationale for his block of user:Ekraam did not indicate that Ekraam had contacted the office. For contributions like these, the appropriate response is usually Template:Welcomespam. There are obviously people who stubbornly and aggressively try to exploit Wikipedia for commercial purposes. We can't make that our stereotype of everyone who adds an advert article or spam link once or twice. Your third sentence indicates you're applying a stereotype even to people who have friends who've done that. Kla'quot 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose, per everyone above-K@ngiemeep! 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose , per egregiously excessive blocks, poor deletion summaries, etc., etc. What they said. David Mestel(Talk) 08:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Change to strongest possible oppose: I could never, ever, support someone who did this. David Mestel(Talk) 07:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Read on a few more edits, where it is shown that Danny gives an explanation. – Chacor 07:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Oppose, per Dev920 above.AKAF 08:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Oppose per trialsanderrors and AnonEMouse. I've thought about this quite a lot.-gadfium 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Oppose per trialsanderrors and AnonEMouse. Stating that he'd "support a poll for regular reconfirmation of admins" is an empty promise, since there have been several failed attempts to establish that, and Danny knows it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Oppose due to answers for both mandatory and optional questions. I'm sorry, but I definitely do not hold the same opinions as you. - ζpLoT // 10:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Reluctant oppose. There is no question that Danny has done a lot of outstanding work for the encyclopedia. Also, I think he has earned the trust to have have noncontroversially remained a janitor after resigning his Foundation positions had he chosen to do so, becoming "one of a thousand". But his answers to the nom questions above make it increasingly clear that in choosing to go through RFA, he is saying "take me as I am or vote accordingly". That involves all the issues raised by others above. So this becomes a WP philosophical issue, with Danny's RFA representing the position that Wikipedia is under seige from vandals and spammers and we should just "cut our losses" and chase away whoever appears to be being nonconstructive. While I don't dispute vandalism and spamming is an issue, I think the gradual erosion of civility, AGF, and collaborative effort are longer term a bigger threat to the health of the project. Thus my regretful and reluctant oppose, with a plea to Danny to recognize that if he does get promoted, the fact that his support level is currently running in the 70s rather than the 90s he deserves is a statement about the discomfort a significant part of the community feels as to his stated approach. If he does not get promoted, I would encourage him to apply again at RFA soon if he feels he can reshape his approach to be different, and continue to be a respected and productive Wikipedian in any way he wishes. Martinp 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Regretfully oppose. If you had continued to retain your sysop bit, there would have been some minor grousing (perhaps) about power cabals, but as it is you stood to take the community's opinion to heart with respect to your additional tools. Unfortunately, your answers to both the standard and additional questions display a willingness to violate Wikipedia principles such as Assume Good Faith, equality of editors, and transparency of actions, that I find too troubling to support you. Furthermore, your controversial promotions as 'crat stirred up more crap than I can reasonably count on this project, and you still do not seem to see how that is your responsibility. "From the ground up" may mean re-examining some of your long-held beliefs. If someone with tens of thosands of edits and thousands of hours of service is not able to avoid biting new contributors, I have to worry about the viability of the project as a whole. You should have been an easy confirmation, and yet... -- nae'blis 15:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Oppose Your blocking record, as others have mentioned, is not a good sign. -- tariqabjotu 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Not at this time. Seems to have lost view of the idea that administrators are servants of the community. —Cryptic 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. I recongize the good work you have done at WP:OFFICE. However, adminship is a privilege not an entitlement. Furthermore, I have lost a great deal of trust for your actions as a crat', and cannot support you at this time. - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Oppose per WP policy. Given the multiple examples of questionable behavior and the user's own statements, I do not trust this user to follow or enforce WP policy as understood by the community. User displays a pattern of behavior: he is not interested in communicating and not interested in fostering consensus. Danny is beyond superlative as an editor. I thank him for his past contributions, and I cannot support adminship at this time. Concur with Jreferee's and Brownlee's responses. (commenent continues in the next paragraphs)- Meersan 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BLOCK - Multiple instances of inappropriately lengthy, punitive blocks. Per trialsanderrors and AnonEMouse - HSBC as one example (there are many more). Behavior is likely to continue per user's response to Question 5.
    • WP:CONSENSUS - Multiple instances in which user ignored well-established procedures intended to foster the consensus of the community. Multiple instances in which user repeatedly failed to explain his decisions. Blank edit summaries frequently associated with high profile, controversial actions that deserved the chance to reach a consensus. User's responses to the initial "questions for the candidate" were spectacularly uninformative. (Why give this user the mop when he can't be bothered to explain what he'll do with it?) Per Sjakkalle - example Israel News Agency among others.
    • WP:CIVIL - Curt and dismissive responses to newbies, experienced editors and others that form a pattern of behavior. "blah blah" is not an informative or helpful edit summary when speedy deleting an article. Per Michael Lynn. Behavior is likely to continue per user's response to Question 4 and 8.
    • WP:SD - Excessive use of speedy delete without giving the community a chance to reach a consensus, causing his actions to be reverted by other admins on multiple occasions. Normally I would overlook this as a normal difference of opinion, but given the overall pattern of behavior it merits attention. Per Michael Lynn - example Musa Cooper (there are many more). Behavior is likely to continue per user's responses to Question 4 and 8.
    • WP:BITE - Multiple instances of aggressive, punitive behavior toward new users. Per AnonEMouse's example. Behavior is likely to continue per user's responses to Question 5 and 8.
    • WP:AGF - Multiple instances of failing to assume good faith. Per trialsanderrors - HSBC as one example (there are many more). Behavior is likely to continue per user's responses to Question 5 and 8.
    Danny's responses to the questions could be summed as "take me as I am and vote accordingly", and I have done so. His actions appear to be the result of him implementing his own policies, not Wikipedia's. I can't see why this should be encouraged in an admin. - Meersan 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Oppose per Meersan. Responses to questions suggest a certain entitlement attitude, heavy-handed WP:OFFICE actions, seemingly excessive blocking. Xihr 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. OpposeStrong oppose. History of poor judgment regarding article deletions. Aggressive approach makes him unsuited for the role of admin. --JJay 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    The sad egotism, swaggering sense of entitlement and contempt for the minority displayed in the response to question 20 is the purest possible expression of this candidate’s inaptitude for a position that requires serving 100% of wikipedia contributors. Although this sort of attitude is unfortunately all too common among admins, it nevertheless justifies changing to Strong Oppose. --JJay 19:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Oppose Sorry, Danny. The well-supported testimonies of many trustworthy users above is too damning for me to be able to support you. -- Kicking222 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Firm oppose As Xoloz, I was not particularly pleased with certain of Danny's uses of the admin tools (to say, of course, nothing of his uses of the 'crat tools), and I am not at all sure that I could conclude with any degree of certainty that the net effect on the project of his being (re)sysopped should be positive. Such concern is exacerbated by the tenor of the answers to several questions, which appear, as Xihr suggests, to evidence an attitude of entitlement the existence of which in a prospective admin is quite inauspicious. I can surely understand that Danny should feel irked about his being opposed so vociferously by some here, especially because it wasn't as though there was some grand clamor for him to be desysopped whilst he was in the employ of the Foundation (or even, for that matter, any consistent criticism); some of us, though, were not great fans of the fashion in which he used the tools on en.wiki, and I, for one, whilst awed by the breadth of Danny's mainspace and project-space contributions and whilst fond of Danny qua person, found his leaving the WMF—and his ostensibly returning to the project (exclusively) as an editor—to be a positive (at least relative en.wiki). I trust him generally and think him (of course) to be well-meaning, but I don't imagine that he should be resysopped prior to his being once more involved with the community as only an editor. Joe 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Oppose per Nae'blis and AnonEMouse. Great guy, great commitment to project, didn't need to run for RfA, but some of the stuff that has come out above make support impossible at this time. Sorry. --Guinnog 08:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Jreferee and Xoloz summed up my concerns quite well. I also think WP:BITE is more important than is commonly realized. Frise 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Oppose per User:trialsand errors and many other comments above.ERTalk 14:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Strong oppose per most people above and my own experiences, where Danny has shown himself to be unresponsive, unrepentant, and overly jumpy. Abused the tools when there was no reasonable way to stop him since he worked for the Foundation, why are we willing to hand them back now? For clarification - I no longer trust him to do the right thing and make a net improvement to the project with the tools, and that's unfortunate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Strong oppose per many of the above and that the answers of many the supporters appear to have shown no thought whatsoever. WP:OFFICE is the antithesis of consensus building, which is the heart of Wikipedia. Danny was the tool that implimented this policy. While I would like to, I have little hope that the 'crats will respect the decisions here and just rubber stamp Danny in regardless of of percentages or opinions since there is no real oversight over their powers, and they would more than likely be secretly forced to by the foundation.Just H 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am just curious. WP:OFFICE was implemented to eliminate extreme cases of "defamation, privacy violations or copyright infringement" as determined by the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation or by Jimmy Wales. Do you honestly consider that "vicious and unfeeling"? Danny 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    I consider anything done arbitrarily and unilaterally on Wikipedia to be "vicious and unfeeling". Ends do not justify means. Just H 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Then you are in the wrong project. The vast majority of all actions on Wikipedia are unilateral. Only rarely do we find it necessary to hold lengthy ebates first, and when someone is on the telephone actively threatening to sue the project into oblivion is not one of the better times to respond "oh, het, we'll just chat about this among ourselves for a couple of weeks and then get back to you". And even that misses the point: Danny was doing as he was required to do by Jimbo, so your beef is actually with Jimbo, who was the originator of the office action and performed several himself. I suggest you go to ArbCom and ask to have Jimbo's sysop rights removed, rather than opposing the RfA of one of the very few Wikipedians who can demonstrate unequivocally that he has Jimbo's absolute trust. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Classic case of "Don't shoot the messenger". "He's made his decisions" - surely you've read that these OFFICE actions weren't Danny's own personal decisions, but those made by Danny, Brad and the Foundation as one entity, acting in the best interests of the project, even if they've pissed people off, the only reason your able to complain about them now is because they worked and stopped the site from being shut down, especially earlier on. I also have to agree with Guy. Even on Wikipedia, there's a point where the discussion stops and the unilateral action starts. -- Nick t 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wow. I hate to be brusque, but how do you propose the Foundation handle legal threats and complaints? Tell the person to go take a flying leap? --Slowking Man 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Quite. I think this is the single most fantasistic oppose vote I've ever seen. The Land 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Very well then, I ask everyone above to join me in nominating WP:CON for deletion if that is the consensus. Just because we can do whatever we like when we push the edit button doesn't mean we should always do so, because if we did, Wikipedia would be little more than an endless Mexican standoff, which often it seems like. I have no problem with changing my vote to Neutral if Danny apologizes for the poor example he and his superiors have set in the past: the leaders of Wikipedia, especially those who work for Wikipedia should be role models and follow policy more than everyone else, not less, because if the leaders of this project show that there are no rules here, that will give all the more reason for those in the "real world" to look down upon the project as little more than an experiment in chaos. Just H 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Before you list WP:CON on AFD, you might wish to examine the exceptions towards the bottom of the page. If you don't think there's an overwhelming consensus to have those items there, you may try removing it. Realistically? I think you may find no strong consensus than to keep them in place. If eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, then the Foundation and OFFICE are our vigilants. --InkSplotch 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, it'd be MFD, but that's beside the point. I can't agree with that exceptions section since it's basically a slippery slope, and I can't believe that i'd be able to remove them now due to basically little more than fear, whether it be from external threats or internal ones. If we act the way we should towards all people as Wikipedians, both to users and non-uers, there isn't any need for WP:OFFICE, we as the users will be able to withstand any threats to the project. Also, i'd like to add(Chairboy pointed this out), that my comment was not intended to be hostile towards Danny, but rather his actions. Wikipedians should not be hostile towards each other, and I apologize if my comments were construed that way. Just H 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think you may not quite understand WP:OFFICE. We 'as users' aren't going to withstand legal action by being civil to each other. And as Danny pointed out in the questions above, he has only made a grand total of seven OFFICE actions, and I don't see how you can think that protecting the foundation from being sued is anything but a good thing for the project. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Speaking of slippery slopes, your argument could do away with admins, bureaucrats and half the policies of this project if you could just act the way we "should." I'm sorry, but I don't find your argument realistic. --InkSplotch 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    You're not getting it. #1, even if we act towards someone who wants to sue the project, we shouldn't act with malice. #2. I'm beginning to think getting rid of half of the policies would be just fine if nobody cares to follow them, it seems that the main rule is just whoever can intimidate others the best while pretending to be civil wins the argument. This is getting cluttered, I suggest any further discussion go on the talk page. Just H 04:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    So your saying by removing potentially libelous material from Wikipedia when someone contacts the Foundation, we're being malicious. I would have said leaving bullshit like "OMG this guy killed Kennedy and is a communist" on a biography while we discuss it endlessly would be pretty damn malicious, but perhaps that's just me. -- Nick t 13:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Oppose, pretty much per JustH, who put it better then I put it before the edit conflict. Abeg92contribs 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    You oppose on the basis that Danny served to enforce an official policy? Frankly a bureaucrat (unless he is a pure beancounter) has little choice but to disregard your comment. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    There are many ways to skin a cat. Even if one agrees that the cat should be skinned, one doesn't necessarily agree with the method of skinning. And I don't think suggesting that "comments" should be disregarded by the bureaucrat who closes the RfA should be in any way encouraged. Grace Note 07:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Oppose, per above. Yankee Rajput 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Oppose apart some of the comments above, in at least two particular cases he acted against consensus when he was supposed to follow it: the promotion of Essjay as bureocrat and the re-promotion of Sean Black to adminiship. I agree these are 'crat actions, but some admin actions are still expected to follow consensus. Tizio 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Oppose. Needlessly rude. Dr Zak 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Oppose until we get an explanation for your resignation. You've blamed it on other people doing something wrong, but haven't said what they did wrong, so it is pretty much impossible for them to defend their reputation. Additionally, it appears your reason for resigning has something to do with your judgement differing from your colleagues' judgement, until I know the details, I'm unsure if I trust your judgement, and that's one of the most important things for adminship. --Tango 21:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    I assume that none of the editors demanding to know why Danny resigned have seen The Prisoner? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. Thank you for your contributions to the project, but your responses to the questions really aren't satisfactory. In fact, if I could put it that way, they're indecorous. -- Ouishoebean / (talk) (Humour =)) 13:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Oppose. Per na'eblis, AnonEMouse, and trialsanderrors. Aditionally, Danny has a sockpuppet, User:Dannyisme who is an admin. While Dannyisme is a perfectly legitimate sock, used for official actions, two administrator accounts really are not necessary.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 16:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Dannyisme was desysoped at about the same time as Danny's main account. --Tango 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    See meta rights log Shimgray | talk | 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. Oppose. Clearly does not believe in Wikipedia:Assume good faith and appears to be unwilling to listen to feedback (per comments above, and my own personal experience). New users are not the enemy and anyone who jumps to the conclusion a new user is an evil spammer based on one or two arguably innocuous edits should not be an admin. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    So you're opposing Danny because he made the same edit that you did... but because he used rollback and you wrote "see talk"? --Gmaxwell 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. Oppose Too much rediness to ignore policy for my taste, too little understanding of the dangers of WP:BITE, too little willing to consider a change in his attitudes based on the significant opposition and multiple seerious concerns raised here. many of the blocks are way out of line with either policy or general practice for new or realativcely new editors. Too litte willing to WP:AGF with percieved spammers and PoV pushers, ignoring that he may be wrong in some cases. DES (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    It would be helpful to the b'crat for clarity if you could provide an example of a blocked spammer that you felt he was wrong about. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. Has a record of disproportional and harsh reactions. The best example is his treatment of Erik Möller. Haukur 17:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support. I've not always seen eye to eye with Danny. He once even called me a vandal in a copyright dispute (before later apologizing and admitting I was right). I am among the small minority of people who is somewhat glad to see him step down from the right hand of God, and relinquish his OFFICE role. But despite any qualms I might have had about his performance in that role, I certainly believe he means well, and fully endorse giving him back the admin bit. He is a value to the project and this is no big deal. Dragons flight 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm withdrawing my support while I take more time to consider the issues raised in opposition. Dragons flight 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    After fence sitting for several days, I've decided this is where my feelings really lie. I'm really not happy about the biting and aggressive blocks/deletions. I also find his answer to #20 to be ridiculous. Danny is asking us to take him as he is with apparently little interest in considering whether there are ways he could better satisify the community as a whole. Even if 75% of the community is will to accept him, that is not a statement that he is without flaws. Adminship should be about promoting people who are prepared to fulfill the community's needs. I fear that Danny is too convinced of the correctness of his own personal approach to really be the servant to the community that an admin ought to be. Dragons flight 18:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. Neutralleaning towards oppose. Oppose, I recognize all that Danny has done for Wikipedia and I'm absolutely certain he won't abuse admin tools. However, I've seen numerous examples of misuse, including newbie biting. There also seems to be an attitude that rules don't apply to him. ChazBeckett 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    I was planning on remaining neutral until I saw his answer to #20. His unwillingness to change his approach leads to me to conclude that misuse (not abuse) of admin tools is likely. ChazBeckett 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Opppose per concerns about misuse of power. - Peregrine Fisher 22:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. Oppose Difficult to oppose because he's dedicated and a great contributor, but I have great reservations about unilateral and heavy handed, even seemingly abusive, actions at times. I could put these down to a previous role, where there may be allowance for unknown factors, but the approach to this RFA doesn't reassure me that is the full explanation. I think there needs to be a period of readjustment to a new position within the community. Tyrenius 00:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  64. Slight Oppose The Opposers made a good point. Flubeca 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  65. Oppose Because the question is not moot. Jerkcity 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. Oppose per responses, and several concerns regarding attitude and communication. I find it disturbing that so many of the "Support" votes seem to fall under "Because it's Danny!" reasoning. For a newer Wikipedian such as myself, this holds no meaning - especially in an RfA. The contributions are outstanding and impressive - I appreciate the viewpoint stated towards those who would fill the Wiki with spam and POV and agree that this should not be tolerated - but the responses to concerns posed by other editors are not. Statements (that I personally view as bordering on arrogant; this is not a personal attack at the nominee, simply a reminder that members of this community that did not automatically know who Danny was may not share the same reverence when reading these responses) that are excused as "refreshing truth" don't work in an open community when concerns are not addressed. As the user above said: "The question is not moot". *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  67. Oppose Flcelloguy's excellent summary in Q22 makes it pretty clear. The only question that really matters at RFA is if the editor is likely to abuse the admin tools. In this case, the editor has already abused the tools by wheel warring, making rash indef blocks to long term editors in good standing and performing a baseless de-sysoping. No editor is irreplaceable, just as no admin is irreplaceable. Danny may have done a lot of good work, but admin-ship is not an award and as I said no one is irreplaceable...I don't feel very good about this but there it is. There's probaby more to say but I'm too disgusted by the partisan sniping his supporters are doing on the talk page, here in the question section and elsewhere on Wikipedia. RxS 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  68. Oppose I'm concerned about WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Alex 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  69. Oppose. Most of the users above summed it up for me, but I also found his unwillingness to talk about why he left the WMF rather upsetting (and yes, I know he said he'll tell us later, but I'm not going to support without some answers) ^demon[omg plz] 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    What does that have to do with his trustworthiness not to abuse admin tools? Picaroon 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    And what does having a 1FA criteria, or at least 3000 edits have to do with it either? Absolutely nothing, but my reasoning is my own, and I'm sticking to it. ^demon[omg plz] 03:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  70. Oppose. Obviously a very experienced individual, but very recent developments have made me question how trustworthy I may have perceived him to be. I don't want an argument on this vote; just suffice it to say that it will not change in the foreseeable future. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  71. Strong Oppose. As expansion to answer to question 20, and for deletion history. Tordek 06:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  72. Oppose. Ignoring any an' all recent events, the Eloquence incident alone demonstrates a decided lack of common sense and more importantly, a sense of proportion (which I sort of like to see in administrators). Specifically, Danny is one of those editors who can better help Wikipedia without admin powers, I believe. --Gwern (contribs) 06:45 8 April 2007 (GMT)
  73. Oppose Mostly concerned with his tendency to BITE. I'd strongly support after a few months of civil behavior with out the tools. --Samuel Wantman 08:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  74. Oppose at this stage. Why? Because what's the rush - you say above in terms of your resignation I will make my positions known during the upcoming board election - I will be happy to see your new nomination after then so we get the whole picture first. Until then why not just edit? --VS talk 08:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    This !vote should be disgarded as irrelevent - that Danny won't share his reasons for leaving his employment wit you might be frustrating, but it has nothing to do with whether he'll make good use of a mop.--Docg 11:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  75. Oppose People with a strong tendency towards self-styled autocracy don't make good admins. Hell, it's one of the reasons I wouldn't want myself as an admin. I don't find the "you don't know certain details, so shut up an trust us"-arguments appeasing in the least. Peter Isotalo 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  76. Oppose pending an explanation of the Erik incident (see question 22). Bramlet Abercrombie 11:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    This !vote should be disgarded as irrelevent - what Danny did as a foundation employee is a matter for his employer - and has little to do with whether we should give him a volunteers mop.--Docg 11:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

Neutral I agree with Jeffrey O. Gustafson that this is really an unnecessary exercise and the gladhanding politico answers make me unwilling to participate in it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed to oppose after reviewing block log. ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. I'd prefer Danny to wait a little bit before being an admin again. SYSS Mouse 03:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strongly neutral I was prepared to support Danny until I read his response to the valid concerns expressed by User:Xiner about vested contributors. Given Danny's enormous contributions to Wikipedia, I cannot, in good conscience, oppose his nomination for adminship, but neither can I endorse his views on vested contributors with a vote of support. // Internet Esquire 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral due to the issues brought up. Acalamari 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. While I still think Danny did a great job as an office staff, the issues presented here force me to withdraw my support for now. -- ReyBrujo 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I like the answers to quite a lot of the questions, so I'm not going to oppose. --- RockMFR 23:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral --I voted Support at first glance and then have read all of the pros and cons proffered and feel that I cannot support nor oppose at this time.--Lmcelhiney 01:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Conflicted neutral. Danny has done a tremendous amount of good for Wikipedia, and I would generally argue that his merits (a keen focus on the encyclopedia's mission, an excellent history of service to Wikipedia) outweigh his demerits (the tendency to block and bite without warning, the occasional lack of respect for consensus, etc.). But the thing which prevents me from voting "support" is his stubborn refusal to acknowledge that those who criticize his style as detrimental to his stated aims have a legitimate point. If I saw a hint that if resysopped, Danny would try to be more patient with newbies, or would take more care to explain his decisions when possible, it would be enough to sway me towards support. But there is an obstinacy in Danny's answers which troubles me deeply. Danny acknowledges that he has made mistakes, but he shows no evidence of changing the elements of his style which led to those mistakes. Without that evidence, I can't support his readminship. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nmajdan

Voice your opinion (50/0/0); Scheduled to end 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nmajdan (talk • contribs) - – It is my pleasure and honor to nominate Nmajdan for Adminship. I have worked with him on several articles and I find his edits and attitude to both be of the highest quality. He has been editing on Wikipedia for about one year, and he has over 12,000 edits, including more than 3,000 to the main article space. He modestly states that this count is "inflated" because he uses AWB, but that does not mean those changes are any less valuable.

He contributes to a wide range of articles and collaborations, including Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. He is very good with Wiki-syntax, templates and formatting, as a look at his user page will reveal. He has started and improved numerous articles, including being the prime factor in getting University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Memorial Stadium and Oklahoma Sooners football to GA quality. He was blocked for a total of 20 minutes once due to some confusion over whether or not he was running an unauthorized script.[48] The situation was resolved amicably, showing me that Nmajdan is a great member of the community even when encountering a rough patch in the road.

He is an active member in community discussions such as Wikipedia:Media copyright questions[49] and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images[50]. He makes important contributions to image uploading as well such as finding this image and taking this one. He has been recognized with several barnstars by fellow editors. He practices good use of edit summaries (Mathbot says Edit summary usage for Nmajdan: 100% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)[51], and he has set his e-mail. Giving him the admin tools will help him build and protect more great articles for Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Wizardman- Well, I expressed interest in nomming him, so this co-nom is not one of those "super strong supports tagged as a co-nom" deal. I haven't had many encounters with him basically my first main one was with some wikiproject template work I had trouble with. Nmajdan had no affiliation with my big ten project, but offered to help, and now the assessments there are running smoothly. Upon seeing this, I was surprised he was not an admin yet. He wants to work on images, which is great as the backlog there is always terrible. His article writing's been great, his wikiproject running's been great, and it my pleasure to co-nom him. Also, he communicates through e-mail, which is quite rare from what I've seen.--Wizardman 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept this nomination.↔NMajdan•talk 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Image maintenance has been my primary administrative focal point on Wikipedia. If approved, I'll probably begin by focusing on IFDs, Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons (and All images on Wikimedia Commons), Orphaned fairuse images, Replaceable fair use images, Images with no fair use rationale and other image backlogs. Of course, I would help out in others areas such as the occassional XfD, RFPP, etc but images would be my main focus.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am proud of just about every one of my contributions to Wikipedia. Some of my proudest include the two Featured Lists: 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings and the 2006 version (and a list current under development that I will eventually nominate for FL). Also my many contributions relating to the University of Oklahoma including that main article which has been greatly improved and is a WP:GA (failed WP:FA), Oklahoma Sooners football, which I started (also a GA that failed FA - I'll get one sooner or later), and 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. I have started many articles/stubs on University of Oklahoma football coaches and presidents. I am also very proud of Oklahoma state elections, 2006, which I am just about the sole contributor. In addition to my article space contributions, I've also developed many templates. These include {{College coach infobox}}, {{NCAAFootballSchool}}, three templates for listing a college football schedule ({{College Athlete Recruit Start}}, Entry, and End) and three templates for listing college recruits ({{College Athlete Recruit Start}}, Entry, and End). I also assist with the maintenance of several portals including Sports and games, College football, and Oklahoma.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: No, I have been fortunate enough to not have had any serious, long-lasting conflicts. I have had many editors get upset with me during the course of my image patrolling so I have always tried my hardest to explain to them Wikipedia's image use policy and point them in the direction where they can get more information on my actions. In addition, I recently had an issue with a new editor who got upset that I tagged an article he created for speedy deletion. The issue was brought to the attention of WP:ANI here. The editor ended up being indefinitely blocked. (Actually, I'm still communicating with this user through email to help determine the best course of action - if an indefinite block was the best solution or if it should be shortened.) But, no, I have never been in a situation that caused me stress. If, as an admin, a situation does arise that could become stressful, I would try my best to remain calm and keep an open and efficient communication channel with the other party and work toward a solution that is in the best interest of the project.
4. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A: Well, I am a fan of the new user warning templates, so I would use {{uw-vandalism1}} or the most appropriate tag. I would use the test warning tag when the user is obviously experimenting with a page, such as if they blank a page and insert "Hey! This is really cool!" That, to me, is not vandalism and I would place the first test warning template on the user's talk page and work my up through test4 if they continue to make similar actions. Personally, I rarely use vandalism1 because it is a good faith assumption template. Most vandalism I come across is obvious vandalism, so I personally start off with a no faith assumption, which is the vandalism2 template. {{bv}} or {{uw-vandalism4im}} would be used very rarely. I would probably use it on a registered user that has a history of vandalism but none recently depending on the severity of the vandalism. I would use it on a new user or anon if the vandalism were especially graphic or vulgar or disparaging. I could also see myself using it if a user vandalizes a heavily used template that effects multiple pages.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A: Whether or not I would report this to WP:3RR and/or take action myself would depend on the history of the editor(s) involved. If it is a new user or a reputable editor who may have just never encountered this rule before then I would simply leave them a message on their talk page explaining the 3RR rules and point them to the page where they can get more information. If a user ever gets to the point where they have reverted changes this many times in such a short period, it may not be violating the rules as they are stated, but it is going against many of the ideals of Wikipedia.
6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
A: I would like to see Wikipedia move away from polls (ahem) and move towards discussion. I don't mind seeing a "Support" or "Oppose" out in front of the discussion (as this would easily convey the user's opinion) but I would also like to see reasoning for the editor's opinion. Many already feel this way and follow through, but many do not. I, myself, have been guilty of this in the past but I have been trying to remedy that on my end and would like to see others as well.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - as nominator. Johntex\talk 16:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Good candidate. Anyway adminship is no big deal, as per my comments in all previous RfAs. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong support I'd do a co-nom but it's already up, oh well. Great editor on all fronts, needed as an admin. as co-nom--Wizardman 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Boomer Sooners! Abeg92contribs 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. You not an admin? Support. Good answers. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - have seen this editor around frequently and his commentary on talk pages is usually insightful. Good answers to questions and good commitment to the community. Am confident will become a fine admin. Khukri 16:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - Ready, willing, and able. -- Jreferee 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - Good answers, good edits. Uses edit summaries, etc. Excellent contributor - Alison☺ 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support per very, very fine answers until someone gives me a compelling reason as to why not. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Not an admin yet?! Xiner (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support no problems here. - Anas talk? 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support A good candidate for the mop and bucket, good luck! Tellyaddict 20:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. I see nothing but good here. All systems go. Pigman 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Fantastic answers to the questions, in my opinion.--Xnuala (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I've seen a lot of good things from Nmajdan, and nothing to make me nervous about misusing the tools.--ragesoss 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Images... We need more work on images! I applaud another Fair Use Patroller!--Lmcelhiney 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - Nothing but good experience with this user. VegaDark 02:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Michael 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. I haven't had much direct interaction with Nmajdan, but what I've seen has impressed me. I think Nmajdan will be an excellent admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Good answers, good experience. - Denny 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support per strong answers to all questions. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. No reason to believe the user would abuse the tools. Plus, the image backlogs need the attention. Vassyana 09:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Good answer to Q1 (backlogged areas), has relevant experience. No problems here, good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, excellent answers to questions, image help is urgently needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Good edior, got nomintated, must be good. Twenty Years 13:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support, we need more admins for image maintenance, and he seems well-qualified. Rigadoun (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support good and experienced editor.-- danntm T C 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support ↔ you continue your good work on Wikipedia. x42bn6 Talk 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support NMajdan and I have collaborated on a number of articles relating to both WP:CFB and WP:OU. I have always found him to be a great editor who is as concerned about doing it right (i.e. according to the rules) as doing it well. He'll make a great admin. z4ns4tsu\talk 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support, know him from College Football project. Keep up the good work, and use your powers to help the Project! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support A great user. No reason to oppose. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support looks good. -- Nick t 21:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Keep on truckin' --Infrangible 01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support — zero » 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support -- we can always use more people to work in the coal mine. Mangojuicetalk 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - I'm glad to see you changed your mind and took down the "This user is not an administrator and does not wish to be one" UBX - you will make a great admin. --BigDT 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Anyone who is willing to help out with the image backlogs at CAT:CSD and has the relevant experience is a strong RfA contender in my book... WjBscribe 09:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support per WJBscribe et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support - A tireless and polite editor and most excellent Wikipedian! Вasil | talk 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Good answers to the questions. Looks great to me. Goodnightmush 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Terence 08:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support per previous experience with Nmajdan. MECU≈talk 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. +sj + 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Strong support - BOOMER! (listens carefully...) - KrakatoaKatie 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Burnt orange oppose Hook 'em! Oh wait, support. Contribs don't raise any red flags, and we need more admins in the image areas--even if they are Sooners. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support -LakersTalk 07:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Perhaps a little bit of a narrow field in his mainspace edits - but not enough to oppose. Rest of the near admin edits are good - so I support--VS talk 08:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support - will make a good admin. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

[edit] Darthgriz98

Voice your opinion (45/0/0); Scheduled to end 01:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Darthgriz98 (talk • contribs) - I am pleased to announce my very first RfA nomination. DarthGriz98 has been with the project since December 2005. Her first edit was vandalism; however, she rapidly became a working example of one of my "laws", which states "If treated sternly, fairly, and immediately, vandals will flock back to Wikipedia and become respected contributors" (the other example is User:The Wookieepedian). She had a little bit of help from me; I helped start her userpage, which sucked her into the project. Since then, her maturity level has increased fifty-fold, to the point where she is one of the most mature, yet funny, people I know.

She has accumulated nearly 4,000 edits, nicely and reasonably distributed across the namespace. She passes the One Featured Article test, because she was a major contributor to the Girl Scouts of the USA push. She is also in the middle of improving Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. She is going to be a scientist after college, and we could definitely use more administrators in that field. Her edit summary usage is succinct, professional, reasonable, and civil; perhaps one of the best examples of how contributors should use the edit summary feature. Additionally, she has solid vandalism fighting experience, using precision and appropriate warnings depending on the severity of the vandalism and other factors, which may lead to succinct and appropriate AIV reports. She also regularly participates in AfDs. Most recently, she has parciaipated in our attribution poll, as well as the poll discussion. Although she does comment on FA candidates from people she knows, she does not always support, which shows that she is not biased.

DarthGriz98 has also shown how Wikipedia can improve one's writing, social, and collaborative skills. From what she has told me, she is a firm advocate of leading by example; she has adopted several users, much like she does with the band in "real life". Speaking of adoption, she checks in on her adoptees more than I do, a problem I need to fix :). Although I do not wish to put words in her mouth, she has told me via instant message that she wants to become an administrator to help with maintaining the project and to allow her to perform admin-related tasks without having to ask another administrator to do so. It is almost imperative that we give the tools to people who are in that situation, because they know how to perform the tasks — they just don't have the tools. Anyway, I'd rather let this exceptional editor speak for herself. Let the discussion begin! — Deckiller 01:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I graciously accept. Darthgriz98 02:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I like to keep my options open and broad when it comes to helping out on Wikipedia and am willing to help where ever I am needed. There are a few areas I know as of now that I would like to help with: WP:AIV, lowering the CSD backlog, and RC patrol. I can also see myself helping to close AfDs. As an administrator I wouldn't need to report repeat vandals to AIV, rather I could use the time spent reporting to help clear the backlog that builds up on the page to help the users that report there, of course while keeping a fair, civil, and respectful attitude to any user I come across.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am particularly pleased with Girl Scouts of the USA and its FA push. As a former Girl Scout and recent Gold Award recipient, I feel that the history of the program as with all scouting programs should be brought out to their full potential in their Wikipedia articles. I look forward in the future to bring some of the other scouting articles up to the same level. As Deckiller mentioned, I am currently working on Knights of the Old Republic and hope to bring it up to the same level as some of our recent video game FAs. I take great pride and satisfaction in high quality work and will continue to help Wikipedia in any way I can.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I would be lying if I said that I did not feel stress at some point during my membership on Wikipedia. As it was pointed out, my first edit was a vandalism, and since becoming a regular editor on the project I have become the target of vandals and personal attacks. One that comes to mind was one by User:Woot Hoot the Owl who made false claims about me and created several sock puppets with the intention of rattling my cage. I remained calm and worked with administrators to get through the event without losing my cool or attacking the vandal in frustration. Without requiring a checkuser the vandal stopped. Had I been the administrator in this position I would have blocked the sock puppets and if need be protected the userpage under attack, most vandals will stop when they get bored. If that would not work I would ask for a checkuser on the socks and original vandal. I would never lash out at a vandal or a user telling me that I am wrong.
4. Additional question What do you think of the "Admins subject to recall" program and do you expect to participate? (from Rlevse)
A: Since the program is voluntary and done out of good faith, I think that the program is a good idea. The administrator makes their own guidelines to be recalled for which makes it fair as long as those guidelines are reasonable. I would participate in this program upon being made an administrator, as I feel that if I'm not serving the for community then I am not doing the project any good.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nom. — Deckiller 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Nice answers and good edit count--$UIT 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - Good answers, good candidate. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 02:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, the nominator did a good job turning a potental vandal into a potential moderator. I hope this supposed Star Wars fan follows Deckiller's footsteps. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Everything seems pretty good. I really like the idea of a reformed vandal becoming an admin. alphachimp 04:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Smartly done. Cool with good judgment. Edit summaries are good. What's not to like? Pigman 06:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom and SUIT and TeckWiz, the answers are really nice and I can see nothing wrong. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom. Great answers and everything seems OK. Would've only wished she has a little more project-space contributions. - Anas talk? 10:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support per nom. Great candidate. I have seen her in action. --Bduke 12:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I've worked with her for a long time and I know her to be calm, level-headed and fair. She also has helped many new users learn the ropes via the adoption program.Rlevse 14:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I would prefer a higher Wikipedia space count, but I've seen a lot of good work coming from this user and she seems experienced, devoted and trustworthy.--Húsönd 15:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Suppport per all above. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support excellent editor.-- danntm T C 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Scouting interest spells trustworthy. Civil: She knows how to suggest that a post is troubled rather than make an accusation that a post is troubled and I defer to Deckiller's nomination for the rest of my support rationale. -- Jreferee 17:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Of course. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong support Excellent user; I've seen her edits a lot as well. Acalamari 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support A vandal becoming an admin, might be a first--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - Good candidate. Lakers 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. Candidate has demonstrated a great aptitude. Besides, my first couple of edits were vandalism too. :) Rje 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Darthgriz98 seems to be an excellent candidate who will be a valuable asset as an admin. Twiddle that bit! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Productive user who gives me no reason to believe the tools would be abused. Vassyana 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support good answers, experience, shows a need for admin tools. Good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support, vandal turned good contributor turned admin is a great story, and I think this is just the one for the job. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Twenty four -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. Good, responsible, and level-headed editor. No reason not to approve. Coemgenus 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support A capable, committed, and loyal member of the Wikipedian community. Bubba hotep 19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support So it is written. --Infrangible 01:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support a prolific and excellent user, I can find no reason to not support her, and the FA push of the scout article gives a plus. Wooyi 01:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. STRONG SUPPORT - I have worked with this editor. Very patient, very discerning, would make an EXCELLENT, and I do mean EXCELLENT addition to the WP administrative team. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    It makes a nice change to see a support in caps lock instead of an oppose in caps lock. :) Acalamari 18:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Solid contribs, good answers, and reading through your edits I was knocked out by the way you've dealt with other editors old and new. Other people like it too since there are a whole heap of very positive messages from folks you've dealt with on your talk page. Even when dealing with naughtiness you're tough but fair and polite. As the man said, what's not to like? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Excellent user. This nomination is clearly overdue. --Hemlock Martinis 01:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Strong support a great user, and good answers to the questions. CattleGirl talk | sign! 06:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Terence 08:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support fully trust her. Pascal.Tesson 16:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Heimstern Läufer 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. +sj + 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. I've been support 39 several times recently. Not a bad thign though :)--Wizardman 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - KrakatoaKatie 09:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - per all above! Sumoeagle179 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support for reasons above and editor has a Wikipedia edit count that actually reflects her in interest at WP:AIV. --VS talk 13:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support She has a good understanding and the ability to implement it. Tyrenius 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support - reformed vandal now an admin? impressive! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support, very good candidate. -LakersTalk 07:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support - 'nuff said by the above supporters. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Double vote removed. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral


[edit] About RfB

Shortcut:
WP:RFB

Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any user and can set bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, generally requiring a consensus of at least 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below this line.

[edit] Current nominations for bureaucratship

[edit] Mackensen

Voice your opinion (87/19/1); Scheduled to end 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) - In brief, I have been an editor since August of 2003, an administrator since September of 2004, a checkuser since March of 2006, and an oversighter since some time in the middle of 2006. I have sat on the Arbitration Committee twice. I have done considerable work in the article space; I am a co-creator of the {{s-rail}}/{{s-line}} system of rail succession templates. My statement follows below.

Statement

This is not a conventional statement, but then this is not a conventional candidacy, and if chosen I would not be a conventional bureaucrat.

I am not a regular participant on the talk page of Requests for Adminship. I have never, to my knowledge, nominated someone for adminship. I do not make a habit of offering comments at RFA unless I am acquainted with the candidate or someone has drawn my attention to a particular candidacy. I do not consider myself an “RFA regular.”

I am, however, an active administrator in good standing with my own RFA some two years and change in the past. I am in the middle of my second stint on the Arbitration Committee, where I have played a direct role in determining the limits and appropriate boundaries of administrator behavior. I have known hundreds of administrators in my time here and interacted with them in numerous contexts: onnoticeboards, at the Requests for Checkuser page, on the Oversight mailing list, on IRC, or via email. All this is meant to say that I do not know what “RFA regulars” consider valid criteria for becoming a sysop, but I do know what it takes to be a good sysop.

I have seen past bureaucrat candidates refer to percentage thresholds for becoming an administrator. RFA is not a vote and never has been. That there is a correlation between the raw number of people who support a candidacy and the chances of that candidacy’s success is an interesting statistical commentary but should not be taken as writ. The purpose of RFA is to identify whether someone is suitable for adminship, and whether it would be beneficial or detrimental to the encyclopedia for that person to have the tools. You cannot have N% of consensus—it either exists or it does not. The devil is in the determination of the proper criteria.

Adminship is not a big deal; it never was, and it certainly is not now. We would, on the whole, be better off if we grasped this concept and stopped inventing problems that do not exist. If anything, the insistence on setting higher and higher standards at RFA has the effect of making adminship seem a big deal, but what it is really doing is making passing RFA a big deal, which is perverse. RFA is a means to an end. The end is the encyclopedia gaining another competent administrator. The means must serve the end, for there is no other reason for the means to exist.

Now, I admit that I might be begging the question. What makes a competent sysop? Is it a thorough knowledge of all Wikipedia policies, with the ability to cite chapter and verse? Perhaps having one or more featured articles under your belt? Regular and consistent participation in the myriad process factories clank away, night and day? Ten thousand edits in the service of vandal fighting? Never said a cross word or attracted any controversy? Has the ability to quip in Latin?

I hope that the above are not requirements for a competent sysop, as I fail all of them and I suspect many sysops would (even excluding the Latin). However, in these extremes are the seeds of a successful admin. A candidate has hopefully edited the encyclopedia in some fashion and understands what is appropriate for the article space. She has been around long enough to have imbibed some culture and while she may not know every last policy, she has a sense of how things are meant to work, and knows to ask around when unsure. She has participated in deletion debates and recognizes from them that Wikipedia works by consensus, not mob fiat. While her temper may have flared now and then, the body of interactions suggests a person who, on the whole, values the work of other people and can function in a collaborative environment. Anyone who can satisfy these guidelines is unlikely to abuse the tools and therefore is a net positive for Wikipedia.

I would be willing to promote anyone of whom the above can be said. In closing an RFA, I would place the burden squarely on people who oppose a candidacy to demonstrate why and in what way it would be a bad thing for someone to have access to the tools. I would not count votes and on the whole would prefer to see a Request for Adminship organized as a Request for Comment. Ultimately, that’s what the process should be about: the solicitation of comments as to whether or not this candidate would be a safe pair of hands. RFA should not be a trophy, a popularity contest, a shouting match, a forum for settling scores, or an exercise in process. It is for the finding of people who can further help the encyclopedia.

I seek this position because I seek to help the encyclopedia and I believe that a need exists. I have no ego at stake here. People often say we do not need more bureaucrats. That may be so, but we need more administrators, and the current system does not produce them. Numerous reform attempts have gone nowhere. I therefore offer myself explicitly on this platform.

Adminship is not a big deal.

Yours, Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my own nomination. Mackensen (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)



Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. I have answered this question in my statement above and encourage participants to read my answer therein.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. I would return to the question asked above: will making this person an administrator help the encyclopedia. I would also turn the question on its head, and ask whether the promotion of the user would be so divisive as to negate any possible benefit. These are difficult questions, but I like to think I can't be intimidated by now. I am not going to count votes and I will not talk numbers.
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I have been a sysop for over two years. I am doing my second stint on the Arbitration Committee. I have helped write policy in the past and I am regularly called upon to intervene in situtations where knowledge of policy is crucial. A user who does not understand policy is at best ineffective, at worst a menace. As an arbitrator I have always tried to treat all users fairly, and I think those with whom I have struggled over policy issues would attest to my willigness to keep discussion going, almost to a fault. I humbly submit that I believe I have held the community's trust up to now.
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. I have the time and desire to change the way in which RFA operates, as I've indicated above. I have no interest in bot approval nor in changing usernames but I would of course be willing to step up there should my help be requested. I have never been able to refuse such requests in the past and I do not expect to change.

Optional question by Snowolf

5 How would you define bureaucrat's role in the community?
A: I don't quite have an answer, but let me offer some thoughts and maybe I'll offer something insightful. I don't know that the bureaucrat has a significant community role as a bureaucrat. Our bureaucrats are signficant members of the community, yes, but they would be regardless. Bureaucrats handle technical functions: bot flagging, sysop promotion, and username changes. While the second of these is of prime importance to many and followed closely, the bureaucrat's appearance is at the end of the final act, and then only a walk-on. They maintain important machinery but they aren't seen doing it. Mackensen (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Optional question by Xoloz

6 In general, one person should exercising the functions of "judge" and "jury" simultaneously. Would you pledge never to close an RfA in which you have commented substantively in support of, or opposition to, a candidate?
A: I agree completely with the sentiment expressed here and would of course refrain from closing a RfA that I had commented in. This is sensible. Mackensen (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions by Ryanpostlethwaite

7 The current RfA system generally requires around 80% community trust for promotion. As the system currently stands, how would you go about closing an RfA that had only 60% support, but felt that the opposers hadn't "demonstrate(d) why and in what way it would be a bad thing for someone to have access to the tools"?
A Ack, these numbers again! Rather, we're postulating a situation where there are substantial opposing views but on the whole they miss the point. We've certainly been there before. My first thought would be to send a note to other bureaucrats to see what they think. If three, even four bureaucrats agree that on the whole there's reason to promote and that there's consensus grounded in policy to do so, then I would see little harm in doing so. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
8 How would you have closed this RfA?
A I probably would have promoted, and this helps illustrate one of my points. Many people opposed him based on his interactions with Tennis Expert. Ryulong acted the way he did based on information from checkusers, information that turned out to be wrong. His actions within that context were perhaps by the book, but they certainly weren't wrong, and it's perverse to blame him for somebody else's mistake. There's also much hand-wringing over not warning users before reporting them to WP:AIV. Is this actually a problem? An RfC might have focused attention better on whether he really was too quick on the trigger; the list format suggested sporadic issues but no overarching systemic problem. Certainly this is one I would have kicked around with other bureaucrats. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions by AnonEMouse (squeak)

9 In "ignoring numbers" you seem to give the example of promoting someone with less than the standard threshold of support, if you don't feel the objections were substantive. How about the other way around - what if someone has 80% or more support "by the numbers", but there is a substantive objection endorsed by multiple editors in good standing? Certainly you'd kick it around with other bureaucrats, but should it still come down to you in the end, would you promote or not promote? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A My answers regarding the opposing situation still apply here. Again, it all depends on what the objections are, and whether supporters of the candidate, or the candidate herself, has a good answer. Say we're presented with a good fellow with broad support, but who has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not understand what consensus is. I would expect under most circumstances that such a person would not attract broad support, but it is of course possible. If it came down to me I might personally engage the candidate to see if he actually knew what consensus was about or not. I'd take a hard look at how he intended to use the tools, and whether he was amenable to mentorship (as a corollary, does he communicate well with people?) Related to this is a desire on my part to see the reading list made required reading again, with some of the default questions pertaining directly to the topics therin. It was when I went through and I found it beneficial. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions by Irpen

10 I agree that RfA is broken, but I don't so much agree with your "fix". I can see some logic in replacing the judgment of the community by the judgment of someone in the know who acts according to what he sees as "beneficial or detrimental to the encyclopedia". But have you thought about how comfortable it would be for an administrator to be promoted and granted tools over voluminous opposition from a "raw number" of editors, even if you consider those editor's opposition unworthy? I can see that a certain category of people may want the bit so much that they would not care about the means, but do you think this is common among would-be admins? You can certainly relate to this experience as being yourself promoted to the ArbCom recently with the editors having no say in that action. Several over 70%-supported candidates from the past election were available but brushed aside in favor of you. Do you feel that being promoted with disregard to how editors feel (even ill-informed ones) affects one's ability to effectively dispense one's duties, judging from your own experience of being in such a position?
A Let me clarify that I'm not talking about substituting my judgement for the community's so much as encouraging the community to change the way it articulates its opinion. Perhaps I'm quibbling over semantics, but I'm mildly dismayed by the emphasis on bureaucratic fiat, to borrow a borrowed phrase. Now, addressing arbcom, let me point out that I was previously elected to the arbitration committee, and resigned as a matter of conscience and not under a cloud of any kind. The community did choose me previously. I do not wake up in the morning feeling illegitimate (perhaps I should?) I find that my ability to function as an arbitrator depends, more than anything, on my ability to work with my fellow arbitrators and to engage the community on the arbitration pages. If either of these has been impeded by my method of appointment then that has not been apparent. Of course, my appointment was not a matter of controversy, but the RfAs you refer to were. Again, the important question is whether the promotion is a net benefit to the encyclopedia, all things taken into consideration. That should be the attitude of person who devotes their time to participating in RfA. I wouldn't call any objection "unworthy," for I dislike the connotation, but at the same time some objections are of greater import than others. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions by trialsanderrors

11 Why do you think the current system is in need for reform? From my (non-rigorous) assessment we seem to promote 80%-90% of the non-frivolous nominations, a large share unanimous or near-unanimous. While no system is fail-safe, I don't see where the system you propose substantially decreases the error rate, and all things being equal, I don't see why the pooling of more power in fewer people benefits the project.
A Two primary objections. The first objection is philosophical, the second practical. The present system, as you admit, counts votes. Our lip service to consensus is the existence of a gray area around the 70-80%. RfA is not a vote but it's being treated like one, with attendant problems. How do we inculcate the idea of consensus in new administrators when we've just had them pass a vote? My second objection is more practical: we need more administrators from a broader base but the system as organized works against that. Before anyone objects, look at the backlogs. We need more administrators. Adminship, as I've said above, is not a big deal, but RfA currently makes it a big deal. Look at the generation of sysops from 2004. They passed with 1000-2000 edits sprinkled around the encyclopedia. Adminship went to anybody who wasn't likely to delete the main page or ban Jimmy. At some point we made getting adminship a trophy, even though the task is still janitorial (and, if anything, even more unpleasant than previously). Hand in hand with eliminating the emphasis on numbers is a real need to re-orient RfA, hence trying the method of an RfC. We need to ask whether someone is a safe pair of hands, not whether they've made enough edits in this namespace or that namespace, or participated in enough deletion discussions. Show me someone sensible and I'll show you someone who can figure out how to be a sysop. Adminship is not a big deal. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't "admit" that the present systems counts votes, but I think it creates communal limits on 'crat action, although I'm not aware that a 'crat has lost privileges over a decision outside the 70-80 band. ~ trialsanderrors 21:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A bureaucrat may not have lost freedom of action, but no bureaucrat has moved to assert those privileges, if they do exist. Her Majestry the Queen still has the legal right to dissolve Parliament without acting on the request of the Prime Minister, but to assert that right would likely end in her abdication and the dissolution of the monarchy. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means. Afaik, there were a few cases where 'crats made decisions outside the 70-80 band that went against the "default", and none of them has lost their 'crat bit over it. Feel frre to correct me if I'm wrong on this. ~ trialsanderrors 21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not personally aware of any situation where a bureaucrat did so, unless we count Raul654's promotion of Ryulong. The raw numbers were 69-70%, if memory serves. Raul took considerable flak for this close, but the only way to demote a bureaucrat is via the Arbitration Committee, and the Committee has been loath in the past to involve itself on these questions. I suspect that if bureaucrats wanted to assert this privilege they could so, provided they were prepared to discuss their actions and wander around with a target on their back. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Carnildo 3 at 61%. ~ trialsanderrors 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, you're right. That's a statistical outlier for all kinds of reasons, and the outrage which followed that candicacy didn't cause a bureaucrat to lose his bit, but it did lead to several people leaving the project, several arbitration cases, and much bad blood. It also demonstrated, to me, the limitations of the straight vote. An RfC would have been far more helpful in determining how the community felt about Carnildo, and identifying the potential problems with him regaining his bit. While we're on the matter, it might be useful to discuss Guanaco, the only admin to be de-sysoped twice by the Arbitration Committee. I believe he enjoyed "good" percentages both times. Numbers are no guarantee. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by Steptrip

12. In your opinion, is a bureaucrat a political position or that of a technical position?
A Bureaucrats are technicians but they must be alive to the fact that their actions have political consequences. It's part of the calculus. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments

  • See Mackensen's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I wish the opportunity to engage with participants during this discussion but I recognize that some people view such activity unfavorably. Therefore, I would appreciate if people who disagree with my views indicate the manner in which they are willing to discuss the matter (or, indicate that they are not willing to discuss the matter at all). Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me add one point of clarification, possibly unnecessary. I am not interested in numbers or percentages. That being said, I would not ignore a substantive objection endorsed by multiple editors in good standing. Numbers in this case aren't important though, it's the quality and insightfulness of the objection. Mackensen (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion


Support

  1. Support. One of the most respected wikicitizens who is already trusted with the project's most important responsibilities. Bucketsofg 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - I've had the pleasure of working with Mackensen just the other day and we managed to co-author the article Charles Frederick Field in just a few short hours. The attention to detail and hard work which involved visiting a library shows the level of dedication and interest this user has in Wikipedia. There is no question at all regarding the suitability of this user for the role as a bureaucrat, he fulfills all of the unwritten requirements, having spent considerable time (almost 3 years) as an administrator and has time on the ArbCom. To those who think we don't need more 'crats, the project can only benefit from having more 'crats and when we've got people of this caliber offering themselves for the position, we would be crazy to refuse. It seems we are crazy. I thought it was only RFAs that garnered weird and wonderful opposes. Seems not. -- Nick t 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. My recent interactions with this user have been nothing but good. Good luck. ViridaeTalk 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support no one I'd trust more. --Docg 22:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support but I doubt very much that enough people will pile on to overcome all the negative votes based on this that or other arbitary factor. Its high time we worked out a less testing way of promoting admins - not least because the arb-com has grasped the nettle of desysopping rouge sorry I mean rogue admins. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per Bucketsofg. This user is already trusted with some of Wikipedia's most sensitive and important responsibilities. Obviously a trusted user and I, for one, have no reason to believe that we couldn't always use a couple more crats.↔NMajdan•talk 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong Support Another great bureaucrat candidate! He's definitely earned the trust of the community over the past few years, and while I may not agree with everything he does, he certainly endeavours to always act in the best interests of Wikipedia. gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong support. Mackensen identifies very well some of the principal reasons I've never been interested in bureaucratship, or frankly, in participating much in RfA. It's a disgrace to the concept of consensus. Counting percentages disregards the merit of particular arguments, and specifically discourages addressing and resolving objections in the manner of consensus-building. I am confident that RfA would be considerably improved with Mackensen contributing to its development. I would not that the fact that Mackensen is already engaged in deciding the acceptable practices of adminship in judging tough cases at the Arbitration Committee indicates he has the judgment necessary for the job. Dmcdevit·t 22:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Great candidate, I kind of expected this RfB to happen. I've yet to here a compelling argument as to why "too many" (not that there would be) bureaucrats would be a bad thing. John Reaves (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support; has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Throwawayhack 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support He lacks the RfA interest I would have liked, but I can definitely trust Mackensen to do the job of promoting admins (changing usernames, flagging bots...) He knows what he's doing, and he'll do it right. Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Tony Sidaway 22:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) This is a very welcome proposal.
    Someone raised the Carnildo 3 RFA. We couldn't ask for a better example of the advantages of having an independent corps of bureaucrats who are prepared to make the right decision in the face of a noisy and fractious minority. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. That was one of the best statements of principle I have seen in a long while. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. I've seen some of his posts at admin noticeboards, at arbitration pages, and sometimes at some of the user talk pages that I watch, and while I haven't agreed with everything he has said, I have picked up the impression that this is a calm, civil, balanced, and trustworthy administrator. ElinorD (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. I have not crossed paths with Mackensen, but it's hard to believe that someone who served as an arbitrator would be a bad choice as bureaucrat, and I agree with the argument in Durin's RfB, under 'Need for more bureaucrats', that there is a need for more bureaucrats that actually are available when needed. In Majorly's RfB Mackensen did apparently make the comment "I'm also not sure (per Jeffrey) that we need more bureaucrats.".. 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC). If Mackensen finds a proper forum in which people allow him to respond to questions, e.g. the Talk page of this RfB, perhaps he could say why he changed his mind. EdJohnston 22:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Of Course! He'd be the perfect person to fill Essjay's void. TML 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support-He's a checkuser. If we can trust him with private information, I think we can trust him with sysoping, flagging bots, and renaming users. Also, that part of the speech about RFA promotion was amazing. Now we'll have a(nother?) b'crat that sees that RFA needs to be majorly altered (maybe even changing it into something like an RFC like he said). Lastly, we need more b'crats! Currently. if one like Nichalp go on Wikibreak, we get b'cratic backlog. (It actually looks like this nomination will succeed!)--TeckWiz ParlateContribs @(Lets go Yankees!) 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. The candidacy statement suggests that this user would be a valuable addition to Bureaucrat promotion discussions. Jkelly 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong support I don't think I've heard of this user before, but from what I've read I am going to support. Acalamari 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Most definitely. – Steel 23:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support → Even if maybe we don't need more bureaucrats, other buros surely won't damage wikipedia, and this user seems to deserve my support Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support, both this editor and the position that he sets forth in his statement. Danny 23:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Complete with an edit conflict! Your statement addresses many issues that I have contemplated myself regarding administration, and clearly cuts to the heart of the matter: the benefit to Wikipedia.--Xnuala (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Naturally. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Well, yes. Mackensen is a consistent voice of sanity in the midst of craziness. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Cleared for bureaucratship Has been a prominent editor and I believe he'll be excellent upstairs. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Yes, I could not agree more with everything you said in your statement. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Perhaps, just perhaps, we may have found a counterexample to my thesis that there is not a single user in the entire project who could pass an RfB right now. There really are two questions here. The first is whether the community trusts Mackensen, the individual, with the bureaucrat tools. For me, that's a "yes": a dedicated content contributor, an excellent and level-headed administrator, and for the past two months a conscientious arbitrator, Mackensen certainly is in the top tier of contributors as to both edit counts in all namespaces and as to experience with virtually all the principal editorial and administrator tasks. I have no hesitation entrusting him to monitor and close RfAs (even less with his changing usernames and flagging bots, tasks that seem to be assigned to bureaucrats mostly through historical accident and technical restrictions). The second question posed by this RfA is the community's reaction to Mackensen's platform of using his 'cratship to revise the RfA process. One could argue that this proactive approach represents an evasion of the need for achieving consensus before "fixing" RfA (if it is indeed "broken"). On the other hand, given that this RfB will no doubt receive wide attention over the next week, its succeeding could represent a meta-consensus that this is a direction in which the !voters feel we should proceed, at least experimentally. I would urge that the experiment proceed cautiously; candidates and !voters may be befuddled at first, and the confusion inherent in having two different systems of running RfAs and evaluating their results may be significant; and it may seem for a little while that borderline RfAs are more likely to pass or fail depending on who is closing them; and the first couple of times the result defies "the numbers" under the traditional standard, there will assuredly be some howling, and the pointing to the meta-consensus of this RfA will not immediately assuage it. Still, if Mackensen is willing to take the heat, it may very well be worth a try: "everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it," and everyone talks about changing RfA but this is the first practical attempt to push the issue to the stage of, potentially, actual change; I'm not convinced the new system is without drawbacks (a defeated candidate might take more comfort in a numerical than an analytical result, and too much heat may be concentrated on one 'crat rather than the !voters as a body), and I have some quibbles, but they are details. Newyorkbrad 00:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. A voice of reason, with a clear idea of the difference between what RfA is and what RfA should be.--ragesoss 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Not merely qualified; he's got the judgement and experience to do this job well, especially when it gets sticky. It's a good statement he wrote as well. Antandrus (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - Finally, a somewhat successful RfB. Rejoice! {PTO} {speak} 01:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. There are a few select users who, if they were put on RfB and it failed, I would lose all trust in Wikipedia. Mackensen is one of them, and one of the few who fits perfectly as one. Support.--Wizardman 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support per all of the above despite "Has the ability to quip in Latin?" == "no"... do we need more 'crats? Irrelevant. We need THIS user as a 'crat, even if we already had too many, and without any slight intended against any of the current ones... ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. Sane, civil, trusted, dedicated. Not interested in endless bickering or pointless debate. Basically agree with his admin standards. An obvious choice. --Fang Aili talk 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Impressive position, gutsy move. I'm not convinced the platform is right, but I'm not convinced its not either. Either way Mackensen is imminently trustworthy and with plenty of experience. - Taxman Talk 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Simply seeing his name listed under RfB, and I had no hesitation in coming here to lend my support. For as long as I've seen Mackensen edit here, he's been the wisest and most diplomatic professional I've ever seen. On reading his application statement, I cannot lend my support any more strongly. I support his application, I support his views (stated above), and I'm fully confident it will be of benefit to the project. --InkSplotch 02:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support A little unnerved by his statement of intended rebellion, but frankly, he's dead on. RfA is a joke anymore, and somebody needs to stand up and do something about it. We need to all get it through our thick little skulls that being granted adminship is simply saying "We trust you not to go ape-shit bazerk and delete everything, although even if you did, you'd loose your rights in 5 seconds and all of your actions could be undone in about 30 seconds." It's not this perverse homecoming queen election we've turned it into. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. In all of my interactions and observations, Mackensen has been a model Wikipedian. I trust his judgement, and I think he would make an excellent bureaucrat. Khoikhoi 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. I embrace his stance that he put into words above, and there is absolutely no doubt that I can trust him. Daniel Bryant 04:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support I have read the RfA pages for many moons and never participated because the process has become progressively more dysfunctional. I trust Mackensen in his current roles, and I believe his proposed methods for selecting administrators will be advantageous to Wikipedia. Canadian Caesar has a point about multiple roles; I believe that is better addressed by appointing more people to the Checkuser and Oversight roles rather than missing this opportunity. Risker 04:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support I agree that RfA needs a change, but I'm not sure this is the right one. Nevertheless, I have great trust in Mackensen, so I'll support. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support I have great trust in Mackensen's judgement, discretion, and good conduct. I don't know if this proposal is the proper way forward with RfA, but I do trust him to oversee it as an experiment and to stand down on it if it turns out to be harmful. Choess 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support, strongest possible. Excellent statement. The fact that the bureaucrats at the moment (appear) do little but count heads is a problem with RfA, and any relief is welcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support, in the strongest terms. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Sure. Kusma (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support as one of the most qualified candidates I've seen apply for the position since I started editing. Whether 'crats are needed or not, it certainly doesn't hurt to have more. Mackensen should to an excellent job. - auburnpilot talk 06:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. One word: Trust. Agathoclea 06:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. Per Mackensen, RFA is a means to an end, not the end itself. Thatcher131 06:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support per above. MER-C 06:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Strict adherence to percentages just encourage campaigning and vote stacking while discouraging reasonable discussion. I support the platform. -- Samuel Wantman 07:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. SupportI don't imagine Mackensen would promote someone simply because they like them. Perhaps to end this perception though, two bureaucrats could be required to endorse the decision. Whatever happens, I think this is a step in the right direction to fix RfA, in which too many good candidates, like Moreschi, Ben, Wandalstouring, and Wizardry Dragon, get turned down because they don't tick every single absurdly picky box. I sincerely hope this RfB passes and we can rid the process of fly by voters and the regulars who seem determined to oppose anyone with less that six million edits who doesn't VP night and day while writing FAs in the few moments between proposing new policies. Really, 2000 edits, four months, constant edit summaries and good dose of experience in the main and wikipedia namespaces are all that is needed to prove that someone is not psychotic and likely to go on mad deletion or blocking sprees. I hope Mackensen will move closer to that ideal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. Good platform, reminds me of the "outside-of-Washington" camaign platforms of some former U.S. political candidates, except this one is actually genuine. That the burden of proof falls on the opposers is what I was trying to articulate in my RfB, but this user is better armed to judge consensus and, well, has a more eloquent and sensible platform than I ever did. I've been saying for a while that RfA needs a fresh voice as bureaucrat and this seems like an ideal candidate. Grandmasterka 11:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Strong support Excellent statement. --Mbimmler 11:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Strong support a little revolution, now and again, is a good thing. I am much impressed by Mackensen's open-ness and perspective. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 11:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support An exceptional wikipedian, who already has the trust of the community in several fundamental roles. He will make a great bureaucrat.--Anthony.bradbury 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support - Mackensen is not perfect in all ways... apparently he can't even quip in Latin ('O tempora! O humanitas!'), but each of the few times I have seen him 'step over the line' he has 'stepped back' in short order. He is right about our need for more admins, I agree that the steady increase in RFA 'requirements' is a problem, I'm in favour of allowing bureaucrats wider discretion, and I think Mackensen would do a good job of it. Will some of the people he promotes turn out to be 'problem' admins? Undoubtedly, but that's true when bureaucrats go 'by the numbers' too... it is an issue we need to deal with better in general, rather than something which should cause us to limit the number of admins promoted (and thereby cause more pressure for the existing ones to crack). Despite some past 'bad blood' between us I wasn't uncomfortable with Mackensen acting as arbitrator on a recent case where some were pushing for sanctions against me. I trusted him to be fair and consider things carefully there - judging admin candidates isn't half so demanding. --CBD 13:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support - I fully trust Mackensen to be a good crat, my only concerns were that he would jump in and promote users which didn't really have community support, the answer to question 7 relieves me of these concerns, by stating he would discuss with other crats prior to taking action, it seams that this user can be trusted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. Suppoty - A great sysop, great at his role as Checkuser/oversight, will do well if he's a bureaucrat! --SunStar Net talk 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support. A statement of intent, and IMO the right intent. RFA needs to be sorted out, and I have confidence that Mackensen may well be the person to do it! Batmanand | Talk 13:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support. I like what he is saying and respect his judgement. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support Takes initiative with respect to obvious problems Fred Bauder 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support Good statement. I trust his judgment. My first hand experience with him tells me that he will work collaboratively with other 'crats as needed. FloNight 14:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support (strong) — excellent Wikipedian, informative statement and a clear demonstration of the user's ability to be trusted with important tools (CheckUser/Oversight). anthony[cfc] 15:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support I can't see any reason not to support. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Mackensen is an excellent user. Can he be trusted with the tools? Of course! I don't see the harm in his wish to apply more common sense rather than discussing percentage figures. Valentinian T / C 17:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. Strong medicine, and timely. --RobthTalk 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support per platform. Fuck the numbers, I want a bureaucrat who I trust to think and make good decisions, and Mackensen is that sort of person. Picaroon 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  68. I support Mackensen. DS 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  69. Of course. - David Gerard 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  70. No question in my mind. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support — perfect candidate. He has flawlessly and intelligently resolved every issue I've seen him involved in. — Deckiller 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support. DarthVader 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support - views on RFA are consistent with mine. GracenotesT § 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support Like Majorly said, I don't really see much RfA participation, but I've known to trust Mackensen in many of the other things he does on Wikipedia. I have no doubt that the trust for other tools like CheckUser can be carried over to bureacratship. Nishkid64 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support: Will, in my opinion, use the tools well.  ~Steptrip 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support. Mackensen? Of course! Prodego talk 00:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support. My only concern has been dealt with. --Conti|✉ 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support. Why not? For a user that has been on wiki, for like, 4 years, and a user who is both a checkuser and oversight, should, in my opinion, become a bureaucrat. I mean, very few users are granted adminship, checkuser, and oversight, there's only, like, 15 of those users out there. A lot of oversights and checkusers have become stewards first, and a lot of stewards have become bureaucrats first. More people like this, should, in my poinion, help the encyclopedia. As long as this user is credible, trustworthy, and legitimate overall, I support. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support per strong statement, and answers to questions. Anyone with checkuser/oversight/ArbCom is easily trustworthy enough to be a bureaucrat, and will do what's in the best interests of the project in dealing with RfAs. --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support Yonatan talk 02:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support Mack is someone whose judgement I would trust in performing 'crat actions. The number of existing 'crats is immaterial; Mack would be a valued addition. -- Avi 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support ugen64 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support This has been a very informative discussion. I think Mackensen's approach to RFA may be helpful. YechielMan 07:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support - based on the answers given and the discussion throughout this RfB, I feel comfortable giving my full support to Mackensen. I doubt he will implode the Wiki with the extra tools; in fact, I believe he will make it better. I trust his decisions and his judgement. ♠PMC♠ 09:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support. "People I trust" and "People who have a chance in hell" form a very small intersection, and you're it. —freak(talk) 10:41, Apr. 8, 2007 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Oppose, per my long-held RfB standards: no more Bureaucrats are needed with the current amount of tasks and bureaucrats. This is not a judgment of the user, who, if I may ad, is one of our Project's greater assets. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    OK... This is the first time I may not vote oppose on an RfB, and I may still change my mind, but re-reading his statement a couple of times has forced me to reconsider, even if just temporarily. On principle, we do not need more bureaucrats. That will not change for the foreseeable future, and the track record of the majority of the existing 'crats not pulling their weight makes me wary of any RfB candidate no matter the quality. But... But, reading his statement, I cannot help to think that, if he were to follow up with his promises, there would be a measurable benefit to the Project. There is no telling how effective he could be and will likely be thwarted in some of his efforts; other 'crats may beat him to the punch on a RfA, or he may be just too busy with all his other activities — there are very few users with his level of access and responsibility. So for now I am still opposing the concept of the need for more 'crats, but supporting Mackensen's rationale in his nomination statement. Consider this a neutral oppose. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wether we need more or not, can the project be harmed by having them? ViridaeTalk 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Like the editor, but his statement is problematic. Placing "the burden on the opposers" strikes me as a manner of bypassing a (sometimes large) discontented minority with whom one disagrees. I certainly don't think Mackensen says this in bad-faith, or anything; I just worry that such a philosophy will lead to more and more unprepared admins. I guess one might call this a philosophical disagreement. Also, per CanadianCaesar, concerned about separation of powers among arbcom and b'crats. Xoloz 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    There is no way to approach consensus-judging if the people who oppose have no obligation to provide a rationale. That means they cannot be engaged on their ideas, others cannot take their arguments into account, and, frankly, people with crappy arguments not in line with Wikipedia's goals are given equal weight to sensible editors. You'll have to explain what you mean by "separation of powers". Wikipedia does not have a government, and bureaucrats are not a check or balance on any other group, including arbitrators. Are you afraid bureaucrats who are arbitrators could not be held accountable, because that doesn't seem like an issue to me. (And has there ever been any problem with the multiple current bureaucrats on ArbCom?) Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    I've never seen an opposer who doesn't comment at all and is left alone. Normally, the opposer is asked to explain, and does so. If he doesn't, he should be ignored, I agree. What worries me are those arguments that the majority might not like (like say, "candidate lack of experience" or -- to judge from Danny's ongoing RfA -- "candidate bites newbies.") These arguments don't win majority support, but often attract a significant minority. I fear that "weighing the stregth of the arguments" might lead to ignoring that significant minority. I'm no fan of percentages, either, but they do have the advantage of protecting minority opinion -- an important feature distinguishing consensus-rule from outright democracy, which WP is not.
    As for your other concern, I think its pretty obvious. One person should not have too much power. I oppose consolidation of powers in any individual. Helps protect against Essjay-like problems, eh? If the current ArbCom members, like Raul, came up to RfB today, I'd oppose on the same principle; and it would not hurt the workload (at RfA anyway) because, historically, dual ArbCommer/b'crats don't close many RfA's. Xoloz
  3. Object: dishonest and hypocritical. This user once posted private e-mails from me on Wikipedia, without my permission (in fact, he did so in spite of outraged protest on my part), tried to use them against me, and then later had the gall to complain when somebody else did something similar to him. Even leaving that aside, I disagree with him about just about every position I've seen him take on admin issues. Everyking 02:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Hello James. I'm not going to defend what I did then; I've regretted it ever since and I apologized to you via email. I don't begrudge you disagreeing with me on administrative issues, but I've long hoped that it might be within you, after some two years, to forgive me that terrible lapse of judgement. Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Dragonsflight below also articulates very well how I feel about Mackensen's intention to promote according to his own judgment rather than the community's. This is a very, very wrong approach, and I do not believe people would accept it in practice. Everyking 02:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. As Newyorkbrad says above, this RFB presents us with two questions. Do we trust Mackensen, and are we prepared to embrace his vision of reform. To the first question I would answer with a resounding yes. I have nothing but respect for Mackensen's work and the time he devotes to Wikipedia. I am sure he has nothing but good intentions here. However, I feel the reform package on which he has staked his candidacy is fundamentally flawed and will increase rather than diminish the problems with this process. In many ways Wikipedia is the Community. This project rises or falls on the good will of volunteers. If the controversial closings of the past tell us anything, it is that there are few faster ways to create strife in this community than to create situations where people feel their views are ignored and cast aside by powerful authority figures who appear to be substituting their own judgment for that of the community. Your proposal is in essence to place your own judgment above that of the mob in determining who to promote. While noble in intent, I feel that the troublesome side effects of such decisions and the perception of disenfranchisement will be far worse than any fractional gains achieved by a few more promotions.

    Adminship should be no big deal. And likewise, not being an admin should be no big deal. Even though RFA may make some bloody stupid decisions some times, relatively little harm comes of that. Personally I think the standards should be lower, and I've even made ad hoc proposals for how to increase the promotion rate, but regardless we still promote nearly one candidate per day and Wikipedia continues to function. Even if Mackensen could function as a benevolent and omniscient dictator for RFA, I expect the overall effect of correcting RFA's mistakes and increasing the admin pool would be small. Much less in fact than the negative impact of stirring resentment within the community by creating a situation where people perceive that their opinions don't really matter.

    In my opinion, the community as a whole would be better served by embracing the German model and eliminating Bureaucrat discretion entirely rather than increasing it. A straight vote is clear, concise, and easily understood by all involved. Even though the selection of which admins are promoted might be somewhat worse, I feel that providing the community with a clearly understood outcome is more important than accurately promoting every potentially valuable candidate. (And let's not kid ourselves, in the last year a straight 75% threshold predicted 99% of all RFA outcomes, so the process in its present incarnation is already very vote like.)

    So, in short, I feel Mackensen's proposal is exactly a step in the wrong direction. This is in no way a dispersion on him, as I believe he is certainly deserving of our trust, and he might well improve the selection of candidates. However, by putting himself squarely in the position of deciding whether or not a certain kind of opposition is to be counted, I feel he is asking for trouble. Such an autocratic approach might be able to improve our promotions, but I feel it would inevitably frustrate other valuable contributors and ultimately have unintended consequences that would make things worse for the community overall. Dragons flight 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    You say that the straight 75% threshold predicted 99% of all RFA outcomes, but what about excellent candidates that have seen their RFA percentage dragged well below 75% because of frivilous arguments, they're the people we should be finding a way to promote - if they've got the experience and can be trusted, they should be promoted and at the moment, it's simply not happening. What's worse is that so many people have lost faith in the RFA system, they are refusing to put themselves forward for adminship. There are dozens of people on-wiki and on IRC who keep asking for an admin to perform actions they both know how to perform themselves and should be performing themselves, but who are too concerned at how their RFA would go. RFA shouldn't be judged on those it promotes, but rather, those it doesn't, and those who are too terrified to even accept a nomination and go through the whole process. -- Nick t 11:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Which excellent candidates have failed RfA due to frivolous arguments? This claim is made frequently, but few (if any) specific RfAs are ever mentioned. In close cases candidates often aren't as "excellent" as supporters believe and the opposition isn't as "frivolous" either. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen occassionally, but do we overhaul RfA to address a few exceptions? ChazBeckett 14:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per platform. To ask even less of reasoned argument from supporters, and even more from opposers, seems to me a step in exactly the wrong direction. Mackensen's "I would be willing to promote anyone of whom the above can be said" suggests to me a shift in the bureaucratic role from assessing community consensus to assessing the candidate. I read it as a slide towards less and less need for any community input on RFA. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but I don't want to see it become more of an enlightened despotism than it has to, either. The few instances that we have so far seen of bureaucrat unilateralism haven't beeen encouraging IMO. Bishonen | talk 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
    I hope that we do not wind up in such a place. In encouraging RfC format I hope to see more discussion/ideas and less straight !voting. If it doesn't work it doesn't work, but I'm convinced that the existing model is broken. Thanks for your insight as always, Mackensen (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Would your determination to promote according to your own judgment apply even if a majority vote against a candidate? If 60% oppose the candidacy, but you support it, will you approve it? In the past, bitter controversy has developed as a result of promotions done when the result was under 70% support, which the community seems to have settled upon as the appropriate minimum; I believe the lowest was Carnildo with about 62%. The latter case in particular caused a firestorm of controversy. How do you feel about all this? I think we can presume similar outrage if you were to make a promotion without consensus, so how would you respond to that? Would you tell people to just deal with it, because you're the boss and you make the decisions? Everyking 04:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    As I indicated above I'm not interested in numbers; I'm interested in reasons. Again, switching to RfC format lessens the importance of percentages. You have the possibility of people endorsing multiple points of view. This changes the terms altogether. I would focus on the particular objections and weigh each in turn, based on whether these objections were grounded in policy. In most cases this isn't a big deal, but in these borderline cases a party is bound to be angry with the outcome. Your last sentence is problematic: I might not be the boss, but I would be called upon to make the decision. It would be my hope that the community would take a similarly benevolent view towards the granting of adminship. Mackensen (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Many common objections to RfAs are well-known to recur. Realizing that firm opinions are impossible without the specific details of an individual case, could you share your feelings on how you would evaluate the objection that a candidate "lacks experience"? I'd just like a general guideline here. You see, as you abhor percentages, you will be a different sort of b'crat: I'd like to have some indication of the standards by which you will weigh arguments that I know will arise every day. Xoloz 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Lack of experience is an important objection, if properly qualified. It's a recurring gag that X doesn't have enough Portal edits, so oppose. The joke has a kernel of truth. I view this as an evolving process; as I've noted above, it's my hope that the change of format will lead to a change of tone and lead people to focus on essential issues. Experience can be measured, in part, by time served. Does the person edit regularly? Has he edited for a couple months, and do these edits show dedication, or a passing fling? Has the person shown some interest beyond the article space? I want, when possible, to take my cues from the community on these questions, but with the proviso that the community change its focus. In particular, I want to re-examine the common objection that a user doesn't know enough about policy. Policy is an ever-changing minefield; less important than experience with policy is an inculcated knowledge of what Wikipedia is about. This innate approach is more valuable than a rules-lawyer knowledge of policy. I suspect this doesn't clarify much, but I freely admit that this is uncertain ground. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    If you make the decision, you're the boss. I like having it so the community makes the decision, and the community is the boss. Moving to an RfC format would presumably not be accepted by the community, which has rejected much less radical proposals for change, so we have to assume you'd be operating within context of the existing RfA format. How would you react to the boiling controversies that would erupt if you did things the way you're proposing? This wouldn't just be a matter of a "party" objecting. Everyking 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    On whether the community would accept such a format, I regard this RfB as a test of that willingness. I would consider the success of this RfB as a mandate from the community to at least try this new idea. If it fails, I will of course work within the existing structure. See my response to Xoloz above. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't agree that it would constitute a mandate; to change the system general approval would be required on the RfA talk page or some similar page. But, since you say it would, how would you go about this? Would you rewrite the RfA instructions and rework the formatting, and then present it to the community as if they are supposed to accept it? Everyking 07:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Opppose per the platform. Dragon's flight put it very well. We should not replace community's (mob's, if you wish) judgment with bureaucrat's one. The 75% threshold has the advantage that there is a clear criterion for passing, independent of the bureaucrat. The biggest problems we had in RfAs were when bureaucrats thought they were smarter than the people. That include's Danny's vote and promote below threshold for Sean Black and Essjay, the recent promotion by Raul654 ('cause Raul liked the guy, even though he was way below promotion theshold), and the Carnildo affair. We need less of this, not more. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    A few points: (1) since RFAs have long since become only attended by a small fraction of regular Wikipedia editors, and indeed largely by a fairly consistent group ("RFA regulars"), voting totals here have long since lost relevance to true consensus; (2) From the start, adminship was meant to be granted to all editors who wanted it and seemed competent; (3) nowhere on Wikipedia are we supposed to be voting, although '!vote' is cynical for a reason; (4) the biggest problems we have had in RFAs are not the occasional controversial bureaucrat decision, which IMO tends to be a big fuss created by a small number of people, but the daily disaster of the RFA process, drip by drip; that it dissuades competent users from serving the project in this capacity, that it makes getting adminship a political and ass-kissing process, and a matter of ticking off all the check-boxes on a bunch of silly requirements, that it gives an impression of what adminship should be about that is not the actual case or the preferences of most of the project; (5) that by putting needless barriers up it actually increases the feeling that admins are 'special' and an elite class, and by reducing the number of admins it encourages an us v. them feeling and increases the chances of rushed work by the admins we have. I could go on, but I think the worst of all likely results is to keep the current way the RFA process works. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    You have raised many valid points. I very much agree that the people who vote can be a fickle crowd, opposing on the slightest of mistakes or appearance of lack of experience in a certain area. I also agree that people are discouraged from candidating with the current process. Some kind of reforms are needed indeed. Nevertheless, taking the power from the people and giving it to the bureaucrats is not the way to go. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per CanadianCaesar, Xoloz. From the cases quoted by Oleg Alexandrov, how am I supposed to know whether my legitimate concerns be thrown out as WP:IDONTLIKEIT pro crat's WP:ILIKEIT? - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well, that probably comes down to whether you trust me, or any other bureaucrat, to exercise good judgement and act fairly to all parties--not just opposers, of course. Mackensen (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per platform. Everybody participating in RfA not only presents the arguments but also evaluates the previous arguments as well as his or her personal arguments. To dismiss all these judgements and use instead Mackensen's personal criteria for the adminship is to strong and to dangerous reform. Alex Bakharev 07:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    (Changed to non-counting) Oppose Looking for the benevolent, judicious decisionmaker in instances when the community gets it wrong is a tempting impulse, but as history has shown, it's almost always the wrong impulse, and I find it worrying that Mackensen tries to sell it as the panacea. He should know better. ~ trialsanderrors 08:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think Mackensen's experiment is fundamentally flawed and will fail, but I don't disagree with Mackensen as 'crat. ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. There's about 20 active editors that I would strongly support in an RfB. Mackensen is one of them. When I saw that he had an ongoing RfB, I started reading wondering what reasons people would find to oppose. As I read more I realized that this wasn't so much a Request for Bureaucratship, but instead a Request to Change RfA. Perhaps a change is necessary, but it should not be undertaken by bureaucrats. "Reform" has been discussed at great length and nothing resembling consensus has ever been reached. I fully support Mackensen's desire to change RfA, but this is not the way to accomplish it. Sadly, I must oppose. ChazBeckett 12:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I really fail to understand this comment. You (like most) agree that RfA needs changing. Well, what is the other means of changing it you are suggesting? Trying to get consensus on any one proposal is impossible - the only thing we can get consensus on is that the status-quo sucks, yet we are left with the status quo. If Mackensen is successful then he will have a consensus to proceed as he has openly declared - and he's indicated that it it doesn't work, he'll back off. What other practical route do you have in mind to sort RfA?--Docg 12:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    OK, I'll try to explain myself better. I think that ...perhaps a change is necessary, though I'm not in the "RfA is broken" camp. It probably needs a few tweaks, but in general RfA works well enough that there isn't consensus to change. Or at least there's no consensus on how to fix it without breaking what's already working. If an overhaul is going to occur, it shouldn't be through a bureaucrat who decided he's going to change it by himself. I don't support Mackensen's one-man approach and therefore I'm opposing him. Also, if Mackensen were a bureaucrat, promotion in an RfA would be based partially on which bureaucrat closed it. I don't want to see a situation in which Mackensen is promoting admins that no other bureaucrat would have promoted. From his nomination statement, I believe this would occur sooner rather than later. ChazBeckett 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose simply on the grounds that we do not need more promotions to this position. Moves to this job should be, and are, quite rare. We need some demonstration that more are needed, and there has been none. Therefore, the default is "no." Geogre 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. RfA may need fixing (although I'm skeptical), but letting Mackensen decide the passes or fails on a whim would be like trying to fix the American electoral system by declaring a king. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm regret if my statements above make it sound as though I'm proposing whimsy as the basis for adminship. See especially my responses to Ryanpostlethwaite's questions. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per the platform, Oleg Alexandrov and Xoloz. Terence 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Strong oppose per Bishonen. Just no way. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. The opposers above have said what I wanted to say and more elegantly. We need less, not more, bureaucratic fiat. The Wikipedia community is a democratic society of peers. Voting is imperfect but it is the best method we have of selecting new admins. We do need responsible people to manage the voting process but we don't need them to override it in favor of applying their own judgment. Mackensen has suggested that he would do the latter so I cannot support him for the position. I also have misgivings about Mackensen from some of his comments in the past. I remember a weird disproportional haranguing of Xoloz for closing a DRV with a result Mackensen disagreed with. It seemed to me like Mackensen was not interested in entertaining or even informing himself on views different from his own, condemning one of our best admins over something as trivial as a cross-namespace redirect. [52] [53] [54] [55] Haukur 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    As far as I'm aware Xoloz bears me no ill-will over the matter; I certainly hold no grudge. I do not believe that upholding policy is a vice. You should have quoted the most important thing I said from that debate [56]. I'll quote it in full here: "Let's put the buzzwords down and back away from them and have a serious discussion. What we've got here is a classic conflict between process and policy. That is, an approved process came up with a result which violated policy. In that case, the best thing is for the closing administrator to exercise good judgement (as I said above), and close the discussion in favor of policy over process. It's that simple." I stand by that remark and I'm surprised that this stance is controversial. Deliberately violating policy is no trivial matter. If Wikipedia is a democratic society of our peers then ought to grant adminship freely, not place it out of reach. I propose to do just that. Do you disagree? Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree that Xoloz "deliberately violated policy" or that he violated policy at all. I would be fine with granting adminship more liberally but the right way to do that would be to lower the support needed for passing, not by electing a bureaucrat who plays by his own book. Thanks for replying, though. Haukur 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Let's have a different playbook then (if you like), but I do not believe that fiddling with numbers is the answer. Every RFA needs to articulate clearly why someone should or should not be an admin, and how the encyclopedia benefits. Simply adjusting these arbitary numbers downward doesn't address the actual question, and will in my view simply lead to more knee-jerk opposing. Thank you as well for the discussion, Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    The bottom line is that I believe RFA should be a vote and you believe it should not be. While this is the case I am not likely to vote for you. Haukur 22:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose: For three reasons. First, I agree with a number of the sentiments voiced above regarding the platform. However, I wish to draw a distinction that I do not find above. Bureaucrats are put in place to exercise the will of the community. They are not leaders. The power to change RfA is not vested with them. This isn't just about changing the RfA process. This RfB asks us to completely change the model of what a bureaucrat is. Should this RfB succeed, the model then becomes that bureaucrats can implement whatever they see fit to achieve RfA's goals. We have had a tremendous amount of fallout within the last year from bureaucrats acting distinctly in opposition to community consensus. We do not need more of this. Second: I wholeheartedly agree, with every fiber of my wiki-being, that RfA is horribly broken and that what RfA has become is fully against the purposes of the project. We have seen a zillion reform proposals come and go. Very few of them ever take the time and effort to analyze what the goals of RfA are, what the problems in the current system are, and how a given proposal will solve the problems while fulfilling the goals. This proposal is no different; there's nothing to suggest this is the right way forward. It's just a way forward suggested by a long time editor here. We've had dozens of those. Third, I feel Mackensen has shown a willingness to be hopelessly shackled to process. A reading of his comments at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_6#Other_clerk_areas shows him to be heavily combative and unwilling to seriously consider another method of doing things. I don't care that he opposed my stance in that exchange. It matters not to me (I actually found his insults amusing, if wholly unconstructive, such as calling me a martyr). What I found shocking was his attitude and behavior in that thread. In the end, the exlusionary status of clerks at WP:CHU, WP:CHU/U and WP:RFCU has been removed, and amazingly enough those processes are still working well. In sum; This RfB suggests a complete revamp not just of RfA, but of the role of bureaucrats in a way I find wholly unacceptable. Further, the proposed change has been made without doing any evaluative work to even begin to suggest this is the right way forward. Lastly, even if this is the right way forward, Mackensen is most emphatically not the person to be leading us into the next era of RfA. --Durin 18:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    That's the first time I've even been accused of being shackled to process; I urge you not to make generalizations from a debate that I fully admit I took personally, and which I regret (after the fact, but still). Frankly that mess reflected poorly on all concerned, and I like to think that I've been gentlemanly and civil in 99% of my interactions. I'll also point out that I stood aside when you idea (version thereof) gained support. In any event, I'm not terribly surprised by this opposition, but I hope you're prepared to active engage the question of RFA reform. We need not be shackled to the idea that such reform is impossible just because everyone so far has failed. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    You seem to suggest that I am opposing you because you opposed me and the removal of exclusionary status of clerks. I am not. As I noted above, I do not care that you opposed what I was advocating. What I am gravely concerned about the manner in which you acquitted yourself, which is most emphatically completely unbecoming of a person who is asking us to vest more power in him than any bureaucrat in the last few years. I am not shackled to the idea that RfA reform is impossible. I am very convinced by a number of factors (including this essay) that the regulars at WT:RFA are now, as a group, incapable of this reform. --Durin 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, I simply don't blame you for having an unfavorable view of me. I'm also not asking for more power for me personally; I'm asking for a change in process and greater latitude to bureaucrats as a group. I agree completely that the RFA regulars are incapable of reform, hence here we are. Thanks for your response; I hope I've clarified matters. Peace, Mackensen (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per comments made by dragons flight, bishonen, chaz, durin. Too many issues raised that make me uncomfortable supporting mackensen.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. It bothers me to oppose this nomination, because I agree with Mackensen's sentiment, but I don't think his method is the right way to handle RFA issues. I agree that even now, it should not be done merely as head-counting, but that at least some form of discretion should be used (such as discounting votes reminiscent of Boothy443). But to put the onus on opposing voters even more so than it is now should be a community decision. While I'm sure WT:RFA comments to this effect have made up many megabytes of text, no one has actually put forth a competent effort to change the qualifications for passing adminship. Until this happens, and passes or fails, I cannot support someone who would radically change the status quo without community support. Ral315 » 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    If I may, the success of this RfB would surely indicate community support for making such a change. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    But what if I think that you are a good candidate for the role and your proposal is flawed, as per NewYorkBrad? How then do I decide to cast my opinion? (aeropagitica) 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think you have to ask whether the concept is worth a try or not. If you aren't in favor of RfA reform than for heaven's sake don't support me. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose: This candidate attracts far to much controversy. A bureaucrat has to be like Caesar's wife - Mackensen is not. Among his faults are double standards (per Everyking) if he was to be permitted to make important decisions and choices, no one on this site would ever know where they stood. I don't trust him. Giano 20:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Everyking refers to an incident from two years ago, in which I erred greatly in publishing private correspondence. I later apologized and recanted. Bringing matters to the present, I never lied to you, never blocked you, never spoke ill of you behind your back, always answered your questions honestly and always strove to keep the lines of communication open, even when under great pressure. I can't imagine what more I could have done, but you're welcome to think what you will of me. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't frequent IRC, so I have no idea what you do or do not say behind my back but this is not about me and you, as I said "This candidate attracts far to much controversy. A bureaucrat has to be like Caesar's wife - Mackensen is not" - Sorry. Giano 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen is not 'beyond suspicion'? Anyway, whilst doubtless irreproachable, Mrs. C was also equally ineffectual in changing the fates.--Docg 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sure you are right, but did she not at least have the sense to fall on her asp and avoid an unseemly debate on her dodgy reputation? Giano 21:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Uh, Cleopatra was never married to Caesar. He was married to Calpurnia Pisonis, who dreamed he would be murdered but failed miserably in getting him to stay away from public affairs that day. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    I believe the term refers to Caesar's declaration in divorcing Pompeia. There is something about this in the article and in the Publius Clodius Pulcher article. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. No way. I strongly oppose any candidate who would put their judgement above the community's. (Although I agree that an RfA structured as an RfC would be a much better idea, I do not agree that there should be "kingmakers".) As things stand, that is not acceptable. I do not consider your judgement to be superior to the average in any case, so even if it were acceptable, I wouldn't accept you in the role. Furthermore, I would not support anyone who would have promoted Ryulong, or any other candidate who garnered widespread opposition. Whereas I think that it's reasonable to say that we should not count votes and should not turn down candidates because they don't meet arbitrary, ever shifting criteria, I do think that candidates who meet serious, heartfelt opposition from a significant number of editors should not be promoted, regardless how many supports they receive. You seem to agree, yet clearly you mean to say that you would disregard opposition you personally did not agree with. If a more objective-minded candidate stood on the same platform, I would maybe support them. But not this one. Grace Note 07:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Oppose current arbitrator; need a separation of powers. Sorry. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related requests

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_385d.html"