Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel Olsen 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Daniel Olsen

Final (44/0/0) Ended Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:07:13 UTC

Daniel Olsen (talk • contribs) – I would like to nominate myself because I believe in the Wikipedia project, I've contributed for some time, and I want to continue to do as much as I can to help. I believe I have a very good knowledge of Wikipedia policy and process and I'll be able to use that knowledge to make the most out of my adminship (if I get it). If you're getting a bit of deja vu with this nom, it's probably because you saw my previous nom. After my gnome-ish work to Wikipedia, I was a bit perturbed when the first vote was a user judging me solely on statistics without giving me a chance, and I shot myself in the foot by making an uncivil response to that first vote. Rather than start a new username with a blank slate, I decided to continue editing under this username and earn my reputation back. Other concerns of the past nomination include arguments used in AfDs that people see as arguments to avoid. In AfDs since then I've tried to cite specific policies or guidelines while voting. I believe that my responsible use of VP and AWB, while not full admin tools, show some level of responsibility with mop-like tools. If I'm given the mop, I'll wield it just like I’ve wielded the pseudo-mops in the past. Daniel Olsen 03:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Daniel Olsen 05:35, 29 October 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: AfDs always need an extra admin or two helping out, as do IfDs, TfDs, MfDs, etc. I've always been particularly active in vandal-fighting, and instead of just listings vandals on AIV I'd be able to block them and block vandals listed by other users. Quick spotting of vandalism accounts can mean the difference between 4 or 5 vandalized articles and 20. Requested moves and protected edit requests are simple tasks that I'd be able to help with, while speedily deletions require a bit more time. I'm comfortable speedily deleting most things that can bear the db tag but I'd probably send a lot of questionably A7 articles to AfD. I'm a participant of WP:ADOPT, and having someone with admin power there to help with things restricted to admins certainly couldn't hurt.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Alright, time to show off what I'm most proud of. Lets see, I found Chabot Space and Science Center as a substub and tranformed it from substub status to a full article with GFDL images (diff) (I later found out that an article already existed at Chabot Space & Science Center, but it was mostly copyvio and is in the process of being merged with the article I've created), I've worked on MAJOR cleanup of the Chinatown, Oakland, California article (too many diffs to list, see history), and worked on Oakland, California. Oakland Technical High Engineering Academy is another pet project of mine (guess where I'm from), this article is fully my work. I'm active in both adopting users in WP:ADOPT (9 so far) and helping to expand the project, its templates, categories, etc. Most of my work is a lot more gnomish though. I've cleaned out Category:Stubs once or twice, worked on fixing disambiguation pages with links (see past and current database dumps at WP:DPL), voted on a few hundred AfDs, major antivandalism work (My vandalism odometer just rolled over the 1000 revert mark), and taking pictures for Wikipedia (29 so far, see User:Daniel Olsen/Images). I worked with the folks over at WikiProject Stub sorting to split Category:California geography stubs into 6 regions of california, and created stub templates for each county in the state that feed into the appropriate regional cat. Links to edit counts are below.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Most things don't cause me much stress, but there are a few things that come to mind. My ruined previous RfA was one, as are the deletion of articles and categories I've created, but as a high schooler going through the college application process I've learned to deal with stress. I I'm not judged solely by my uncivil comment on my previous RfA, but on the other 5000 or so edits as well.

Self-posed question from Daniel Olsen (talk • contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A WP:IAR is a necesary policy in order to avoid instruction creep and WP:BEANS. Rather than specifically making and refining rules for every specific case that could arise, if the rules that would normally pertain to something are ambiguous or lacking something, an editor should use his or her best judgment in what the community would want and ignore those rules. That's not to say that editors should ignore consensus and act unilaterally, but rather than wait for a consensus to develop for a minor variant of policy, do what's best for Wikipedia. WP:IAR involves a good deal of judgment and should only be used when all else fails. WP:SNOW is very closely related (some may argue that it's really the same thing). If an article should, by common sense, be speedily deleted, but somehow escapes all the criteria for speedy deletion, then it doesn't need to go through a full week-long AfD. If a new user with 100 edits nominates himself for bureaucratship and promptly receives 10 oppose votes for obvious reasons, then it would be reasonable for another user (preferably an admin) to de-list the nomination. WP:SNOW is a little bit more dangerous in the hands of an admin who can speedily delete things, and a judgment on what wouldn't make it through hell (or AfDs) can be very frustrating for non-admins, so it should be used sparingly.

Question from Jeff503 (talk • contribs)

5. How would you, if promoted, help new users learn the basics of Wikipedia easier?

A When working on RC patrol and seeing IPs add constructively, once in a while I'd tag them with a welcome template. Then I stumbled across WP:ADOPT, which I think is a really great alternative. I hope it expands in the future and I'm trying to do my part so that it does.

Optional questions from Malber (talk • contribs)

6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: I think the beginning of WP:BLOCK says it best: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure." If an editor would damage or disrupt Wikipedia if a block was not applied, then there needs to be a block. If the user does not pose any threat to Wikipedia, they should have no block. Simple really.

7. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?

A: Well articles using the words "best", "most", or any other superlatives are usually blatant advertising. Links to order pages are also a red flag, as are user reviews, articles written in first person, articles containing addresses, articles with excessive unlicensed images that were uploaded at the time of the article's creation, or articles about unremarkable businesses that are covered under CSD A7. To tell the truth I haven't tagged too many articles with G11 speedy deletions, so I'll have to keep my eye on what links to {{Db-spam}} in the future.

Optional question from MJCdetroit (talk • contribs)

8. What are your thoughts on sockpuppets or more correctly editors that do not acknowledge that they have multiple accounts?

A: Multiple accounta are sometimes used when a user wants to have a seperate account for a seperate function, such as AfDs or contributions to a certain field, and that's legit most of the time, but there should be some link between the two accounts. When there's no link then stuff can start getting out of hand, with one account getting into trouble and the other staying perfectly clean. Once you start talking to yourself, that's really a problem. I recently came upon a user who would log out to make some of his edits and give his account barnstars, pretending it was from someone else. Seperate accounts are fine as long as neither one is getting into trouble and they don't meet.

General comments

• See Daniel Olsen's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Daniel Olsen's contribution summary using Voice of All's tool and Interiot's wannabe Kate tool here.
• I would really appreciate any extra questions you'd like to throw at me if they would help influence your support or opposition. I chose the two above because they were ones that I felt strongly about and I wanted to make sure my answers to those were heard before anyone voted.

Discussion

Support

1. First Support Seems to have learned from his prior mistakes pretty well, which is a good sign of an aspiring admin. Coupled with a serious yet humorous demeanor and the right mix of contributions, I lend (nay, hand readily) my support. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. I'm sorry to hear that (it sounds like) you thought about starting over using a new account. You have progressed since the first RfA to my satisfaction however. Grandmasterka 05:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, only really seen him on AfD, however what I have seen has been of the utmost quality. Even if this user specialised in this area alone (which I'm sure he won't - admin areas is a big range), Wikipedia would be much-the-better for it. Good luck! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Seems a good editor; participates well in most Wikispaces and I doubt that the admin tools would be abused. (aeropagitica) 07:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, good balance of edits by topic and namespace, as shown by [1]. —freak(talk) 07:49, Oct. 30, 2006 (UTC)
7. Support great user. --Alex (Talk) 10:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Good maintenance work; will prove to be a good admin. utcursch | talk 12:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. No issues. Deb 12:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. It's sad he isn't one yet. - Darwinek 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Good improved user. Nishkid64 15:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Seems to have learned from mistakes and I don't see any issues substantial enough to oppose. SuperMachine 17:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Support I think he's learned from his past and earned the mop.-- danntm ^T _C 18:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I've seen him around many times, only good work.--Húsönd 18:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Upportsay Oodgay useray. ~ trialsanderrors 18:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Support It is time to give him the mop. A great improvement in his editing skills as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Mike | Trick or Treat 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per nom --Steve 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Support per nom and good contribs --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per nom. John254 04:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, I have seen good things from this user, and he is levelheaded. -- Natalya 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. I see no red flags, and my limited interaction with him has always been constructive. Thus he gets my support. Rockpocket 05:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Along with the requisite experience and trustworthiness, the candidate has a clear sense of how blocking policies are to be interpreted as well as the level-headedness to realise that the snowball essay should be used sparingly. Good stuff hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 09:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Support its time. Gwernol 13:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
27. Support per answer 6  Doctor Bruno  15:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
28. Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
29. Support - why not? Khoikhoi 02:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
30. Weak support you're a good user, Daniel, and I expect you'll use metaphoric mop productively. However, I wish you would've paid a bit more attention to what you were doing when you created today's rfd subpage about an hour ago; you forgot to add a date header to the subpage and add the November 1 subpage to the mainpage. As you can see, I'm still !voting support, but the fact that in q1 you stated that you'll be closing *fds, and then I find myself having to fix both of these mistakes for you, took a chunk out of the full support you would've otherwise gotten. (I'm not saying that I haven't made the exact same mistakes, because I know I have.) Picaroon9288 02:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry about that, RfDs aren't my home turf and I simply followed the posted instructions to list the redirect. Thanks for fixing my mistakes. --Daniel Olsen 02:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

    I've thought about this for a little while longer, and, having done that, I've decided that those are far too minor to justify a weak support as opposed to a regular one. Therefore, I'm switching to normal support. Picaroon9288 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

31. Support -- Tawker 20:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
32. Support - yup. KrakatoaKatie 06:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
33. Support - right behind you all the way... Budgiekiller 19:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
34. support keep up the good work Mjal 02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
35. Weak support, I would prefer some broader experience with process, but Daniel appears trustworthy anyway. >Radiant< 15:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
36. Support per nom. Michael 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per nom. Seems sane enough =) ♠PMC♠ 20:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
38. Support per nom.Satisfy my standarts.Mustafa Akalp^TC 15:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
39. Support per nom. Good edits, good history, good answers above. Knowledgeable and dedicated to Wikipedia's goals. Well rounded. Doczilla 07:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Has gained a lot more experience. NauticaShades 09:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
41. Support No evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 11:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per nom. Alphachimp 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
43. Support per nom. —MJCdetroit 01:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.