Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Daniel.Bryant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A few comments which I wish to address, which I wasn't able to because the RfA closed:
- This edit and this edit are not acceptable to me. If they were 8 or 10 months ago, maybe I'd let them pass but they're within the last month. If they were in regards to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict or even user boxes, maybe I'd let them pass but they were in regards to an on-line game (GraalOnline/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline) and Wikipedia's reactions to threats of legal action. The idea of making destructive edits or using policy loopholes for just about any reason is unacceptable to me - not if you want to become an admin. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not now, not ever... nobody who blatantly makes threats to wikipedia deserves adminship. Might as well create a new user account and start from scratch as far as I am concerned. Pedant 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I hope that you won't completely write off this user because of a few egregious mistakes hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have every right to re-apply or be re-nominated for adminship, and your views of "not ever" is horrific. Would you still oppose me for two edits, which have been explained above, if I had 20,000 edits, a bunch of Wikihalos and maybe even a job at WMF, just because of those two edits? Daniel.Bryant 04:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I hope that you won't completely write off this user because of a few egregious mistakes hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not just as admin, but contributor too, in light of his admission he may be destructive. Moriori 01:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I quote the following statement from the GRFA: "this process does not judge an editor's value to Wikipedia". I actually find your comments about how you "oppose me being an editor" as insulting. Are you indicating I should be blocked indefinately? Daniel.Bryant 04:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Quote any and every little thing you can find. It won't change my honestly held opinion or you at this time. You threatened "until Wikipedia learns to stand up for its' policies, I will refuse to edit constructively, and may even end up editing destructively, if it comes to that. Go ahead, ban me - it only proves that Wikipedia has submitted to weak legal threats". Then you added "And believe me, if this isn't fixed, Wikipedia will have a whole lot more problems than just the evident ones to deal with. Although you will not know exactly what's going on, just let it be said that you will wish you did, because you'll need more than a couple of mops to clean up the mess". Those threats indicate you can't be trusted. They are a hell of a lot more insulting to Wikipedia than anything I could address to you. Moriori 06:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have to admit that doing that was wrong, but you will never understand the stress I was put under by both GraalOnline and the Wikimedia Foundation. I can give you my 100% guarantee that I won't ever do it again, and I can tell you now that it was an empty threat, as the only time I have ever been banned was when someone hacked my email and sent a message to WMF saying I was leaving and wanted to be blocked. I have never, ever vandalised, never intend to, and I know better not to. I have seen what happens to vandals on RC Patrol. Daniel.Bryant 07:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wow! So there's no hope of redemption for this guy?? He lost the plot once and had a tantrum for a couple of hours. He didn't act on his threat. I think Daniel was obviously wrong to write that, and I was unable to support this RfA because I felt that incident was too recent. But to oppose him as a contributor because he once got frustrated and spat the dummy is incredibly sad. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Sarah, many of us get our knickers in a knot and make edits we regret, but we acknowledge the error, grovel a fair bit, and everyone moves on. A fortnight ago this user threatened he might make destructive edits to cause mayhem on Wiki. He has not expressed contrition about that threat anywhere that I can see. In fact, since his RfA ruckus he has compounded the problem IMMHO by doing everything but address this specific issue. If you look at his posting that follows this one, you will see he hopes that six months down the track people will understand his actions (the threats) and forgive him for them. Note -- no sorry, anywhere, just a hope he can make us understand his motivation. We already understand his motivation - he was under considerable pressure. What he hasn't made us understand is that he is sorry this happened and he will not be a loose cannon in the future. Moriori 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- "In no way am I defending my actions, as I now realise they were wrong" - posted on your talk page prior to you making the above comment. I dislike the word "sorry", not because of the meaning behind it, but because I disagree with John Howard's actions in Australia regarding Aboriginals and the "Say sorry" campaign against him. But if you want me to use that term, rather than giving a more detailed summary of my regret, here you go: Sorry. I consider expressing regret more viable than saying a single word, because saying sorry doesn't require you to express your regret in more than 1 word, which is a better indicator of the persons' beliefs surrounding their actions. "What he hasn't made us understand...he will not be a loose cannon in the future" Please give me one example of me being a "loose cannon" outside of this incident. Daniel.Bryant 02:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Now it's John Howard's fault. ):-. Oh my, you sure can dig yourself further in. You haven't assured us you won't be a loose cannon in the future, as you were when you made threats to Wiki a couple of weeks ago. What is the other example you want me to name? Moriori 03:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- "In no way am I defending my actions, as I now realise they were wrong" - posted on your talk page prior to you making the above comment. I dislike the word "sorry", not because of the meaning behind it, but because I disagree with John Howard's actions in Australia regarding Aboriginals and the "Say sorry" campaign against him. But if you want me to use that term, rather than giving a more detailed summary of my regret, here you go: Sorry. I consider expressing regret more viable than saying a single word, because saying sorry doesn't require you to express your regret in more than 1 word, which is a better indicator of the persons' beliefs surrounding their actions. "What he hasn't made us understand...he will not be a loose cannon in the future" Please give me one example of me being a "loose cannon" outside of this incident. Daniel.Bryant 02:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sarah, many of us get our knickers in a knot and make edits we regret, but we acknowledge the error, grovel a fair bit, and everyone moves on. A fortnight ago this user threatened he might make destructive edits to cause mayhem on Wiki. He has not expressed contrition about that threat anywhere that I can see. In fact, since his RfA ruckus he has compounded the problem IMMHO by doing everything but address this specific issue. If you look at his posting that follows this one, you will see he hopes that six months down the track people will understand his actions (the threats) and forgive him for them. Note -- no sorry, anywhere, just a hope he can make us understand his motivation. We already understand his motivation - he was under considerable pressure. What he hasn't made us understand is that he is sorry this happened and he will not be a loose cannon in the future. Moriori 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Again, a second misjudgement lead me to accept this RfA. I probably did it as to not hurt my friends' (Errant) feelings by declining. I personally would have opposed another user in the same situation as I was (with those diffs). What I really want to make sure of is that, 6 months down the track, with 15,000 edits under my belt, that people will understand my actions and forgive me for them, rather than opposing for a misjudgement by a "new"-ish editor. It's not that I disagree with the reasoning for the opposes with the diff, but it is more making you understand a reason why I did it. Daniel.Bryant 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I took that extra collon you added out because I want it to be clear my comment was directed at Moriori. It looks like I was replying to you. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Quote any and every little thing you can find. It won't change my honestly held opinion or you at this time. You threatened "until Wikipedia learns to stand up for its' policies, I will refuse to edit constructively, and may even end up editing destructively, if it comes to that. Go ahead, ban me - it only proves that Wikipedia has submitted to weak legal threats". Then you added "And believe me, if this isn't fixed, Wikipedia will have a whole lot more problems than just the evident ones to deal with. Although you will not know exactly what's going on, just let it be said that you will wish you did, because you'll need more than a couple of mops to clean up the mess". Those threats indicate you can't be trusted. They are a hell of a lot more insulting to Wikipedia than anything I could address to you. Moriori 06:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I quote the following statement from the GRFA: "this process does not judge an editor's value to Wikipedia". I actually find your comments about how you "oppose me being an editor" as insulting. Are you indicating I should be blocked indefinately? Daniel.Bryant 04:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose per the ridiculous edits you made as shown in Oppose Vote #1. You have too few mainspace edits and you barely show a edit summary. (+fix is not what I consider a good edit summary) Anyone who goes out and makes threats on Wikipedia like that does NOT does not deserve to be an administrator on Wikipedia. Isolated incidents like the ones stated above are what show the true character of people. I am appalled. --Nishkid64 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I guide you to WP:ESL. Although +fix isn't exactly all that specific, it still does address the fact that I am fixing something, and is in many ways more descriptive than many listed there. Also, I ask you, have you ever been sent an email on behalf of a law firm stating that they are about to proceed with legal action because you disagree with them on Wikipedia? Imagine how you would deal with a situation where WMF refuses to act because they don't want to stir up trouble, yet you might be left with near-no money because of this lack of action. Daniel.Bryant 04:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something. Because of this letter from a law firm, you post a message on your user page for a couple hours which sounds like a threat to Wikipedia? The cause and effect are not adding up. This is all fine and dandy - but then announcing your intention to seek adminship on this same organization that you just recently publicly threatened? Can you at least try to fill in the context a little? I'm familiar with some of the GraalOnline issues but was not privy to all of it. What did the law firm want you to do? —Wknight94 (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- They wanted me to revoke the RfA, and leave the article with the promotional material. I protested (not "threatened") on Wikipedia because of Danny's actions not to remove the defamation purely to keep order. Although linked by the GraalOnline article, they were separate incidents. Sorry for the confusion. Daniel.Bryant 07:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something. Because of this letter from a law firm, you post a message on your user page for a couple hours which sounds like a threat to Wikipedia? The cause and effect are not adding up. This is all fine and dandy - but then announcing your intention to seek adminship on this same organization that you just recently publicly threatened? Can you at least try to fill in the context a little? I'm familiar with some of the GraalOnline issues but was not privy to all of it. What did the law firm want you to do? —Wknight94 (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I guide you to WP:ESL. Although +fix isn't exactly all that specific, it still does address the fact that I am fixing something, and is in many ways more descriptive than many listed there. Also, I ask you, have you ever been sent an email on behalf of a law firm stating that they are about to proceed with legal action because you disagree with them on Wikipedia? Imagine how you would deal with a situation where WMF refuses to act because they don't want to stir up trouble, yet you might be left with near-no money because of this lack of action. Daniel.Bryant 04:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I want to try and clear some stuff up. TO be quite honest I probably rushed this nomination. It's been a hellish week and I was rushing around a bit, anyway... UI had plannned to nominate Daniel before the whole Graal incident blew up and i am sorry that it did. The comment above about not being allowed to be a contributor let alone an admin is, I think very unfair and probably makes that person worse than daniel. We all get tantrums and bad moments and deal with them in different ways. I think that Daniel's was more founded than any of you realise and that a) he was genuinely sorry (as backed up by his continuing good editing) and b) he never really meant what he said (in my opinion). I believe the words he wrote were a mistake - not because he meant them all but because he didnt consider the implication of them. I know this RFa is closed now but all I can say is that I think some of the votes against Daniel are very badly considered. Looking at one tiny aspect of his wikipedia actions and not considering the others is unfair - even if you still rteach the same conclusion.
I wont go on because I respect Daniels decision and apologise ot him for dragging it all up again, however I have to say that had you let him answer the questions (I don't know why it got transcluded before Daniel had accepted and to be honest that probably made a huge difference) you may have seen a different side to him.
I am glad that Hoopydink indulges the moral support that he did and I believethis was probably a good process to have gone through in the end, if Hoopydink ends up nominating again in January then I suspect this will sail through. Such is life... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- It was transcluded after he accepted and before he answered the questions. I doubt it would have made any difference at all. I was trying to get the full context of his temporary Anakin Skywalker-to-Darth Vader'ism but I don't think that matters either at this juncture. Admins are not supposed to get tantrums - or at least not tantrums like that. Always remember, No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. And try to tone down edits like this one too. "I am going to have your head for repeated personal attacks" is language that, when said by an admin, will only lead to yucky WP:RFCs and WP:RFARs down the line and that's just a waste of everyone's time. If we can learn anything from the former Wikipedian, Monicasdude (talk • contribs), there are right and wrong ways to say anything. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the mini-review. I definately have been working on my choice of words lately. However, with the "I'll have your head" thing, it was in retaliation to him saying "I'll have your head in court", and was used almost as a pun. Sorry for the confusion. Daniel.Bryant 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
