Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPUI (talk | contribs) at 07:46, 4 April 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:46, 4 April 2007 by SPUI (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Danny

Voice your opinion (110/11/2); Scheduled to end 00:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny (talk · contribs)

It is my pleasure to nominate Danny for adminship on the English Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages itself stands for. He also has extensive experience working on Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, and the Hebrew Misplaced Pages. His work on Misplaced Pages more than stands on its own, even ignoring any contributions he made in official capacities.

Danny is not done with his work on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages make him the perfect administrator candidate.

Making Danny an administrator again is as obvious a decision as any we're liable to find on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages for his own SEO purposes and to promote his pet (POV) causes. I believe that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
General comments

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages?" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Support

  1. Oppose - Candidate's failure to sign acceptance displays insufficient experience with Misplaced Pages :) - David Oberst 01:07, 3 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 Viridae 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 Contribs@(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 Misplaced Pages 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 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Yes, I know it's surprising. — Malcolm 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. 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)
  14. Support - Well, it is Danny. What's not to trust. User has shown sufficient knowledge, and prior excellent use of his tools. --theblueflamingo 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support.--ragesoss 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Quite simply, Danny is an integral part of Misplaced Pages. --Slowking Man 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Very much. — Dan | talk 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. 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)
  19. Support. Most qualified candidate ever.--§hanel 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. (edit conflicted twice) Support - Completely without question. This is one of Misplaced Pages's most dedicated editors, and we will benefit greatly from him being a sysop (again) --Michael Billington (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. 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)
  22. Support, a proven track record demonstrating some of the best qualities in a Wikipedian. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Lkinkade 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Danny's enthusiasm for the work we do here is endless, contagious, and inspiring. --Robth 02:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Belated April Fools' oppose. Because you deserve it. – Chacor 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (Yes, this is meant to be a support.)
  26. 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)
  27. Support. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support See discussion above. ~~ Atshields0
  29. Support per all the comments everyone else has made. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per above. bibliomaniac15 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Of course. John Reaves (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Cleared for Adminship This one's a no-brainer. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Known sockpuppet (ab)user ;) quod erat supportum. — Feezo (Talk) 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support as PilotGuy said, a no brainer.↔NMajdan•talk 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. 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)
  36. Support. Michael 03:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. חג שמח. El_C 03:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. It is hard to find people who are more qualified. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Just don't put salt in your eyes.-Ravedave 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. 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)
  41. 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 03:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. 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 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. 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)
  44. 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)
  45. Support per Mindspillage. Quite possibly the ultimate candidate given his previous work for the Foundation and on Misplaced Pages. --Coredesat 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Obvious Support Good fellow who was sorely missed with his not being a sysop for the past week or so, hehe gaillimh 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. I have worked with Danny on a lot of issues related to Misplaced Pages and copyright, I found his insight and guidance to be the best I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. I value his judgement, I would love for him to have adminship. User:Zscout370 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. Seems dedicated to the project and trustworthy. --Mus Musculus 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. 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 06:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. Obvious, experienced choice. - Denny 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Absolutely. Khoikhoi 06:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support per nom. Lakers 06:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. 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)
  54. Support per Cyde's nom. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support — this nomination is unnecessary. Michaelas10 09:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. 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)
  57. Support, Apple••w••o••r••m•• 10:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support, and appreciate what is more than just a gesture - submitting to review and asking for opinions. Shenme 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. dannyisme. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support One of the most experienced editors on here, who has helped shape Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is right without Danny as an admin. Best of luck! Majorly (o rly?) 10:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. Strong Support. As a former employee he definitely knows what he is doing. -Mschel 11:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support- Yeah, I don't see why not. Retiono Virginian 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. 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)
  64. Support thought he already was one... ;) Mangojuice 11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support, the very willingness to voluntarily stand for community approval shows he deserves to get it. Seraphimblade 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. As if there were any sensible option other than support. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  67. I'd support him twice if I could. >Radiant< 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support as self. Bastique 12:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support, Tom Harrison 13:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support Proved himself countless times. KatalavenoC 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support Good edior, got nomintated, must be good. Twenty Years 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support Arfan 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  74. 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. InBC 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support; I've had nothing but positive interaction with Danny, both here and on other projects. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support. Good contributor. utcursch | talk 14:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support - eminently qualified. Moreschi 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support - Excellent editor. -- FayssalF - 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  79. 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.--Doc 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  80. Hell yes. 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)
  81. Support and a nice cup of tea. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support I see no reason to oppose this user. Wooyi 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  83. Duh. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support duh.-- danntm C 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support --lightdarkness 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support --A. B. 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support, definitely. --JoanneB 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support. Snowolf CON - 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Switched to Oppose per opposers' motivation. Snowolf CON - 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  88. 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)
  89. Support per everyone else. Acalamari 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  90. 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)
  91. Support per above. feydey 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  92. D. Recorder 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  93. Support Dina 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  94. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  95. Support Davewild 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  96. Support, of course. --Rory096 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  97. 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)
  98. Support -- Nick 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  99. 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)
  100. Edit conflict Pile-on support reconfirming admin status here. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  101. Good chap. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  102. 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. Ral315 » 22:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  103. Support <Scratches head> I could've sworn this user is already an admin. ;) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  104. Support - A prime asset to the project.Bakaman 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  105. 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 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  106. Support--MONGO 02:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  107. Drag him back kicking and screaming if need be. DS 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  108. 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)
  109. Support - No reason not to. --WinHunter 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  110. Support I trust him.--cj | talk 05:08, 4 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 Contribs@(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... — Preceding unsigned comment 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. Viridae 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)
  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)
    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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
  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)
    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 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)
  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)
  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)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  10. 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. He also has a history of reverting another admin without explanation. 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, that further goes to the point of lack of respect for others in the community. --Michael Lynn 02:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose (Switched from support)→ Michael Lynn and the other opposers have made a good point. Snowolf CON - 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per deletion history and other issues which have been cited above. RFerreira 07:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose due to his admin actions, particularly deletions. --SPUI (T - C) 07:46, 4 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I'd prefer Danny to wait a little bit before being an admin again. SYSS Mouse 03:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)