Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hit bull, win steak (talk | contribs) at 13:06, 10 April 2007 (→Danny and trust: Where else would people get away with being that lazy about their rationale?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Right at the top

It is late, and it has been a tense day, so I want to thank everyone. First, I want to thank the bureaucrats, who made a very difficult decision.

It goes without saying that I want to thank my supporters, but at the same time, I also want to thank my opposers and ask them to keep an eye on me. If I get out of line, let me know, and I will take your concerns into careful consideration.

I am grateful for this chance to help Misplaced Pages become the remarkable resource that it can be. Danny 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good RfA, way to use the force. Much better than my "easy to close" RfA. _InBC 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit count

User:Danny

run at Tue Apr 3 01:55:22 2007 GMT

• Category talk: 2
• Category: 21
• Image: 43
• Mainspace 26235
• MediaWiki talk: 7
• MediaWiki: 122
• Portal talk: 3
• Portal: 37
• Talk: 1292
• Template talk: 10
• Template: 93
• User talk: 1111
• User: 693
• Misplaced Pages talk: 200
• Misplaced Pages: 3629
• avg edits per page 1.58
• earliest 11:04, 18 February 2002
• number of unique pages 21244
• total 33498

User:Dannyisme

run at Tue Apr 3 01:54:36 2007 GMT

• Mainspace 13
• Talk: 1
• User talk: 4
• User: 1
• Misplaced Pages: 9
• avg edits per page 2.00
• earliest 16:48, 18 April 2006
• number of unique pages 14
• total 28

No arguing

There's just no possbile, valid way of arguing with 26235 mainspace contributions. --Deskana (ya rly) 02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, edit count matters after all ;-) Admin stats would be nice. -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So my bot can become an admin now? Sweet. No possible way of arguing after all. --W.marsh 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good thing no one is arguing with his mainspace contributions then (edit summaries notwithstanding), but with his administrative actions. -- nae'blis 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He deserves a working man's barnstar, or even twelve, yes. But that's not what's being debated here. --AnonEMouse 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh: I said that you can't argue with his mainspace contributions, nowhere did I say that's an automatic entitlement to be an admin. --Deskana (ya rly) 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So what did it mean, that no one could argue with the fact that he had "26235 mainspace contributions"? Why point it out then, if it doesn't mean anything more than the number of mainspace edits my bot has? You made the comment in the early bandwagon phase of the RFA when no one was arguing, so I think it speaks for itself. --W.marsh 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion period before an RfA

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Discussion_period_before_an_RfA, as this is not just about Danny's RFA. -- nae'blis 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a call

This RfA will finish below 75%, with better arguments from the opposition, but will finish as a pass, with one of the following rationales from the closing bureaucrat:

1.The range of bureaucratic discretion is actually 70-80%, even though, well, it never has been in any of the archives or anywhere until Raul654 decided it was.
2.The candidate was a former admin and therefore entitled to a lower consensus threshold (which may be fair, actually.)

Hilarity will ensue on the RfA talk page, but Danny will be a more quiet and reasonable admin than before, having taken the opposition to heart. That, or a large group of editors will quickly call for his desysopping. One or the other. Grandmasterka 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your call and raise it an alternative: The RFA will close inside the amount where people are normally passed without issue, but not by much ... however, unless a highly unlikely 90%+ pass happens there will be people whining about rogue bureaucrats. So I'm predicting the same measurable outcome that you are.

My bet, however, is based on the hope that English Misplaced Pages isn't as horribly broken as this process has made it out to be so far. ... We'll see. --Gmaxwell 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish Danny success as he is a very valuable Wikipedian in spite of the issues raised by the oppose votes. However, I would be very strongly opposed to the promotion if it is done below the 75% threshold. Yes, I know the usual arguments that numbers don't matter, judge by the quality of the votes, etc. Nevertheless, the absolute majority of the people so far who had under 75% failed. It would be extremely unfair to everybody else if Danny passes under 75%. As far as I can tell, the whole point of Danny resigning adminship and bureaucratship in addition to his WP:OFFICE position was to make sure that whatever future position he'd have on Misplaced Pages would be based on community decisions. Having this promotion pass below the established consensus would defeat the whole purpose of this RfA then. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

People will complain, ask for the closing crat's head, and then forget. Just like ever. -- ReyBrujo 04:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The closure will be the subject of at least one news article, which will contain at least one factual error related to how RFA works. If the RFA is unsuccessful, the story will either explicitly or implicitly state that "Misplaced Pages editors have fired a member of the Misplaced Pages board". The story will eventually be linked on Slashdot (titled "Shakeup at Misplaced Pages") and tagged with "slownewsday", followed by comments regarding the unreliability of Misplaced Pages. The first comment will be modded +5 Funny for a joke about editing the result to say something different :) --- RockMFR 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't care about what news says of this RfA. Snowolf _CON - 08:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll sweeten the pot: no matter the outcome, Gmaxwell's will use the word "whining" about the expression of any view that opposes his own. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Surely nobody would be stupid enough to take that bet at even odds. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we put bets on other words, too, like betting red and black at roulette? I'll bet that "idiots" is being used liberally now on IRC and that it will make it into at least one if not all of the "the crats should tell the users to shut up and obey" arguments. (N.b. I have not voted, and I think the most depressing thing is that Danny has allowed the polemicists to claim him as "theirs." If I were him, I'd be running from friends like that.) Geogre 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I opposed this RFA. At the moment, I'm willing to give the crats the benefit of the doubt and assume they will correctly determine consensus, however I would like to suggest something for them to think about. The "75-80%" idea is intended as a numerical approximation of "rough consensus". The reason it is "rough consensus" and not "consensus" is because a very small number of opposers could block an RFA if absolute consensus was required, so we basically say at least 20% of the people voting have to oppose for their opinion to be significant. Generally, that works quite well. In RFAs with a very large number of contributors, however, 20% ends up being a very large number of (usually) respected members of the community. Something happening with a large number of opposers, irrespective of the proportion of opposers, goes against the concept of consensus. I think we justifiably dismiss the opinions of a handful of opposers and say there is a "rough consensus", but can we dismiss the opinions of well over 50 people? (Remember, when the 75-80% range was decided, it was unusual for 50 people to contribute to an RFA at all.) To summarise: Does the 75-80% approximation of "rough consensus" scale for discussions involving very large numbers? Possibly useful information: According to there have been only 3 successful RFAs with 35 of more opposers, one of which was Carnildo (the others were Sean Black and Tawker - I don't remember if those were controversial). --Tango 22:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There was also Ryulong's last RfA. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Question for understanding: Are you suggesting that if any candidate receives greater than X opposes, regardless of the number of supports, that the candidate should not be sysoped? --After Midnight 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that there's some merit to that, although with caveats. If administrator position is a position of trust, then any significant demonstration of grounds for mistrust should be pretty devastating. This has nothing to do with "he called me a doo-doo head a year ago," but any evidence of incliniation, avowal, or actual misuse of tools and acting against policy should be worrisome in the extreme. Geogre 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tango, although I don't desire to draw a bright-line on a specific number. Absolute numbers matter in determining consensus. Also in the present case almost all oppose voters have articulated reasons for there position. Edivorce 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I am not suggesting that we give an automatic veto to X opposers, for some fixed X. Determining consensus is not an exercise in counting. A crat shouldn't determine consensus by calculating the percentage support, possibly after discounting a few bad !votes, and then seeing if it is more than 80%. They should determine consensus by reading through the RFA and seeing if, in their judgement, a consensus exists. What I am suggesting is that they take absolute numbers of !voters, as well as relative numbers, into account. There shouldn't be a hard and fast cutoff for percentages, and there shouldn't be a hard and fast cutoff for absolute numbers, it should be a matter of judgement. That's why Tangobot (which is not my bot, despite the name) doesn't close RFAs. I trust the crat's judgement, I just hope they use that judgement, rather than just going by percentages. --Tango 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I do not like the idea of an absolute cutoff. Admin actions are essentially confrontational (otherwise they would not be limited to the holders of the admin bits) - somebody for them and somebody against them. If a supermajority of the wikipedians support the actions they must be right, if not they probably wrong. Every candidate to the adminship has a number of supporting friends the rest !vote based on his or her actions. If we have a supermajority of supporters here the candidate is good, otherwise we are in troubles. Thus, I guess with the increase of participation in an RfA we should slightly decrease the thereshod not increase it. Alex Bakharev 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Firstly, no-one has suggested a cutoff, just that absolute numbers be taken into account. I understand the argument for reducing the requirements when there are lots of !voters, but I disagree. Adminship should be given unless there is a reason not to. I think that is generally accepted. RFA is meant to determine if there is a reason not to. A large number of support votes is largely irrelevant, as support is the default. A large number of oppose votes suggests there is a reason not to promote. I don't really see the point of support votes at all, but this is not the place to discuss RFA reform. --Tango 13:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  There are a lot of Support !votes which express disagreement with the Oppose !votes. There's a lot of people out there who appear to believe that some of the concerns raised in the Oppose section aren't a bar to Danny being promoted and there's a lot of disagreement and downright nonsense about WP:OFFICE actions which is being countered by those Supporting. It's not a typical RfA and there's probably going to be no right or wrong determination of consensus. -- Nick 13:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  If there can't be a right determination, the only option is to close as no consensus. --Tango 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong not to sysop Danny if he would get 74% (as a very visible admin on the frontline he deserved a few percentage points bonus) and wrong to sysop if he would get 61%. The best (and quite possible scenario) would be him getting ~78%. Enough to get the adminship he obviously deserves, enough to prevent a voting controversy but with the opposition strong enough to pass some message Alex Bakharev 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My Sidebet

Maybe this is a given to some, but I would offer a long term sidebet to the tune of this adminship promotion/non-promotion generating a lot of *both* light and heat in the short term, but being hugely beneficial to our general processus in the long term. Twas always thus with wikipedia. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tangobot

Slight problem with this RFA, Tangobot is parsing Pathoschild's support as a duplicate !vote from Xiner. Nothing major, of course, but still. – Chacor 11:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand these things, but is it possible that it's because Pathoschild's signature is small, like this:

—{admin} Pathoschild 04:33:04, 06 April 2007 (UTC)

and because Pathoschild links to User:Xiner in his comment, so the bot doesn't recognise Pathoschild's signature as a real one, and thinks that Xiner's name is the signature? ElinorD (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the bot looks for the last userspace link on the first line of the vote. If the line break was not there, I think it would parse correctly. --- RockMFR 12:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the page to remove the line break. We'll see in about ten minutes's time, when Tangobot next updates, if it has worked or not. ElinorD (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it didn't work, so I've undone my edit, and I tried delinking Xiner's name, and simplifying Pathoschild's signature. I've just checked Tangobot's RfA page, and it seems to have worked perfectly, but I'll leave a note for Pathoschild in case he thinks I'm out of line. ElinorD (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't. ;) —{admin} Pathoschild 01:08:31, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

Loss of faith, sadness abounding

I've always been a Danny fan. I've always thought that he was a good content person who generally reasoned his way well through the obstacles. When the mess with IRC emerged, he seemed to have allowed himself to be literally hoodwinked. On IRC, people who abused others spoke in the most smarmy, polite, and sycophantic way, and, as soon as Danny "left" went right back to talking about all the people they hate (which amounted to most users, it seems). I wrote to Danny privately, trying to make him aware of the hypocrisy and outrageousness of the position he had been putting himself in. I had confidence that he'd investigate. I never got a response, but I figured that life is simply like that. I thought I would ask the hard questions, here, let him distance himself from the abuse, and then vote to support. After all, this is about being an admin, and that has nothing to do with IRC, nothing to do with Office stuff, nothing to do with anything except, "Do I trust this person to not abuse the rules as an administrator." It was an automatic.

Then the slanderers began trying to attack anyone offering an oppose. Then Phil Bosworth came in with a shocking personal attack. Then Danny said that he didn't seem to care about the 22%, if the 78% voted for.

This has been staggering and sad. I cannot believe that I'm having to think really hard about whether I can vote to support Danny for a position that I always assumed he would fill flawlessly. I'm extremely depressed by this. Geogre 18:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you are correct in saying that the only question here is: 'Do you trust this person to not abuse the rules as an administrator'? (or rather tools?).--Doc 19:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I'm so dumbfounded by the amount of support he has - I can't imagine how anyone can trust him at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is no big deal, which is why I'd give it even to people I strongly disagree with (like you). The question is whether, on balance, Misplaced Pages would be worse off with any hypothetical harm he'd do, compared to any predictable use he'd be. The answer to that question is fairly clear - we'd be better off. I really can't understand any right-thinking person coming to any other conclusion. Most of the opposition seems to be about politics, anti-establishment grumbles, and holding Danny responsible for things people didn't like about the OFFICE Jimbo entrusted to him. This is a very poor show. Improvement of the encyclopedia should rate over politics and personalities.--Doc 19:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If we didn't have a track record of administrative action to work off of, I'd agree - perhaps the benefit of the doubt would be in place. But the track record combined with the utter disdain he's showing for those who disagree with his repromotion is more than enough to give anyone reasonable pause, I would hope. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Utter disdain? O_o difflink? I think he's been quite respectful to everyone all around. --Gmaxwell 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly the feeling I get from question 20. Maybe disdain is the wrong word? Condescension? Hostility? Disrespect? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 20 is misleading and is out to misrepresent, plain and simple. There's no way in hell anything about this situation can be compared to George W. Bush. Bush, as well as nearly all presidents in US history, would've eaten babies for 75% approval ratings. --Cyde Weys 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What's misleading about it, exactly? Forget the GWB comparison and focus on what's being said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's kind of hard to forget the GWB comparison seeing as how it occupies a large part of the question. Maybe if he really wanted to get a good answer, rather than score political points, he would've asked a question that doesn't include a front-and-center comparison that lacks any basis in reality? --Cyde Weys 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The implication is that, since we're the minority, we're the problem, and not him. Certainly, you don't believe this to be true, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a very poor question. I don't think the answer is illustrative of anything other than the poor nature of the question. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. And no, I certainly don't believe that Danny thinks that 25% of Misplaced Pages is the "problem". --Cyde Weys 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As the writer of the Q, I believe it is a good question. They are both acting the same way. There are over 60 people that have reservations about him and the way he is acting. If 60 people told you that they didn't agree with how you were acting, wouldn't at least take a second and think about changing? Danny doesn't seem to care. Misplaced Pages is about compromise and that doesn't seem to be Danny's way. I did support but now I am changing to oppose. -Ravedave 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint would have more merit if it weren't trivial to demonstrate as factually incorrect. Many of the oppose votes are making suggestions which are in direct conflict with the majority view, and while I can't speak for all the supporters I have high confidence that a large number would oppose him if he acted on the suggestions of all of the opposition. Clearly he can't, nor should he, act as per everyone's will. Based on the commentary of many respected editors on the support side, there are a non-trivial number of people who regard a significant number of the oppositions as patently ridiculous. In this light I do not think that it's unfair of Danny to answer "will you change your actions to reflect the will of the 25%" with "will the 25% change their position to match the will of the 75%?" ... Both of those questions are basically unanswerable. Like many things "It depends". --Gmaxwell 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa he's willing to change his opionion on an incredibly trivial item, whoop de doo! His answers make him seem aloof. If he had said "I will listen to dissenting opinions, if they are logical and if I feel good points are made I will change my behavior." Do you think his support would have gone up or down? Seriously have you read his responses compared to other RFAs? He is evasive on almost every one. He is acting like he is above this process. He hasn't taken it seriously until his % dropped close to 70 and responded with his 7 points. If he fails this RFa, I hope he takes a bit to realize that he is part of a community, reapplies later and passes. -Ravedave 03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So people oppose because they feel disdained? Understandable perhaps, but disappointing still.--Doc 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

People oppose because he has not shown that he's able to use the tools properly. His feelings toward those who feel that way about it indicate that he's not going to change. We need less admins like that, we already have too many who could give a rat's ass about those who disagree with them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We need admins who can do the job, not ones who are expert in ass-kissing. Yes, Danny might be a better human being if he suffered critics better, but this isn't a character interpretation. It is a question of whether him helping out with admin tasks would be of benefit. Whilst Danny may not bring a superfluity of grace and wikilove into the happy little community, he's got thousands of hours experience of dealing with the type of complex issues that most of the eager-beaver admins you might prefer haven't got a clue about. I'm one of those that helps out at the crap end of wikipedia - and having Danny on the bench, unable even to read a deleted edit and advise makes zero sense. Yes, a lot of folk might love him more if he wasn't an awkward sod, but he comes as a package - and for goodness sake don't let the boy scouts chase him away.--Doc 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We agree again - I simply don't think his track record indicates a fitness to do the job properly. I don't see where people are seeing otherwise while looking at the track record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that we need Danny doing the particular jobs that he's good at. You are makign adminship too big a deal.--Doc 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not that simple. I'm sure that he would make more good decisions than bad, and I agree that nobody should dispute that. The issue is that he will make mistakes, just like everyone else. And if he is going to just brush off criticism when he does make a mistake, that is bad. -Amarkov moo! 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He showed contempt for one question? (Which was a contemptible question, anyway.) We're picking a janitor not a politician. We know Danny, and we know what we're getting, and rejecting him because he won't ass-kiss and jump through the hoops of the RfA flea-circus is madness.....but since this is RfA-land perhaps I should not have expected otherwise. I fully expect that Danny will, and does, listen to reasonable, good-faith, straightforward constructive criticism. But that's not really what one gets in RfA-land. --Doc 20:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... as far as I know, that's not why people are opposing. Mine is the only reason that is even close to that, and even then, the problem is not so much that he won't jump through a bunch of hoops, more that he jumps through them acting as though there is absolutely no reason he might need to. -Amarkov moo! 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he didn't have to. But at any rate, when your floor is really filthy, it is a bit silly not to hand the mop to a willing volunteer because he didn't ask for it nicely.--Doc 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Adminship has been denied for far more trivial reasons. EnsRedShirt 06:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, this kind of broad brush personal attack has no place on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, what's the attack, Tony? I shouldn't consider these matters, or I shouldn't consider the trolling and thuggery of Phil and Cyde? I'm not sure what you think has no place on Misplaced Pages. Ooooooh, riiiiight! It has a place on Misplaced Pages's IRC! I forgot. You go there to say horrible things! Geogre 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

IRC stuff again?! Geogre, I don't think you can grind that ax any more sharply. Let go of your vendetta; it isn't helping anything. --Cyde Weys 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Got my talk page watchlisted still, Cyde? How many articles have you worked on lately? How many talk pages to you stalk? Spent fewer than 3 hours on IRC today? You remain trivial, from my perspective, as I work on Misplaced Pages, not Facebook, and whatever you do all day, it isn't on Misplaced Pages. Geogre 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, Cyde, drop it. Let's not do this.--Doc 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Methinks you missed one there ... Cyde Weys 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to cool this, not be righteous.--Doc 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Get on IRC, I think we're talking past each other. --Cyde Weys 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not right now.--Doc 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• There you go! Get on IRC! By all means. That's where Misplaced Pages business should be conducted. "Missing one" is supposed to mean me. Horrible that I would think of voting to oppose based on Danny's invocation as hero of Cyde and Kelly and Gmaxwell. Horrible that I would regard anyone Phil Bosworth decides to attack for to be deeply disturbing. I had, of course, only been thinking of opposing. I had tried to come here to express the views without influencing votes. Now, of course, young Cyde's sniping and lens wherein all things must be a "vendetta" and about him is surely moving me faster to oppose. If Danny is of Cyde's opinion, then I could never trust him as an administrator. Geogre 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • /Sigh/ This is what I was try to avoid. Geogre, I've every confidence that you'll pause and come to your own view of whether we're well served by Danny having the tools. Whether he'll do harm or good with them. Really, the history of poor relationships or closer associations of certain users should not really come into this. This isn't about wikipolitics and factions - it's about the 'no big deal' of adminship. That's why I was trying to tell Cyde and Tony to shut the **** up, and I didn't comment on your comment, because I did't think that would help me calm things down. And, in all sincerity, if the post doesn't help either, I'm genuinely sorry. Peace.--Doc 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I continue to let my disgust at geogre's behavior slip out, and it always ends badly for Misplaced Pages. I apologise. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. What is going on? :-) -- ReyBrujo 22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pride, folly and long memories....full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.--Doc 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly questions

Come on guys, this is getting quite pointy.. --Conti|✉ 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

To do that, I would need to have a point. _InBC 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. :) --Conti|✉ 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The questions really are of the variety "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Let's look at this question:

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?

This question comes from the same person who has already strongly opposed the adminship request with this reasoning:

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.

What in the world is he hoping to do by asking that question? Make Danny look bad, of course. If Danny says that he thinks he is a good role model, he will be attacked for it — how in the world could someone who is "unresponsive, unrepentant, and overly jumpy", as well as "abused the tools" possibly be a good role model? If he says he thinks he isn't a good role model, he'll be attacked for that, with this guy saying why in the world he thinks he should become an admin if he isn't a good role model. It's a loaded question and the only way for Danny to win is not to play; and to his credit, he seems to have realized that. It's a shame how despicable some people get in RFAs, and it really points to the larger issue of how terribly broken RFA is. It's turned into more of a lynch mob than anything, with people putting all shame to the wind and trying to get as many pokes and jabs in as possible. --Cyde Weys 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some questions aren't especially neutral, and some of them were clearly asked just to paint him in a bad light. But then again, question 21 clearly tries to paint him in a good light (or did Doc not know that Danny made the map before he asked the question?). Both sides try to get their desired result, and I think both sides should calm down a bit. Adding nonsense questions isn't going to help in any way. --Conti|✉ 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 21 is fluff. It isn't good, it isn't bad; it's basically just a waste of space, which is a far, far cry from some of the more pointed, triple-edged questions. And as for question 22 — man, that reads more like an essay than a question. Unfortunately, Danny is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. There was a lot more going on in the background surrounding that incident than most people will never know about. All you really need to know, though, is that Danny and Erik have reconciled, and that it isn't a forward-looking problem. Also, it isn't a generalizable example of Danny's overall administrative technique, because it was intimately tied to the peculiarities and legal issues of that situation. --Cyde Weys 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just don't buy it, Cyde. What could possibly justify the extreme actions Danny took against Erik - including refusing to take his calls? Apparently no-one else thought these actions were justified, including Jimbo who was presumably privy to all pertinent information. Haukur 18:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, funny you should bring up Jimbo. There's a lot more to this situation than is public knowledge, including Jimbo's involvement in it itself. Until you get the full details of it, which really isn't going to happen, there's no real way to evaluate it; my advice is, seeing as how it's been reconciled, to just ignore it. --Cyde Weys 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if I were to ignore it completely I believe I'd have ample reason to oppose the candidacy. Haukur 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, could I politely request that you stop asking those who still have concerns over the incident to simply ignore it? It's a disservice to simply ignore a glaring incident and to not ask questions, and their concerns are valid, even if you don't necessarily agree with them. As for my question: yes, it was extremely lengthy (although I will disagree with your assessment of it as an "essay"), but its primary purpose was to provide my view of the incident (which had not been greatly discussed prior to my question), and then ask a question to Danny regarding the incident. I could not, in good conscience, have either supported or opposed the RfA without expounding on my personal view of the situation further or allowing Danny a chance to elucidate on the situation and appease my concerns, which he has done now. With that being said, though, I do encourage those people opposing to re-evaluate the situation, now that I have posted a follow-up to my question. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, when you say, "There was a lot more going on in the background surrounding that incident than most people will never know about", you're basically mirroring one of the major concerns about Danny's candidacy If he's promoted, how many other situations will be handled off the grid in the future? Transparency is a good thing in and of itself; when people start trying to resolve situations in private, you get wheel warring and rancor as they run up against each other without knowing it. -Hit bull, win steak 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Misplaced Pages is not a spy agency; we don't need "classified" information. The fact that he responded to question 22 by sending an email rather than responding on-wiki, or even just saying "I am contractually prevented from discussing that situation", was a motivation for my opinion on the RFA. CMummert · talk 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the above touches an important issue: Danny has had access to a lot of confidential information, and in 'defending' himself, he's often not allowed to use that information. I agree that sometimes his communication skills were lacking when communicating about that, but it's also not hard to imagine that the pressure (time, demands) he was under made him snap once in a while. He was working on Wikimedia issues full time, that can make it hard to put things into perspective sometimes. That said, I understand some of the concerns that are raised, but at the same time, working on OTRS for a bit over the last year or so has made me realise that often, there's more to some actions that meets the eye, and it's that area that it's very hard not to make occassional mistakes in (even though that's sadly where those mistakes are most visible and have a great impact). --JoanneB 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What am I hoping to do? I'm hoping to figure out what's going on here. I'm hoping to figure out what he's trying to accomplish at this stage. I have people telling me that my opinion may be misguided, so I'm trying to maybe get an answer. He doesn't want to give them, and you'd assume the worst about me as you always do, and it again stops being about the candidate. Get a grip, Cyde, the act is stale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats: please ignore all opposes regarding Office actions

The most idiotic opposes are those who don't want him back as an admin because they don't like what he did in his role as a Foundation employee.

Bureaucrats: you do realise the AC has your back if you show greater discretion - David Gerard 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

To the first sentence I agree, to the second I know nothing about. _InBC 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of the comments in the RfA may not be optimal, regardless of whether they're supporting or opposing, but keep in mind that we should still treat them with the utmost respect, and that some valid concerns have been raised, even if you and I don't necessarily agree with them. With that being said, I do want to point out that we (as in the Arbitration Committee) would treat a case like any other, and judge it based on its merits. That's neither reason to exercise undue care, nor to be too bold and radical; simply put, please do your jobs that the community has entrusted you. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the most important thing it to keep the discussion civil. Offending people you don't agree with rarely produces anything useful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely the point I was trying to make, and I couldn't agree more :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

By that token, shouldn't supports based on his work as a foundation employee also be discounted? "Strong Support. As a former employee..." etc. --W.marsh 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but those supports typically refer to the fact that he's proven he can be trusted, so I'm not sure discounting them is particularly productive. --Deskana (ya rly) 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess there's a difference in that none of the opposes say "Oppose because he was a foundation employee". Or at least I assume none of them do. But still, it's not exactly apples and oranges here, there's some similarity. --W.marsh 22:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty pointless to say "Please ignore this vote!" anyways. Do we really need to tell the bureaucrats how to do their job? They know how to close an RfA. Really. :) --Conti|✉ 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression this thread was created to tell b'crats how to do their job. "Arbcom has your back if you close it the way I want" come on... this ordeal keeps hitting new lows. --W.marsh 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is exactly why I felt I needed to comment above, asking for more calmness and civility in this heated debate. I also walked a delicate line there - of course we'll treat each case on its merits, but that should not be an excuse to either overreact or be too conservative. In short, we (referring to the Arbitration Committee) should have absolutely nothing to do with this, and I'm sorry that we were dragged into the conversation - it just creates undue pressure and gives the appearance that we'll either condone or not condone any such actions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

For ArbCom's view of bureaucratship one can read Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano#Bureaucrats and the sections below it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Flcelloguy, I wish "calmness and civility" would prevail. But when the bcrats give Danny the mop with a support percentage below 75% (and maybe 70%), those qualities will be in very short supply. The "idiotic opposes" comment that started this section will look mild compared to what we'll see. As another poster put it, hilarity will ensue. In fact, the bcrats might as well close now with the baked-in-the-cake approval, and let the hilarity begin immediately. Casey Abell 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems highly inappropriate. Gerard is obviously trying to influence the bureaucrats by referring to ArbCom backing for promoting Danny even if he falls under the generally accepted minimum for consensus. A case like this is actually the absolute worst time for bureaucratic discretion (although I feel there is really no good time for it), considering the sheer number of participants and the amount of passion involved. This should be decided by a simple percentage, and every participant's vote (barring any sockpuppets) should be counted even if some people don't like the reasons they give. Everyking 02:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers are already refusing to sockcheck on this, I'm told. .. A quick masssockcheck is no more than a "select a.rc_user_text,b.rc_user_text from recentchanges as a join recentchanges as b on (a.rc_ip=b.rc_ip and a.rc_user_text!=b.rc_user_text) where a.rc_title='Requests_for_adminship/Danny' and b.rc_title=a.rc_title group by a.rc_user_text,b.rc_user_text ;" away .. but not if our checkusers wanna keep their butts out of the political fire. --Gmaxwell 02:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, why are we bothering with this charade? Danny will get the mop regardless of the percentages. Close this thing now with the obviously decided-in-advance approval, and let the fun begin. Casey Abell 03:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Heavens, that's an unkind thing to say. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Unkind"? Um, okay. But WP insider David Gerard just told the bcrats to promote Danny regardless of the percentages. We're supposed to believe the decision hasn't already been made? I assume good faith, but I'm not blind. If that's being "unkind", then I'll just have to skip kindness today. Anyhow, get it over with and make the outcome official. In fact, I don't think Danny will run wild as an admin, after all the noise this RfA has attracted. So the decision is okay with me. Casey Abell 13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're not assuming good faith because you're assuming that the cabal rigged the !vote. If the decision has been made nobody told me, and I really ought to know (damn you David, keeping me in the dark!) What David Gerard has said is empirically demonstrable. Every time a great outcry has occurred over a bureaucrat using his discretion and promoting without strict reference to numbers, the Arbitration Committee has concurred that there's nothing improper in that. I suppose I have higher standards for civility and kindness than most, at least these days. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please. Good faith doesn't mean blind faith. When David Gerard shows up and tells the bcrats to promote Danny, the decision is made. Whether there was an explicit agreement (which I doubt) is beside the point. The bcrats have been given the go-ahead "for promoting without strict reference to numbers," to use your own words. As I said, I don't have any particular problems with that outcome, because I think Danny will be very careful with the mop after all the fuss on this RfA. But let's not play pretend here. Casey Abell 13:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to dismiss all oppose votes based on OFFICE actions, I think we should dismiss all support votes based on those who like the OFFICE actions. What about those who did not like the OFFICE actions, and did not like some other actions either? What about those who agree with the OFFICE actions but dislike that he used the account Danny instead of the office account Dannyisme? Just because you disagree with someone's reasoning is not the same as calling it invalid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So ... we should ignore the potentially flawed reasoning of a few of the oppose votes (and who knows if that's the entirely of one's reasoning in opposing this RfA) in favor of all those support votes with absolutely no reasoning at all? You have to admit that a lot of the votes on both sides look pretty silly and probably aren't thought out very well. Discounting poorly-reasoned votes on one side ought to see the same discretion on the other side, as well.

And bureaucrats: *wink* I got this. *nudge* — Rebelguys2 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsurpassed bullying and rudeness

I want to take the time to express my concern regarding the unsurpassed bullying and rudeness that is occuring during this vote. Editors are entitled to their opinions and to voice oppose or support without having to watch every second of the day for rude and bullying comments to be added to their vote - which are clearly designed to sway the next voter (who doesn't want to get an earful). Indeed in some editors eg: User:Atshields0 (only 23 edits before the Danny vote commenced) have not only commented at the commencement of the project page, then legitimately voted support - but then added 6 further comments against editors who differ in their vote - with 3 of those comments being rude to very rude. If this was any other talk page those editors would probably receive a WP:NPA advisement (even though they are likely to blank their talk page directly afterwards).--VS 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Picaroon 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. RxS 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe me. Contentious RfAs generate lots of conflict and feelings. If you jump into one, you should expect people to try to engage in discussion with you. That's all. Picaroon 01:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been in plenty of RFA's thank you. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen is not engaging in discussion, it's being a bully and you should be ashamed. RxS 01:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(Triple edit conflict) On second thought, that's the stupidest thing I've said since in weeks. I apologize to VirtualSteve for such an unwarranted reply and to everyone for implying that incivility is acceptable. I'm getting too worked up over this RfA. Picaroon 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This complaint is useless without difflinks. In any case, Atshields0 is in a better position to know about Danny's qualities and qualifications that most of the people participating in this RFA. --Gmaxwell 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we now have a rudeness scale where people rate comments "rude to very rude" ? -- Nick 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked and dismayed at some of the responses in this thread; no matter whether you are supporting or opposing this particular candidate, there is absolutely no excuse for rudeness or incivility. We treat each other with the utmost respect and civility, and if faced with incivility, we absolutely do not reply back with rudeness of our own. Please, everyone, let's remain calm and civil - there's absolutely no reason to be jumping at either the supporters or opposers. There's only a need for civil discussion and discourse, and VS's reminder should be taken to heart by everyone. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Picaroon (I note your retraction and your apology - thank you) to clear it up a little the heat wasn't put on me by User:Atshields0 in fact he never commented about my vote and I'm not saying if it was that I couldn't take it - I was just asking for civility (as others have said now also) and suitable consideration when the votes are accumulated. My concern is reflected in the way that Atshields0 and others use diverse forms of Personal Attack on voters (I think in the main if not only those that oppose Danny's adminship) to influence future voters. And yes I could add difflinks - but then again why lengthen this already large sized page - alternatively you could just go to the project page and do a search for Atshields. However - I don't know what to make of the comment that Atshields0 is in a better position to know about Danny's qualities and qualifications that most of the people participating in this RFA - I mean are we supposed to guess that or do we just assume it because he wrote on his talk page (and then deleted).... I am smarter and stronger and have more potential than any human alive today & I will be the greatest programmer God has ever created.?--VS 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Atshields has worked with Danny for a while at the WMF offices. -- Nick 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nick - perhaps even more reason for us all being a little concerned by his methods and his neutrality?--VS 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as neutrality on any RfA and it's great to see this RfA develop from a silly vote into a discussion, even if it is getting people's backs up. -- Nick 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Question evasion?

I just saw Danny edited page but did not answer the questions asked by User:badlydrawnjeff an my questions. Why would he evade those questions, because they are too sensitive? Wooyi 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

See the section three sections up entitled "Silly questions". Just because a question has been asked does not mean it deserves an answer, something you will have surely dealt with in real life by now. In this case, those three questions were asked by someone who has already "strongly opposed" and is just trying to get in further jabs using the fallacy of many questions, so really, it would look worse for Danny's intelligence and analytical ability if he did not recognize this and did bother to answer the silly questions. --Cyde Weys 03:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to my question (see "Question by Wooyi"), which is a serious one and I voted support. Not the silly ones that were deleted. Wooyi 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he didn't have time? Daniel Bryant 10:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop categorizing my serious questions as silly, Cyde. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would use a word other than silly but that would be even less productive. --Cyde Weys 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you could. I'm sorry that your passioned defenses of your buddy are so transparent that you need to knock down those who disagree with you, though. Classy on your part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wheeeeee, more of that word-that-must-not-be-named. I'm not going to bother responding to anything else you might say; it's obvious what's going on here. --Cyde Weys 13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it most certainly is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read below the questions he says "Rather than answer all the remaining questions, I think that I will simply make a statement here." and goes on to give info. You can find this here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Danny#Danny.27s_supplemental_statement. _InBC 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved now, Danny answered my question. Thanks Danny. Regarding to the other 3 questions above, I don't know if they are "silly" or not, but I think Danny will make the judgment. Wooyi 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Open the umbrellas, it is going to rain. Very hard.

So, the request is reaching its closing day, and it appears that a simple "support / (support + oppose)" is not going to help decide this one. Regardless of the taken decision, a part of the community will not be happy. I wonder whether a single bureaucrat is going to take the full blunt of the charges or it will be divided into several ones. I would love to be optimistic, think nobody will question the bureaucrats, and that a decision will be respected, but we have a brilliant history of questioning decisions. -- ReyBrujo 20:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope against hope that a high level of civility will be maintained by all concerned regardless of the outcome. I have never seen a Misplaced Pages discussion that was improved by lots of name-calling and accusations of bad faith, and I doubt very much that this would be the first. Newyorkbrad 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And you know what - Ryulong has been a bloody good admin since he was promoted and we all lived happily ever after. -- Nick 20:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Danny could withdraw/choose not to be appointed under these circumstances. All things considered I think withdrawing now and trying for a clearer consensus in the future would be better for the community, but I've yet to see any candidate actually refuse a controversial appointment. Dragons flight 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because a controversial appointment soon ceases to be controversial, everybody soon forgets about it. If Danny is promoted, he's got a fantastic mandate to prove the Oppose camp that their Opposition, whilst valid at the time, is not going to be valid in the future. -- Nick 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the first, I think you are wrong, many people have a long memory for controversial promotions. On the second I hope you are right, but Danny hasn't provided a lot of evidence that he plans to act differently as a result of criticism. Continuing a similar pattern of behavior as people have objected to could serve to further the resentment in the opposers rather than relieve it. Dragons flight 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be using a different definition of mandate than I am, or else I'm not understanding you correctly. How would promoting Danny over significant opposition possibly prove the opposition 'wrong', and moreover, how would it possibly be 'valid' now but 'invalid' later? Did you mean to say that he will take the constructive criticism to heart? -- nae'blis 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on. We all know that he's going to get his adminship, 70% or no. Xihr 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so confident, but it's important to consider that he could have just requested it back anyway, with no RfA. --Deskana (ya rly) 22:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea that is sure to help. When the 'crat closes this, I will refrain from complaining. Now, if we can all do that then we may just avoid the whole issue. _InBC 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How do "we all know" that? CMummert · talk 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We all know he's going to get his adminship? That's news to me and I say that as a supporter. I'd be happy to have Danny as an admin but I'll be the first to cry foul if he gets it now. There's just no way that any bureaucrat can conclude from this chaos that there's a consensus to promote. Pascal.Tesson 22:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Very insightful Pascal.Tesson and absolutely correct. I just hope Danny can see that too?--VS 23:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat-only discussion

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat Raul654 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Office Incident

I will refrain from commenting in detail or voting on this RfA due to Danny's relationship with the Board & his expressed intention to run for a Board seat, but I will note that the incident between me & Danny last year was amicably resolved and should have no bearing on this RfA whatsoever. Danny's actions had complex reasons that involve his former role as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. They should not be held against him.--Eloquence* 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Erik - Were you unaware of this RfA for 6.9 days or is there any other reason you waited until 1 hour before this RfA is due to close before leaving a comment that could potentially have prevented (or created) more Oppose votes ? -- Nick 23:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I only now saw many comments referring to this incident. I hope the bureaucrat who closes this RfA will consider my comment.--Eloquence* 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think many editors don't have an issue with what Office actions were performed, but do have an issue with how they were carried out. RxS 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you feel he was justified in desysopping you, indefinitely blocking you and refusing to talk to you? Because if you're not then this is still a perfectly valid reason to oppose, regardless of your undoubted and commendable reconciliation with Danny and good-will towards him. In any case the only way to find out the effect of your statement is to extend the nomination and give those who commented on this issue a chance to reconsider. Haukur 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying he did not necessarily have the freedom of action you attribute to him.--Eloquence* 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So he was justified, in the sense that he had no other real choice? Haukur 00:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I really can't think of a situation where someone interfering with an OFFICE action should be desysopped on a different project to the one where the edit was committed, then ignored until the mailing list uprises in outrage. I can understand the block and desysopping on Misplaced Pages as being part of a greater plan I do not understand, but not the mean way in which it was dealt. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying he doesn't even have the freedom to publicly say that he didn't have the freedom of action? If, for example, Jimbo ordered him to do it, and he's now covering up for Jimbo, that would still be reason to oppose. Bramlet Abercrombie 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole Cloak and dagger bit is embarassing. Danny had ample opportunity to address these points and chose not to. I took this as a sign that he did not wish us to consider his motivations in performing these actions. What's the need for further speculation? CMummert · talk 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're saying Satan made him do it, Erik, you're just not making much sense, and this is more of the same bullshit that some of us have opposed Danny for in the first place. Even if one agrees that there should be covert actions that go unexplained, there are still ways to do them that are acceptable, and ways that aren't. And, I have to say, in what purports to be an open project, the first agreement is not necessarily something that can be counted on. The answer to "I have my reasons" on a wiki is nearly always going to be "so let's hear them then". Grace Note 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the Office issue is just a red herring. Danny had it in his hand to sway many opposers with a more concilliatory attitude (me included), and the RFA swung towards clear support until his answer to Question #20. After that the support rate deteriorated sharply and in the end was trending towards 50%. There were a lot of people intially undecided who did't feel like he conducted himself as they expect from an admin, and the progression of the RFA showed that. ~ trialsanderrors 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

People are still voting

Wow, people have been voting up until the very minute of the close... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been quite a flurry actually. Viridae 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that people often continue voting after the official ending date and as far as I know the bureaucrats do pay attention to such votes. Haukur 00:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. People are still voting. It has not yet been closed. Isn't it due for closing? Are closings usually late? Should it be closed? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

it will take some time to close, as Taxman says above. Until it is closed, new votes may be added. Closings are usually a little late, and this one may be quite late. CMummert · talk 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)As Haukur says, (somewhat) late closure is by no means unusual or out of order, with this as with most Wiki "processes". Formal "elections", such as for arbcom, are the only real case where split-minute precision is the expectation and practice. Alai 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do hope they hurry, though. My first RFA failed (with 69%, discounting one sock) but wasn't closed until a day after the putative ending date. That was quite stressful for me so I hope Danny is spared it. Haukur 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, though even if there's a BC watching with a view to closing, they may wish to reflect or confer. Even if it were "administratively closed" pending an actual decision, the delay would still be the same (though there'd be less commotion in the meantime). However, that itself might be contentious, so I'm not going near that one... Alai 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well lets just remember that the checkusers and the B-crats need time to go over things :). Give them the time they need to do what they have to do. —— Eagle101 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Preliminary CheckUser results confirm that Just H (talk · contribs), Georgian Jungle (talk · contribs), Centurion 5 (talk · contribs), and Yankee Rajput (talk · contribs), all of which have expressed an opinion in the RFA using a different persona, are all the same person. There may be more reports to follow, since there appear to be a large number of single-purpose accounts here. I would urge the bureaucrats to take that into account when closing. Dmcdevit·t 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind alternating your checkuser reports with sockpuppet supports as well? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not checking based on support or opposition. Do you have any obvious SPAs to suggest I check? Dmcdevit·t 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Throwawayhack has under 250 edits since 2005, and no talk page comments since 2005, in addition to a provocative name. CMummert · talk 01:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I would never have recognised those votes as being all the same user (especially as they all have contribs going as far back as August last year), I was just mildly discomforted to see that the first block of sockpuppets were all opposers. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has to be one or the other (I can confirm Dmcdevit's findings). Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with these socks, at any rate. – Steel 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So, do we need a bureaucrat to strike out the socks' votes, or can anyone do it? --Cyde Weys 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume anyone can as long as they reference this thread. – Steel 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do hope that who ever is doing the check users are doing it on both sides of this debate. EnsRedShirt 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We are. Mackensen (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

IAR! IAR! Checkusers for everyone! :-D -- ReyBrujo 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How about Bec-Thorn-Berry, low edit count, first RfA vote as far as I see, and their vote appears to come on their 7th day of editing. KnightLago 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't phrase that right, she has edits on 7 days since account creation. Before voting in this debate her last edit was in January. Sorry for the confusion. KnightLago 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bec-Thorn-Berry has been editing since December - I know because I sent her a message on her first day of editing. – Riana 01:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And Christian Mortensen and James Anthony Stewart, whose usepages are identical as well as their votes, modus operandi and sockmaster. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, quite. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you aware that Christian Moretensen supported Mackensen's bureaucratship while Just H opposed it? I really don't think we should be discounting user's input based on "possible" sockpuppetry instead based on "confirmed" sockpuppetry. --Iamunknown 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I really disagree with the edit to Christian Mortensen's input and am inclined to revert. --Iamunknown 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Christian Mortenson was a sockpuppet of JustH.... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't particularly matter whose sock he is; no one finds RFA on his third edit. —Cryptic 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So?? Does that mean we are going to discount any vote by any user based on the number of edits they have? It would turn into a lynch mob and it would be ridiculous. --Iamunknown 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been common practice to discount new editors for years. It would be odd if this was any different. Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My comment was not entirely to you, I saw your comment, saw that Wizardman hashed out Christian Mortensen's comment, and replied to the nearest place I could. Unfortunately the RFA is locked so I can't do anything. --Iamunknown 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I didn't say they were sockpuppets of Just H. They're sockpuppets of each other, as Dev920 implied. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the alleged RFCU file? A checkuser without file? Wooyi 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those happen all of the time. --Cyde Weys 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Confirming, yes they do. RFCU is a means to bring requests for checkuser to the Checkusers' attention, but it is not the exclusive source of their ability to run checks, or else this RfA would now sit here for a day and a half while anyone with a suspicion filed a formal checkuser case. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is correct. RFCU exists so that the community can bring requests to the attention of checkusers at large. While this is a useful we aren't required to use it whatsoever. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know that. Thanks. Wooyi 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly failed...

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Clearly unhelpfull and inflamatory considering the situation. Archived. Viridae 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

... and I can't wait to read the excuse for promoting him! Bring it! Grace Note 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That comment is not helpful. ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in the least bit interested in what you think is helpful. Yours is yet another of the passive-aggressive, null-content comments that people make to curry favour but not progress debate here. Grace Note 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repetition of the above, Grace Note, your comment is not helpful. This is just inflaming passions for no good reason. I doubt people will bait, but still, this is not appropriate. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe that there is a set ratio to determine consensus, although the 75% range is generally a safe harbor; this is not a vote. At approximately 68% and a degree of bogus votes probably on both sides, it seems that consensus must be evaluated with a bit more finesse than using simple arithmetic. --Kevin Murray 01:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  You what? I don't think there has ever been a candidacy that has been opposed by so many editors. Maybe one of eequor's. I'd have to go and check. Even by Misplaced Pages's odd notion of "consensus", there is no way that one has been achieved here. Grace Note 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think it's all that clear cut - there has been considerably sock puppet usage on both sides here, as well as a fair few o voters voting for dubious reasons. In the end I hope that everyone will just be happy with whatever the 'crats decide and not make a big song and dance over it. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Dude, I can just count the editors I know to be real and it's still a huge opposition. This is not meant to be a vote! If a hundred editors bother opposing something, that should be taken seriously. Grace Note 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's looking like a fairly cleanly fought discussion on both sides, with only one instance of sockpuppetry on the Oppose/Neutral stance and one questionable account on the Support side, thus far. -- Nick 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this "excuse"? Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano#Return_of_access_levels held that "Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion." Danny went through an RFA in January 2004 that predates his role with the foundation. His departure was voluntary and non-controversial. He is thus entitled to automatically have his admin bit restored. I really am disappointed with some of the issues raised here in my and other oppose !votes, but the fact is, he is entitled to be re-sysopped. --BigDT 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He also chose to go through RfA again. For whatever reason, I think the 'crats would have a lot of trouble promoting someone who saw how an RfA was going and then said "Nah, just give me the bit back." --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, had he not gone through an RFA, seeking endorsement, I would agree with this. Grace Note 01:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say his resigning was controversal but hey thats just me..EnsRedShirt 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, Danny gave up his bit because he was given it as an employee of the Foundation, not as an editor, and wanted it officially. His RfA in 2004 was purely procedural (Can you imagine what would have happened if someone had opposed a man who blocked someone for six months for the crime of adding an external link?). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny started working for the foundation in September 2005 . His RFA in January 2004 predates that. --BigDT 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way was his resignation of his sysop bit controversial? What abuse of his tools can you point to that triggered such resignation? None. You're conflating two wholly separate issues, that of his employment with the Foundation, and that of his sysophood on en-wiki. --Cyde Weys 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just let the 'crats do their job folks. _InBC 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grace for once. I hope our comments will be helpful to the crats, SqueakBox 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Someone please close this

Could someone just please close this? It's 2:30am and I have to get up in three hours to make a pie. My eye hurt... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Go to sleep :) Seriously, checkusers are still working on this, and I'm sure the bureaucrats are huddling, so it might take a while. Ral315 » 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go to sleep. I have a feeling this won't close within the next few hours. – Riana 01:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A comment to the community and a comment to Danny

Repeating a theme that was struck higher on this page, this is going to be a controversial closing no matter what the bureaucrats (and I do think more than one should be involved) decide. It is obvious that the candidate is extremely knowledgeable, experienced, and dedicated to Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia, and at times has had to take actions that even now he is not at liberty to fully explain. It also is obvious that the candidate has become a somewhat divisive figure, to an extent far greater than I would have realized before this RfA began. Both Support and Oppose !votes can and have been cast in good faith and with valid reason on this RfA.

I hope that whatever decision is made, it will be accepted and that we will go forward with working together and writing the content. No one's interests will be served via bitter denunciations, vitriolic protests, or especially by angry departures from editing.

I also would like to say that if the result here is to declare the RfA successful, that Danny should carefully consider the substance of the views that have been expressed by many of the oppose and neutral commenters and even by some supporters. To the extent that admins who have been promoted in the past with lower-than-usual percentages have now blended into the ranks, to a large extent it has been by moderating the behaviors that had previously brought about concern.

As I said in my own support !vote, if this RfA succeeds you will need to readjust yourself to being one of 1000+ admins and not as a uniquely positioned office-person with access to confidential information and the right and sometimes even duty to act unilaterally, peremptorally, and without explanation to those who might question your administrator actions. See generally Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee#Responsiveness, where the ArbCom wrote that (with the possible exception of OTRS or BLP situations), "administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner." This RfA would have gone more smoothly had you acknowledged this principle several days ago, and your adminship now or in the future will go far more smoothly if you acknowledge it now. Newyorkbrad 01:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As an editor in the other !lobby (after the already-noted flapping and internal running around), I'd like to very much second Brad's sentiments here, especially the content of his second paragraph. It's regretable that some people in both camps seem to be moving into "bitter denunciation" mode, even outside the RFA page itself, and I hope that we can move past that as soon as possible, and ideally step back from it. Alai 02:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting data about this RfA

I've collected some data:

• Support !voters with less than 250 edits: 5 (or 1/50th of them)
• Oppose !voters with less that 250 edits: 10 (or 1/12th of them)

Of the supporters, 177 had more than 5000 edits (70%). Of the opposers, 53 (40%). No interpretation is implied, just something interesting I noticed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally! Conclusive proof of the Cabal. This is a great day. A Train 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? If I'm a member of the cabal, I haven't gotten any newsletters or my special pin or anything yet. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's in the mail. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation is that people who have known Danny personally or who have been here for longer, are more likely to symphatize with Danny than newer people. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It could also be interpreted as a result of Danny's attitude towards newbies, brought up in the RfA. What's the point in speculating what the data's worth-K@ngie 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably true. However people who know Danny better should also be more knowledgeable about his trustworthiness. @Mackensen, mail! That is where all the donations go, into postage! Prodego 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering this is essentially a reconfirmation of adminship, I would be interested to see if there is any imbalance of admins on the support or oppose sides. Right now I don;'t have the time to trawl through that lot though. Viridae 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for discrediting so-called "votes" and wannabe "opinions" by anyone with less than 5000 edits. That includes my own bad-faithed immature oppose. Thanks for not(h)ing, Chairboy, and especially for not implying anything. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. What am I being accused of, if you please? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One of Kncyu38's edit summaries was "no, I really think such an observation is bad faithed". I have to wonder too. I opposed and have under 5 000 edits last time I checked. Oh, but no interpretation is implied, just something interesting I noticed. --Iamunknown 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Too subtle for me, I guess, I still don't follow. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the implication is that your summary implies that only users with over 5000 edits matter. But it wouldn't be a strong argument for you to make, because 177 to 53 is only 76%, not exactly an overwhelming consensus. CMummert · talk 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, I'm not accusing you of anything since you didn't mean to imply anything by posting your bean-counting results here, right? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In less subtle words: It may have been wiser not to expressly declare that "no interpretation is impled", when the opposite is self-evident. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it biased? Is there a different query you'd like run? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have preferred no query at all. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

5,000 seems like a rather high threshold--do we really only want the extremely experienced editors making all decisions? It seems to me that even those with under 250 edits have something to contribute, although their opinions may be given slightly less credit. Ultimately, however, RfA is a discussion not a vote. In a discussion all opinion's are equally valid, and it's the job of the bureaucrat to determine what the discussion concluded. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said that users with <250 contribs didn't have anything to contribute? I just presented some raw data. I picked 250 based off a sock discussion higher in the page, and 5000 because that's Mediawiki's limit to the # of contributions you can show in one page. I'd hope that if I were an evil genius of some sort, I could be more clever than using statistics to 'jab' at people, or whatever it is the folks above seem to be implying. I'd want at least a secret volcano lair or something. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But where do I file a WP:RFCSVL? Obvious acronym seems to be a disappointing redlink. Alai 02:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to note that 58,9% of people will extrapolate an irrelevant conclusion from this data. I, for one, find that this shows that IRC is evil. Pascal.Tesson 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Actually, based on the people who I know are IRC regulars, the percentage is relatively consistent with the final total. At first glance I mean, I dunno if I'm gonna go through every single nom to see if that's true.--Wizardman 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey don't think too much about it, it was a random nonsensical joke. Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, alright. Everyone's kinda high-strung right now so I didn't assume good faith, lol.--Wizardman 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, he just posted some stats, they speak for themselves, any interpretation is your own. _InBC 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, what purpose do those stats serve? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Page protected until bureaucrats figure it out

I've protected this page pending closure, once we bureaucrats figure out which way to close it. As I write this, Prodego and Wizardman were the last two people to edit this page (within seconds of my page protection, so I figure it was accidental). That said, however, no more editing here, please. Raul654 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean you've protected the !voting page, not this page. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He does indeed. Viridae 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. To an administrator: please un-discount Christian Moretensen James Anthony Stewart's comments. They were not directly implicated by CheckUser, they were hashed out only as "possible sockpuppetry". This is ridiculous, if we are going to discount any vote by a user with "few or no edits outside of this topic" ... that's not good in my mind. --Iamunknown 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, isn;'t it kinda a coincidence then that their accounts were just created?--Wizardman 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The page was not protected when I began editing, no. I could have sworn I signed my comment though, perhaps because I was looking to update the count, and when it wasn't in that section I forgot to sign. Prodego 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I gave you the unsigned bit. It most definately wasn't signed. I thought that considering it was about to be closed, it wuld be better to give the unsigned rather than notify you and have it closed in the meantime. Viridae 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wizardman, it is a coincidence, nothing more. --Iamunknown 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. And their nearly identical user pages are a coincidence too ;)--Wizardman 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... did you miss the part where Mackensen, a checkuser, confirmed? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Er.. a little late there. Sorry, didn't see Mack's response below. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Can this RFA be considered closed? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Closed (in the sense that there will not be any new supports or opposes) but not yet decided. Raul654 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

They weren't directly implicated by checkuser? Gosh, that's news to me. When I say that they'r the same user, I'm explicitly speaking as a checkuser. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On both James Anthony Stewart (talk · contribs) and Christian Mortensen (talk · contribs), they seem pretty obvious sockpuppets to me. New accounts, few contribs, both made a beeline for RfA/RfB, both filled up some of their contrib list by posting welcome templates to nonexistent user accounts, both have similar userpages, and both are responding to ID queries with, "Gee, I'm just looking around," comments. Shall I post the details to ANI, or is listing the info here, sufficient? --Elonka 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec*N)I'm very much inclined to leave them dented (as it were). If the BCs are still free to take their views into account if they're so inclined. Alai 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not about the numbers, but if JAS and CM were shown to be sockpuppets of each other (but not any other accounts), doesn't one of them count? -- nae'blis 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your tone could be a bit less...mocking, Mackensen. I am not infallible and was merely taken by surprise that admins were making a bee-line for editors that seemed to me, based on my current information, to be only "suspected" sock puppets. --Iamunknown 02:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I was about to strike them too, and you can't accuse Elonka or me of trying to bolster the support side... In any case, there is no evidence of massive sockpuppeteering, and individual votes are by now too marginal to have a major impact on the final tally. ~ trialsanderrors 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. --Iamunknown 02:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...and I wasn't implying what you did. I only pointed out that admins in both camps came to the same conclusion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...but I inferred it anyways. Apologies, Iamunknown 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Well, if the RfA was closed when it was protected, shouldn't the !vote here be discarded?-K@ngie 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Late votes are accepted in rfas until it is closed, as it just was by MessedRocker.--Wizardman 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they are fine, per my message in the above thread. Raul654 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? If we're still accepting votes, why is the page protected? AmiDaniel (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not still accepting votes. They just happened to edit this page at the very second I protected it, so I'm inclined to give them (Prodego and Wizardman) the benefit of the doubt. Raul654 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Thanks :) AmiDaniel (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And my edit was actually just to change the # to reflect Prodego's vote.--Wizardman 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are an admin and you click edit before the page is protected, then it is protected, and you hit save, the edit will occur after the page is protected, but you don't get any warning of this. I would call it a bug. _InBC 03:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Having recentlymyself gotten into temporary hot water by inadvertently editing a high-profile, just-that-minute-protected page (the Essjay RfC), I can confirm what HighInBC says and his conclusion. Newyorkbrad 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As unfond as I am of edit conflicts, I'd have to agree that this would logically be flagged as such. (Don't ask me whether that'd make sense in terms of the internal logic, my PHP is worse than my Python, which is saying something.) Though let's be kind to the devs and call it an "unexpected feature". Alai 03:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

This RFA is numerically in the questionable zone, the area in which a bureaucrat is expected to exercise his discretion. I have read the entire dialogue, with a slight prejudice against promoting because the percentage is on the low end. I have, however, not given undue attention to this fact; Dmcdevit and others have drawn attention to possible sockpuppetry, so the numbers may not be quite as they seem.

His supporters cite a particular few qualities in his favor, but my concern has been primarily with the objections, as there is no risk to the project in not promoting him. The opposers give more various justifications. Those most frequently mentioned are his brusque attitude to questions, history of newbie-biting, and aggressive deletion habits, but other editors have objected on the grounds that: the resignation of adminship last month shows a lack of devotion; he has not explained his reasons for resigning from his Foundation positions; Cyde nominated him; his actions as a bureaucrat have been questionable; many trustworthy users have opposed him; WP:OFFICE is contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages and Danny's role in its implementation reflects a similar attitude. These latter few rationales (after the colon) I find irrelevant to the matter at hand: whether he should be trusted with the powers of an administrator.

The nearness of the count coupled with the slight bias in Danny's favor discovered by sockpuppet checks leave the matter numerically indeterminate. On consideration of the rationales for supporting and opposing, I and the several bureaucrats with whom I have conferred (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat) believe it is in the project's interest to promote Danny. I have not exceeded the role which the community has defined for a bureaucrat: I have done no more than my job. I trust that even those who disagree with my decision will respect that fact.

I further hope it is quite clear that I am not myself judging the candidate (my own experience with him is miniscule; I have seen neither his great successes nor his great failures, as presented by supporters and opposers) but rather making sense of the community's judgment of the candidate. I have read all arguments presented, regardless of the source. My decision was informed by the numbers only insofar as the numbers have told me that the community has no clear opinion on this issue. I hope everyone has a lovely evening. — Dan | talk 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing finally ended, and I'm glad he's now promoted. This incident has much resemblance with Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination, which also ended in success. Wooyi 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is still discussion ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat. CMummert · talk 03:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The rush to close this while discussion was still occurring on that sub-page is another red flag. Force10 03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's to over-dramatise things. Looks to me like a good-faith miscommunication on the matter of the on-going discussion (if even truly "mis-"). Bear in mind that any of the BCs could have closed it to their personal liking without any prior discussion, so personally I applaud the fact that there was the discussion in the first place. Alai 04:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have ended and all who commented there have, at least implicitly, supported the decision. CMummert · talk 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now that's a low blow. Danny isn't nearly as bad as Samuel Alito. --Cyde Weys 03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Could you clarify somthing, please? You state "...rather making sense of the community's judgment of the candidate. I have read all arguments presented, regardless of the source. My decision was informed by the numbers only insofar as the numbers have told me that the community has no clear opinion on this issue." If the community has no clear opinion on this issue, isn't that the same as "no consensus" which in turn is the same as "keep the status quo and try again later"? Force10 03:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I find that rather confusing too-K@ngie 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe all he was saying is that the raw numbers didn't answer it. Then you have to shift to the substance. Also Kangie, do you mind shortening your signature? It makes talk pages easier to read. - Taxman 04:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(inevitable fivefold ec)I don't want this to be construed as in any way critical of the above, since it's very much been done in the manner I'd hope (consultation, and looking at whether individual opinions gel with the general thrust of the will of the community in the large), and of course I'd stand by what I said above in agreement with NYB that we should all accept the outcome with as good grace as possible, whatever it is. But I do have an observation about the comment that the "concern has been primarily with the objections, as there is no risk to the project in not promoting him". That's somewhat conflicted, since of course if one only looks at the opposes, with a view to "counting" or "not counting" those, but takes the supports as being a given, one is inevitably only ever going to "move" things towards promotion, which isn't really consistent with any presumption of non-promotion. But yes, that's of course what the "supermajority" aspect if for, and it's in many way a natural thing to do, since it's going to be inherently hard to distinguish between "routine, nom says it all, no big deal" support, and "unconvincing" support, so I offer this only as a meta-observation. Alai 03:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the reason why I oppose Mackensen's "reform" proposal. The undue scrutiny of one camp's arguments skews a process that is already skewed even further. Sorry, but as long as there is enough participation, vote count tends to be a less biased predicitor than human analysis. I also found the equation of "lower contribution count" = "more sockpuppet risk" uncaled for. ~ trialsanderrors 04:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion, this was closed rather professionally (definitely much better than Danny's own promotions, heh :) I wish Rdsmith4 didn't just vote and promote, and that he didn't rush to close this while bureaucrats were still discussing, but I guess there's only so much one can hope for. My general impression of how properly Misplaced Pages follows due process is that things are improving (at least over the last 2.5 years I was able to follow). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Easy on the damning with faint praise, there. :) OK, those aspects aren't ideal, but they don't appear to have changed the outcome, as far as can be told. I give all involved a solid "B", with a view to the next round of BC confirmation electi-- oh, wait... Alai 04:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that nobody will be too mad immediately, considering that he could have just not done an RfA. I expect a reactionary Arbcom case within 6 months, when Danny does something controversial that would get anyone else no more than a polite comment on their talkpage, but that's better than something now... -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable

Danny received 68% support, below the accepted 70% minimum. Why are we making an exception for Danny? Personally, I am all in favor of lowering the minimum a bit, but only if it's applied to all editors. Danny's experience is no justification for the exception; his experience includes a great deal of misuse of admin tools and the consistent display of an attitude that's very unbecoming of an administrator. His voluntary submission to a vote is no justification: does that gesture mean that his RfA should not be conducted with the same standards as we would normally apply? Why should any of us waste our time in a rubber stamp process? It seems very clear to me that the community made one decision here, and the bureaucrats made a different one. Everyking 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nearly everyone agrees that a sysop, by the nature of having admin tools, will gain enemies. Thus, anyone who was once a sysop and voluntarily resigned should be given more weight towards adminship, firstly because they did well enough to not get into serious trouble, and secondly because it's a certainty they will have less support than they would were they never an admin. -Amarkov moo! 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Count me as one of the supposedly tiny minority that disagrees. Making enemies all over the place due to the use of admin tools is only a sign that you're doing a poor job as an admin. It is, in any case, insulting to oppose voters to say that they voted against Danny because they are his enemies. It is my impression that people voted against Danny mainly because of his long record of extreme harshness and overreaction: you don't have to be his enemy to see that he did some very bad and irresponsible things. Everyking 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... hi... I voted against him too. The point is not that any of the opposition reasons are invalid, just that they would be made of almost anyone, if we had complete information on how they will act as an admin. -Amarkov moo! 05:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It was fortunate that we knew in advance this time how he would act as an admin. Would "almost anyone" have such a record of misusing the tools? In fact there are very few admins who ever go to the kinds of extremes that were routine for Danny. This is what all that passionate opposition was about. Danny didn't behave as an ordinary administrator. Everyking 06:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't know if you're qualified to speak on misuse of administrator tools. You were desysopped by ArbCom, whereas Danny wasn't. --Cyde Weys 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the bureaucrat discussion. This decision was not made on the strength of one crat determining consensus, but with discussion among a good handfull of them. Congratulations on being the first person to complain on a purely numerical basis, totally missing the point of an RfA. Viridae 05:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the discussion. Notice my use of the plural in my initial comment. Everyking 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The bureaucrats discussed this transparently here. I particularly recommend that everyone read Redux's long comment. Two quotes from that page cut to the heart of the issue, the first is from Redux:

"I'm not about to disregard anyone's input because I don't agree with them, but it is also our job not to allow unrelated grudges, personal dislikes and the like to interfere with what is really the purpose of a RfA. And those cases are there, and it's not just one or two of them — Dan has just exposed them."

And the second is from Taxman:

"After Warofdreams last comments, what it left us at was the only people that wouldn't have called it a promotion ourselves stated that we would support the decision to promote. That's as close as you can get to full consensus in my book. Not everyone has to state they would have made the same decision, but if everyone can support the outcome, that's as good as it gets."

--bainer (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have said, "very frustrating" rather than "totally unacceptable" but, yeah. I'm afraid I don't see much difference between disregarding someone's input because you don't agree with them and "not to allow unrelated grudges, personal dislikes and the like to interfere"? 6 of one, half dozen the other.—Nat Krause 05:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that it's far from clear whether the community made a decision, or whether it didn't, therefore it's considerably overstating things to say that the BCs clearly "made a different one". At least in this case there was some attempt at analysis of the nature of the opposition, as opposed to the BC corps simply making some separate decision based on their own opinions. Mind you, I think they might have done at least some analysis of the supports (remember the "don't count me if it's 70%" from me ol' mucka CHL?). Alai 06:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This RfA should have been successful even it is below 68% because of its special nature. Danny has been opposed here because of his office actions, which I would say this kind of opposition is not all valid because even if Danny is promoted (which he is), he will still not have that power to do office actions like before. Those who disagree with office actions by him should definitely oppose his election to the board, not in his RFA, because an admin doesn't do office actions. Wooyi 06:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the bureaucrats found a good way to make a decision. I agree with Everyking that this should not be an exception, and hope that future RfAs of less well-known people are treated with the same extra scrutiny if they happen to fall into the grey area (which the bureaucrats also seem to be expanding). I think the opposition showed that there was no consensus to promote Danny, but it isn't possible to reach consensus in a discussion with 300+ participants anyway. In discussions that won't ever reach consensus, it is sometimes better not to use the default result, and the bureaucrats decided that here. Kusma (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. Other admins have received close to 300 votes of support with virtually no opposition. // Internet Esquire 06:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of those were not discussions, but pile-on record voting. Kusma (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Could not the same thing be said of the votes supporting Danny's RfA? The bottom line is that Danny's RfA was the most well-attended and contentious RfA Misplaced Pages has ever had, and the clear result was that there was no consensus to promote, but this didn't stop the 'crats from acting independently and promoting Danny. So why bother having the RfA in the first place? // Internet Esquire 08:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure they are. My vote (pure vote, no rationale) was not a part of the discussion (which took place mostly in the oppose vote section; the RfA format is not very suited to discussion of support votes anyway). The crats were bending the rules a little, but the rules were made years ago when there was no RfA with more than 50 participants, and when adminship was not a big deal. It is time to change the rules, and that the crats have been recently promoting high-profile cases well below the old threshold that people used to judge when a supermajority magically becomes consensus shows that the rules are perhaps really changing now. Changing rules are normal on Wikis, blind adherence to old process is not. Kusma (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just let the 'crats decide in the future?

I'm totally confused as to how and why the bureaucrats made the call they did in re Danny. After closing the RFA and having their own private discussion wherein they determined that there was no consensus among the unwashed masses to promote Danny, they promoted him anyway, not unlike the way the United States Supreme Court decided the 2000 presidential election. Why not just skip all the contentious RfAs and let the 'crats decide for themselves who gets the mop? // Internet Esquire 06:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't think that hasn't been suggested before (in earnest). Alai 06:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone submit WP:RFA for deletion in the past when such suggestions were in the air? --Irpen 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone did that I would close it as soon as I saw it as an extreme violation of WP:POINT. There are some things within the project space that we can delete or historify without serious issues occuring, but WP:RFA isn't one of them. To nominate it for deletion without having an alterntive in place is foolhardy, especially because, as previous discussions have shown, the community has a hard time making it smind up on such issues as RfA reform. Viridae 06:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Firstly it was a private discussion because it is firstly their job, and their job only to decide if there is consensus for promotion and secondly because the community had had a chance to have its say the bureaucrats needed somewhere where they could openly discuss the issue without interference from everyone else. They have outlined a clear reason as to why they have promoted him there, and have stated categorically it has nothing to do with raw percentages (which, if RfA is to run correctly, it shouldn't). They also stated that they have discounted certain votes because they either have nothing to do with Danny as an admin - or even nothing to do with danny at all (ie I don't like WP:OFFICE, its against the spirit of wiki - issues that are beyond argument and vote as stated in meta, board issues) they also stated that they have taken into account votes from people with grudges because they, once again, have no bearing on danny as an admin. Finnally I belive they have taken into account that every admin will make enemies doing admin actions. Not everyone likes what you do as an admin, as every admin knows and danny having been OFFICE/WMF tsaff is more likely to come across situations like that. But of course, you know all that because you have read the discussion page. Viridae 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC}

It's always amazed me how two people can witness the same event and come away with two completely different accounts of what happened. In this particular instance, it was pretty clear to me that the 'crats decided that there was no consensus to promote, and that they then decided to act independently, marginalizing and ignoring the well over 100 people who voted in opposition to Danny's RfA. While I remain "strongly neutral" on whether this particular promotion was justified, it still seems pretty clear to me that those who opposed Danny's promotion had (and have) legitimate gripes that have yet to be addressed. // Internet Esquire 07:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what a RfA is, is not uniformly agreed with among WP users. What it is, is not a vote, and not a popularity contest (though elements of unpopularity contests do come into play). It's not exactly the consensus game listed on its own description page, either. We elect the Burecrats to have and use judgement. Georgewilliamherbert 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No person whose RfA is not only the most opposed RfA ever, but also breaks WP:100 for the first time in the number of opposes, should be promoted, regardless of who they are. You say that the crats should have discounted various rationales - should they have discounted the lengthy and numerous accusations of tool abuse, accompanied by diffs? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I supported Danny and I believe the project is better off with him as an admin. Yet, as I said earlier, there's simply no way that this chaotic RfA can be interpreted as a consensus to promote, no matter how inconvenient and sad we might find that state of affairs. It's a poor decision on the part of the bureaucrats and a rash one: a one-hour long chit chat is simply not enough to make an enlightened decision and it is quite clear that the discussion is mostly trying to find a way to justify the desired outcome. Clearly I'm ok with Danny being an admin but the cost being paid is way too high: the trust editors have in the b'crats has been hit and the community can't be so confident that consensus is truly respected when the top of the pyramid finds it inconvenient. I strongly encourage Danny to prove his critics wrong and to re-run for adminship in a few months (yes, I'm that crazy). Pascal.Tesson 11:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynamics

Just something I noticed and mentioned earlier. At the time Danny answered question #20, the tally was 195/54 (or 78% support). After that, the split was 61/64, less than 50%. Draw your own conclusions. ~ trialsanderrors 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. The 'crats were able to exercise their own independent judgment rather than worry about something trivial like a lack of consensus. // Internet Esquire 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny and trust

I note this comment in the bureaucrat discussion:

I don't think even Danny's worst critic would allege he is not trustworthy (I didn't see any of that in the RFA). - Raul654

That's not what I see. Let's look at the RFA:

• "I can't see how we can trust him to be an administrator" - RockMFR
• "Oppose; has used power irresponsibly too often to be trusted with it again." - Everyking
• "A second, independent reason to oppose is trust." - Jreferee
• "I do not trust this user to follow or enforce WP policy as understood by the community." - Meersan
• "I no longer trust him to do the right thing, and make a net improvement to the project with the tools" - badlydrawnjeff
• "recent developments have made me question how trustworthy I may have perceived him to be"
• "I cannot trust him to use the admin tools fairly and reasonably" - Αργυριου
• "Danny's attitude ... leaves me unable to trust him with admin tools" - A Train

Anyway, kudos on holding an open discussion. I think you made the wrong decision for very unconvincing reasons but at least the decision-making is out there in the open where it can be criticized. Haukur 08:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Raul's point was that having been trusted with WP:OFFICE as well as fundraising for the WMF, he has certainly proved himself trustworthy. Wether you believe he will use the tools appropriately or not, does anyone really believe he will actually, intentionally, abuse them? Viridae 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think he would intentionally abuse the tools, but that's setting the bar very low. Yes, he was hired to do a job and he did that job—that's how the rest of us work too—but that's really not the point. In fact we were repeatedly told by his supporters that we should not consider his actions in that job. Haukur 09:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It didn't stop the Opposing camp from using his job as a stick to beat him with. Put simply, his job showed he could be trusted, he resignation and what he did in the job didn't show he couldn't be trusted. -- Nick 09:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I was in the opposing camp, and I did not beat Danny with any WP:OFFICE stick. I acknowledged that WP:OFFICE issues could be difficult, but that I had concerns about his actions beyond WP:OFFICE. I think that saying that that the opposing camp beat him up over WP:OFFICE is wrong. The truth is that a few of the opposers did so. It is not so for the majority of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that any WP:OFFICE actions should be off-limits for criticism, as it is by design difficult or impossible to discern their rationale. It appeared that the bureaucrats concurred with me on this point. However, I felt that there were a number of important issues raised (especially WP:BITE issues) which were only based on his actions as an administrator. JavaTenor 09:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If his job showed that he could be trusted by the Foundation, that doesn't mean he could be trusted by the community. We don't have a say in who the Foundation chooses to hire. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, very frankly, all of those people who said they could not trust Danny are simply wrong. I don't know where the hell they've been these past years, but there's nobody we can trust more than Danny. --Cyde Weys 12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And you're entitled to your opinion. That doesn't change the fact that others don't have that same trust in Danny. Everyone who disagrees with your opinion isn't "wrong" and it's rather unhelpful to make comments like "I don't know where the hell they've been these past years...". Danny has misused and even verged on abusing admin tools in the past and that's a valid reason to oppose his readminship (To clarify, I'm not referring to anything remotely related to OFFICE actions). ChazBeckett 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm wrong. I've been here, same place you have, and his use of the tools simply does not demonstrate trust in that area. We have enough poor admins we can't trust, and we just got back another. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You have no valid judgment on his use of the tools. Nearly everything you're complaining about was required per WMF's council, and by its very nature, couldn't be explained in public. Those of us actually in the know, in the backroom IRC channels and such, saw a completely different side of how these things unfolded. --Cyde Weys 12:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish that you wouldn't make that argument. This is not a spy agency, and "backroom" information has no place at RFA. Editors must be judged on their public edits and public comments. CMummert · talk 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of Haukur's assessment, and it is similar to what I posted on WT:RFA and have moved here:

I am very disappointed at how the Danny RFA was closed, and not just because I opposed. Can somebody answer me these questions:

• Why is it acceptable for a bureaucrat who supported the RFA to participate in the discussion? I would think it were patently obvious that someone supporting an RFA should be utterly recused from participating in the closing process.
• What was the bureaucrat's final tally after casting aside irrelevant !votes (e.g. "I don't like WP:OFFICE.")?
• Did Danny receive special treatment with a lower threshold due to the fact that he voluntarily relenquished his adminship?
• I am aware that giving up adminship in non-controversial circumstances allows entitles you to ask for the sysop bit to be returned without another RFA process. Does it entitle you to pass an RFA if you do choose that path?
• Is the standard for promotion rough consensus in the community, or consensus among bureaucrats advised by the community?
• Among the support !votes we find the reason "if this one fails, it's proof that RFA is so broken it will need to be abolished immmediately". Was the support with this rationale counted?
• On the bureaucrat discussion page, Raul654 writes: "I don't think even Danny's worst critic would allege he is not trustworthy (I didn't see any of that in the RFA)". When I read over the oppose section I see:
  • Lack of trust over Danny's previous handling of the delete button. (Actions over Israel news agency, and a number of other speedy deletions if you look at Elonka's oppose)
  • Lack of trust over Danny's ability to treat newcomers with respect.
  • Lack of trust over Danny's use of the block button (for example concerns were expressed over overly quick use of the block button without warning for adding what may have been an inappropriate external link.)
  • Lack of trust over Danny's willingness to communicate and explain his admin actions.
  • Lack of trust over Danny's respect to the community when given admin tools.

How can one say that there were no allegations of lack of trustworthiness?

• I think Kappa should have passed his RFA two years ago, and I found the many of the reasons given to oppose (too inclusionist) as irrelevant to adminship. Would the bureaucrats' deceision be to promote if Kappa ran for RFA today and got the same support percentage, and same rationales as he did then?

Regarding the adminship and RFA itself, i am not too disturbed by Danny getting back the admin tools par se. (After all, having resigned them as an admin in good standing he was entitled to have them back upon request without an RFA dicussion at all.)

However, I do feel that there among several supporters was a feeling that Danny was not only entitled to get back his adminship, but that he was also entitled to pass the RFA, and moreover, to pass the RFA with acclamation. Perhaps that is why it shocked somebody so much when I made an early oppose that they could write that my "ignorance was sticking out the back of my pants. Hope that helps. Have a nice day", and that I needed to read the WP:AGF policy because I had clearly forgotten it.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just wanted to echo Haukur and Sjakkalle's opinion that the logic behind the close was extremely questionable. It seems like they were going out of their way to disregard the opinions of the people who were against promotion, for reasons of their own. I don't want to shout "Cabal" in a crowded theater, but at the same time, when there was this line-by-line parsing of !votes, why did no one address the large number of "support" opinions who offered no rationale at all, beyond a bolded word and a sig? -Hit bull, win steak 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you read the comments fully, you will see it has been adressed. You will also see that this isn't an uncommon occurance on RfAs where, because the noms are supported by a nomination statement and answers to pre-set questions it can be assumed that they are supporting them for per the nomination. Oppose votes are expected to back their opposition with a staement of reasoning for various reasonns. It gives the candidate valuable feedback (which in this case Danny has said he will take on board), it raises points that may not have been seen by the supporters and it shows that since adminship is No Big Deal (tm) they have a strong reason for opposing, considering the default position is promotion. (also avoids IDONTLIKEIT arguments) Viridae 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Get a bunch of people to comment on something and someone will say something stupid. In any RFA a percentage of the votes will be silly or weak. There's nothing unusual about Danny's RFA in this respect except that there are more votes of all types. In any RFA running at 60-70% support you could pick out some of the oppose votes as weak and discount them. If bureaucrats did this all the time that would probably be fine. The point is that they don't, they routinely fail RFAs in that range. Haukur 12:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't the first RFA I've seen, Viridae, but you must admit that it's curious to disregard the opinions of people who disapprove of his candidacy for well-stated and concrete reasons, while counting those of people whose 'argument' contained nothing of substance: "Of course" (Jkelly), "But of course" (Picaroon), "Very much" (Rdsmith4), "Absolutely" (Khoikhoi), "as self" (Bastique), "Duh" (Danntm), "Definitely" (Joanneb), "of course" (Rory096), "No reason not to" (Winhunter), "obviously..." (Yonatan), etc. Try taking that to basically any other "discussion" area here on WP (like an xFD) and see how far it flies. -Hit bull, win steak 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan's conduct

• 01:45, 3 April 2007 Dan supports Danny for adminship
• 03:17, 10 April 2007 Dan sysops Danny
• 03:40, 10 April 2007 Dan says: "none of the other bureaucrats is truly more disinterested than I in this matter"

During his RFB Dan stated "The community has decided that 80% is the magic proportion of support votes, and I will abide by this decision, using, as always, a bureaucrat's discretion with regard to sockpuppet or otherwise questionable voters." On contentious nominations he further added: "My standards for all nominations, contentious or otherwise, are the same."

Voting in an RFA means you are not disinterested. Promoting at 68% support after discounting sockpuppets is not congruent with Dan's RFB statements. It only makes sense if you extend "questionable voters" far beyond what anyone reading it at the time could have reasonably thought it meant. I think Dan's conduct in this affair is poor and that he has broken the pledges he gave at his RFB. Haukur 11:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like some editors thought they were electing a robot. Misplaced Pages got a thinker instead. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)