Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Danny 2

message: 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 Wikipedia become the remarkable resource that it can be. Danny 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good RfA, way to use the force. Much better than my "easy to close" RfA. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Right at the top

message: ===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
*Wikipedia talk:	200
*Wikipedia:	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
*Wikipedia:	9
*avg edits per page	2.00
*earliest	16:48, 18 April 2006
*number of unique pages	14
*total	28
Michael Billington (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit count

message: :run at Tue Apr 3 01:54:36 2007 GMT
*Mainspace	13
*Talk:	1
*User talk:	4
*User:	1
*Wikipedia:	9
*avg edits per page	2.00
*earliest	16:48, 18 April 2006
*number of unique pages	14
*total	28
Michael Billington (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Dannyisme

message: There's just no possbile, valid way of arguing with 26235 mainspace contributions. --Deskana (ya rly) 02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, edit count matters after all ;-) Admin stats would be nice. -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  He deserves a working man's barnstar, or even twelve, yes. But that's not what's being debated here. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No arguing 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Discussion period before an RfA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My Sidebet 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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?).--Docg 19:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, Wikipedia 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.--Docg 19:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Utter disdain? O_o difflink? I think he's been quite respectful to everyone all around. --Gmaxwell 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia is the "problem".  --Cyde Weys 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: So people oppose because they feel disdained? Understandable perhaps, but disappointing still.--Docg 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--Docg 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--Docg 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Docg 20:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--Docg 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  Adminship has been denied for far more trivial reasons. EnsRedShirt 06:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Geogre, this kind of broad brush personal attack has no place on Wikipedia.  --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, Cyde, drop it. Let's not do this.--Docg 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks you missed one there ... Cyde Weys 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to cool this, not be righteous.--Docg 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get on IRC, I think we're talking past each other.  --Cyde Weys 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather not right now.--Docg 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Pride, folly and long memories....full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.--Docg 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of faith, sadness abounding 

message: 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 talk 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Picaroon 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unbelievable. RxS 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)

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

text: Atshields has worked with Danny for a while at the WMF offices. -- Nick t 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nick - perhaps even more reason for us all being a little concerned by his methods and his neutrality?--VS talk 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 t 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsurpassed bullying and rudeness

message: 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? WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he didn't have time? Daniel Bryant 10:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe you should stop categorizing my serious questions as silly, Cyde.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would use a word other than silly but that would be even less productive.  --Cyde Weys 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it most certainly is.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny#Danny.27s_supplemental_statement. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. WooyiTalk, Editor review 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question evasion? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 t 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Come on.  We all know that he's going to get his adminship, 70% or no. Xihr 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Very insightful Pascal.Tesson and absolutely correct. I just hope Danny can see that too?--VS talk 23:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open the umbrellas, it is going to rain. Very hard. 

message: Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat Raul654 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureaucrat-only discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 t 23:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I'm saying he did not necessarily have the freedom of action you attribute to him.--Eloquence* 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So he was justified, in the sense that he had no other real choice? Haukur 00:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Office Incident 

message: Wow, people have been voting up until the very minute of the close... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been quite a flurry actually. ViridaeTalk 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Need help? 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People are still voting 

message: Preliminary CheckUser results confirm that , , , and , 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)
replies: text: Would you mind alternating your checkuser reports with sockpuppet supports as well? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I apologise for being a slacker and not editing very much, but I'm not a sockpuppet or an SPA; I just upload my pictures and fix spelling mistakes (when I get round to it). Apologies for having a stupid username. Throwawayhack 18:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I've dealt with these socks, at any rate. – Steel 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I assume anyone can as long as they reference this thread. – Steel 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: We are. Mackensen (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR! IAR! Checkusers for everyone! :-D -- ReyBrujo 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

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

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I didn't say Christian Mortenson was a sockpuppet of JustH.... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't particularly matter whose sock he is; no one finds RFA on his third edit. —Cryptic 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  (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)

text: Where is the alleged RFCU file? A checkuser without file? WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, those happen all of the time.  --Cyde Weys 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Sorry I didn't know that. Thanks. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry 

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

message: 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A comment to the community and a comment to Danny 

message: 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)
replies: text: Finally! Conclusive proof of the Cabal. This is a great day. A Traintalk 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, it's in the mail. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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@ngiemeep! 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't get it.  What am I being accused of, if you please? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Too subtle for me, I  guess, I still don't follow. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: How is it biased?  Is there a different query you'd like run? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have preferred no query at all. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Hey don't think too much about it, it was a random nonsensical joke. Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, alright. Everyone's kinda high-strung right now so I didn't assume good faith, lol.--Wizardman 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh, he just posted some stats, they speak for themselves, any interpretation is your own. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, what purpose do those stats serve? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting data about this RfA 

message: 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)
replies: text: I assume you mean you've protected the !voting page, not this page. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He does indeed. ViridaeTalk 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Iamunknown, isn;'t it kinda a coincidence then that their accounts were just created?--Wizardman 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 talk 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ViridaeTalk 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Wizardman, it is a coincidence, nothing more.  --Iamunknown 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay. And their nearly identical user pages are a coincidence too ;)--Wizardman 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh... did you miss the part where Mackensen, a checkuser, confirmed?  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er.. a little late there.  Sorry, didn't see Mack's response below.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  (edit conflict) On both  and , 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ...I wasn't accusing anyone of anything.  --Iamunknown 02:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...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)
replies: text: ...but I inferred it anyways.  Apologies, Iamunknown 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected until bureaucrats figure it out

message: Well, if the RfA was closed when it was protected, shouldn't the !vote here be discarded?-K@ngiemeep! 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Late votes are accepted in rfas until it is closed, as it just was by MessedRocker.--Wizardman 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? If we're still accepting votes, why is the page protected? AmiDaniel (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, I understand. Thanks :) AmiDaniel (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And my edit was actually just to change the # to reflect Prodego's vote.--Wizardman 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat. CMummert · talk 03:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dynamics

message: I note this comment in the bureaucrat discussion:
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)
replies: text: 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? ViridaeTalk 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 t 09:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oddly enough, this star chamber rationale offers me little comfort.  I say this as someone who remains "strongly neutral" in re Danny's RfA.  Simply put, I do not trust those "in the know" at Wikipedia to exercise their own independent judgment, as they have clearly demonstrated by their words and their actions that they will marginalize the valid concerns of others and overrule any consensus brought forth by open discussion, or lack thereof.  This high profile and highly contentious RfA has probably both humbled and hobbled Danny, but he is clearly a "vested contributor" who receives special consideration from the powers that be. // Internet Esquire 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: You have no valid determination on what I'm judging the use of his tools on, based on that answer.  Guess what - you don't know better than a lot of us, as much as you may think you do.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I have apologised for expressing myself badly, but you have obviously forgotten what it was you actually said. It was the WP:OFFICE policy which you brought into question, and your reference to it made it quite clear that you had totally misunderstood the point thereof: "I am deleting this, I have reasons for this which you don't know of, please trust me" is a basic paraphrase of what an "office action" is about. Criticising Danny for undertaking "office actions" under instruction from those who were perfectly entitled to instruct him so to do is hardly fair or just. As for "HTH HAND", maybe my attempts to be pleasant to people fail dismally, but at least I actually try. —Phil | Talk 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your accusation: "It was the WP:OFFICE policy which you brought into question" is wrong, wrong and wrong. I was refering to Danny using the "trust me" attitude on matters which were not OFFICE. I found it so ironic that you were accusing me of ignorance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *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(Moo!) 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danny and trust 

message: I hate to get legalistic at this point, but I am not sure there is a different way. While there was consensus among bureaucrats to promote (small irregularities nonwithstanding), the bureacurats did not do their job as specified at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Bureaucrats, which was not to create a consensus for promotion, but to interpret if there is a consensus in the community. And the consensus clearly was not there. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I've lost my faith in a lot of bureaucrats over a lot of different things. Perhaps a RfAr is a good idea, but perhaps a bit more general with regards to RfA, rather than just over this specific case. And note: I've every faith in Danny as an administrator, I supported that RfA --Deskana (ya rly) 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see it. Consensus is not vote counting, and the 'crats explained in great detail how they did their analysis. Though, going to arbcom would be better than just talking about something we can do nothing about. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Adminship should be no big deal. The 'crats had a really tough call to make, and they'd make someone angry no matter what they did. I don't think an arbitration case is in order, but one probably will get filed at some point. // PTO 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adminship is no big deal. Not following community consensus is a big deal I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please point me the page where it is written that every nomination must finish at over 70% in order to be sysoped. -- ReyBrujo 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All we did was interpret the consensus to promote, and as a group we determined that there was one. If you think the encyclopedia would be improved by a RFARB, go ahead, but I don't see any conceivable way in which it would. - Taxman Talk 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If potentially helpful contributors are going to get six month blocks for the crime of adding an external link, I think the encyclopedia may be far better off. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that will happen, and if it did, there are plenty of checks and balances in place. It's worth remembering that bureaucrats are volunteers just like we all are. I don't see an abuse of process here; I see a good-faith attempt to resolve a very difficult situation, and I see a far better and cleaner process here than we had in certain cases in the past. I don't think it will benefit anyone to go to RFARB. --Guinnog 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I, at the moment. Given the crats and arbitrators are all in cahoots, it would be futile to simply knock at Arbcom and say "This isn't right!". I am prepared to believe that Danny may actually take these RfA comments on board, but if he makes one more block of a newbie, refuses to discuss an admin action, and is infernally rude, to ArbCom it should go. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "in cahoots" is a bit strong, but such circumstances are exactly why we shouldn't have people wearing both "hats" (and yes, I'm aware we have one person who has done so for quite some time, another who did so briefly (before all heck broke loose), and currently have a candidate being quite strongly supported to complete the brace).  Alai 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Assuming, arguendo, that the 'crats are a law unto themselves, pointing out that fact in an attempt to discourage an RfArb is about as effective as throwing gasoline onto a burning fire in an attempt to extinguish it. // Internet Esquire 17:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because, after all, who needs oversight? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Re Taxman's comment, I appreciate that consensus is hard to determine in cases like these.  But Dan went out of his way to say "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, an argument might go, then there is no consensus to promote. CMummert · talk 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with the suggestion to take this to arbitration if you have a problem with it.  Most of us are looking at the decision and seeing the bureaucrats do a pretty good job, even if we don't all agree with the outcome.  A few of us are looking at the same thing and seeing something terrible for Wikipedia.  It has been said of the bureaucrats that they ignored Wikipedia policy.  If there is evidence for this, then I have no hesitation in saying "take it to the arbitration committee."  --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of whether ArbCom has jurisdiction is an interesting one to argue, but it sidesteps the larger issue of whether the 'crats acted appropriately.  On that note, if ArbCom does decide to take jurisdiction of this situation and further decides that the 'crats acted ultra vires of *THEIR* jurisdiction by promoting Danny without a community consensus, I wager that very few people will argue that ArbCom has itself acted without proper jurisdiction.  As such, arguing against taking this dispute to ArbCom based on a question of jurisdiction is simply disingenuous wikilawyering.  That having been said, I really don't see ArbCom second-guessing and overruling the 'crats.  My guess is that they'll just rubberstamp this decision as being one of them there "tough calls." // Internet Esquire 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't argue that they couldn't, .. indeed that would be a little be rules lawyerish, he argued that they won't and that you shouldn't take it to them on the basis of it not being their purpose rather than some rule. --Gmaxwell 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor is the closest we have to a precedent. Ed, bless him, had a lot of things going on, of course, and his bureaucrat role was only a part of the problem. Nevertheless the case ended with him giving it up. But for ArbCom to take a case against a bureaucrat it would take something on Ed's order of magnitude. I doubt they would take a case brought against Dan, much as I deplore his conduct. Haukur 22:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Danny give up that right when he stood for RfA, so that's irrelevant. If Danny kept that right, then standing for RfA is a violation of WP:POINT (this RfA has certainly caused disruption, and if it's meaningless, then all it does it make a point). --Tango 01:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: When one relinquishes his permissions, even on good terms, he is in no way entitled to have these permissions automatically restored without gaining prior consensus for promotion. Of course, some with friends in high places have cheated, but this does not indicate a precedent but rather a betrayal of the system. If there was no consensus for Danny's promotion, as I believe was certainly the case here, he should not have been promoted, regardless of any "right" you believe him entitled to. End of story. The arbcom would be asked not to confirm the "meaningless result of a meaningless process," but rather to decide whether Wikipedia should be driven by consensus or by the whims of a handful of individuals. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first sentence of your statement may represent your personal opinion, but it does not accurately represent Wikipedia policy (for which see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Return_of_access_levels).  Your accusation that some editors have "cheated" is both incorrect and extremely insulting, and I'm sure that you'll withdraw it with an apology as soon as you recognise this. In any case this has nothing to do with the present case.  Danny freely chose to go through RFA and to accept the decision of the community. --Tony Sidaway 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider my assertion withdrawn--I simply assumed, apparently incorrectly, that, as most admins who have voluntarily requested desysopping have gone through an RfA to become "resysopped", this was necessary. It is in any case certainly, at least IMO, the decent thing to do. With respect to the Doc, I did not mean this statement to be offensive but rather jocular--it clearly did not come across this way, and so I must apologize. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Write down this day if you like, but I agree with Tony 100% here. Danny could have just requested the bit back (or in fact never resigned it a few scant weeks beforehand), but he wanted to reaffirm that his adminship had the consensus of the community, pursuant to his stated intention to run for the WMF Board. Once he made that decision, his pre-existing privilege to recover a sysop bit given up under clear circumstances was voided, but until that moment he (or anyone in his circumstance) had it. I even made that clear when opposing his RFA. -- nae'blis 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a little story attached to that.  On the first day of his request for adminship, Danny got a high number of supports.  I told him to be prepared for a rough ride, predicting (accurately as it turned out) that the percentage of supports would probably fall to 70% or even lower.  He took that on board--it was clearly a surprise to him--and said that he was quite prepared to accept a "no" from the community.  If you don't want to know the answer you don't ask.  Danny asked. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another thing that concerns me, is trend lines.  It was clear that there was momentum building up to oppose Danny.  The RfA wasn't in a stable, "Okay, no one's posting anything new, let's close it," state, it was still highly active, and the support % was dropping steadily.  If it would have been left open another week, I'm confident that it would have dropped much much lower.  So again, it put a questionable perception on the entire proceeding.  It really did look like, "Quick, let's close the door on any more opposers.  Hmm, but it did drop as low as 68%, and we don't normally promote except for 75% minimum?  Well, let's see if we can cook the books a bit.  Look, how about we disregard this block of opposes, and, oh yeah, this block doesn't look like a good enough reason either, let's just strike those out too.  Oh, and look, there're a half dozen people who had fewer than 5,000 edits, let's question those as well. Which just squeaks the % up to 75%.  Well, that's borderline, so, hmm, gee-that's-a-tough-decision-okay-let's-promote."  That kind of bend-over-backwards rationalizing, plus the fact that, as I've said before, Bureaucrats who were participating in the RfA, were also participating in the debate on how to interpret the results, strikes me as unethical behavior.  It gives the appearance that even if the RfA would have come in with lower support, say 55%, that there still would have been a lot of massaging of the numbers in order to try and squeak out a promotion.  For what it's worth, I am honestly surprised that the bureaucrats did this, because I thought better of them.  I am also honestly surprised that Danny accepted their decision.  The more ethical thing to do would have been to decline such a  controversial nomination.  That would have earned some respect. --Elonka 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That last part's certainly true. If Danny had said that he didn't want it unless it was unambiguous, I would've had a hard time NOT supporting him in a subsequent bid. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Elonka's nailed it. It is a conflict of interest (or an obvious appearance of a conflict of interest) for multiple 'crats to both support the RFA and participate in the final decision, where multiple oppose comments were discounted for one reason or another. Elonka's other points are no less valid. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't forget that the actual promotion was done by a Bureaucrat who supported the nomination--the ultimate Bureaucrat faux-pas. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if enough members of the community feel that this issue should be pursued, I would still rather that we looked at ArbCom as a last resort, rather than a first resort.  There are other methods that could (and should) be tried first. --Elonka 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfArb? 

message: When Danny runs for the Board, will he be promoted to that by fiat, as well?  Corvus cornix 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mu Raul654 17:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop with this behavior, it does not help the discussion. If you want to provide useful feedback, please do so, but be constructive, not destructive. -- ReyBrujo 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? You think it is "constructive" to hold votes and ignore the results when they don't match what you want? Why not move straight to appointing admins by fiat? Why waste time pretending that our opinions matter? And can we stop with this attitude that simply bending the knee is "constructive" and questioning authority is "destructive"? In itself, it's not all that constructive, you know. Grace Note 02:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corvus cornix has been posting these notes at every opportunity, just as Majorly did when Raul sysop'ed Ryulong. You think there is a problem in the process? Great, find a solution, don't just point to it.  -- ReyBrujo 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Board elections *are* a vote, and there is even talk of getting external auditors to run it, so I think it would be extremely difficult do fix them. --Tango 19:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just curious, who are the voters in Board elections? WooyiTalk, Editor review 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Us, and others.  here is the page for the 2006 elections, where the criteria were 90 days of activity on the Wikimedia project from which you cast your vote, and 400 edits.  Antandrus  (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so when is this year's election? WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nvm, I found the signpost article about it. WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next question

message: You know, since none of the b-crats are bothering to listen at all, I'll sum it up for you.
1. Danny is not trusted. You keep blathering about how he had the highest positions of trust in the WMF, well, guess what? This is the same Foundation that had the highest levels of trust in Essjay, too. We - do - not - trust - that - he - will - act - as - an - admin - should. Period. The WHY is utterly, totally, completely irrelevant. If the users do not trust a user, they should have every right to vote oppose and HAVE IT COUNT.
2. Danny has never shown he understands the proper mindset to BE an admin. He is confrontational, he places more value on his own judgment than he does on consensus, he autocratically assumes, basically, that he is right. With his answer on question #8 by Dragons Flight, I'm astounded and disgusted that more people don't see what's fundamentally wrong with him acting as an admin. 
3. Danny has never shown he understands how to work well with others. Just ask Anthere, who I would trust a thousand times over Danny. 
I'm not "anti-Danny". I think all the office actions he took were necessary and required.But the critical point here is Danny has never shown us that he is really going to operate as the community thinks an admin should. He's going to act as he thinks he should and if the community doesn't like it the community can take a hike. That's what his answers to the questions state.
And you bureaucrats have backed him up. Good job. You've basically shown the community who disagreed that if you don't go along, you don't matter. I saw this after the Essjay mess, and I see it again here. 
Spare us the witty word-twisting rebuttals and empty gestures of "read the argument." I've read Redux's argument. It's the sort of logic-chopping I'd expect from the Bush Administration. I expected better, I didn't get it, and that's why I'm done. 
--ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodbye. -- ReyBrujo 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things like this are why I quit 

message: There have been suggestions that this RFA marks a departure from common perceptions of how RFAs are closed. Rather than speculating about this, it seems reasonable to just ask the bureaucrats directly.  The question has been moved here to the Bureaucrat's noticeboard. CMummert · talk 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for bureaucrats 

message: You gotta love how Secretlondon declined to take part in the bureaucrat discussion as she'd voted, but Dan/rdsmith4 was right in there pushing hard for promotion... after voting for promotion. Dan100 (Talk) 11:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. -- Nick t 11:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop beating a dead horse. // Sean William (PTO) 11:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bent