Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dank55

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dank (talk | contribs) at 20:48, 1 December 2008 (→Oppose: r to malleus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dank55

Voice your opinion (talk page) (73/2/1); Scheduled to end 20:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dank55 (talk · contribs) – Wow, we are on a run right now. Four successful RfA's are currently on going, and excluding the NOTNOW/SNOW'd candidates, we've had eight successful RfA's in a row. With Dank55 I think we are on our way to number 9! Dan is a true editor, but he hasn't ignored the policy and procedure side. Dan has contributed to several FA quality articles, but takes credit for helping only two reach FA status. He is a member of both the GA and FA team and editorial teams, looking to improve various articles. While most people who focus on building meaningful articles lack wikispace edits, almost 40% of Dan's edits are in the wikispace/wikitalk areas. Dan has made more than a token contribution to article content wikispace areas (Manual of Style, How to Copy-edit, layout, words to avoid, etc), but he has also contributed to some hard core policy areas. For example, Notability, verifiability, and village pump (policy). But that's not all, this editor has reported people to AIV and participated in the bot approval process. He also started a new area of the project Wikipedia:update, these are pages that highlight the policy and procedure changes made to wikipedia on a monthly basis! All of this, and his talk pages show a person who is sought out, civil, and respected!

In all honesty, this candidate has it all, and from what I've seen is probably the strongest admin candidates that I've ever nominated! I could say more, but I'll let his record speak for him. So, for perhaps my shortest RfA nomination ever, I present to the community, Dank55!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's overwhelming, thanks. I accept. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Even though I'm a content guy and always will be, I need the tools. Style and other guideline pages sometimes get full-page-protected, and anyone who is trusted by most of the participants can help get resolution so we can move on. During copyediting, I frequently find linked pages that need to be moved per WP:NAME. I would really like to be able to see deleted content, and not just for the content; battles lost at AfD only mean that the article didn't meet the criteria, not that there isn't some evidence of a budding contributor who could use some nurturing.
I am surprised to find myself at RfA before spending about a month getting knowledgeable about XfD. I told Balloonman that I planned to run for RfA in the future, and asked a question. He responded with what you see above. I'd be an idiot not to jump on this :) Although I'm generally perfectly happy to support a candidate at RfA who hasn't done XfD work if they've got sufficient breadth of experience, I didn't expect to be applying that standard to myself. I'll have to ask you to trust me that in-depth knowledge of XfD is on my short list. Everything on Wikipedia that is important to a lot of people, especially admins, is important to me, except for stuff related to enforcement of behavioral policies. Mainly, it annoys me when the same person tries to act as judge, jury and executioner, especially concerning issues they're personally involved with. Disciplinary measures should be performed by experienced third parties, not by someone who's involved, and I'm involved in a lot of stuff. I'm going to rely on you good folks over at ANI to know when someone has gone too far and what to do about it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: If I could ask a favor, just ask me about specific areas, and I'll tell you what I've done in that area and give you links if you like. Feel free to wander around in my userspace. I've done a lot of work with Featured Articles, Good Articles, and style pages. While it's all hugely fascinating to me, I'm sure I could get boring in a hurry if you give me a chance, so just ask me what you want to know. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Well, I haven't gotten many complaints ... I never delete other people's stuff from my talk page or archives, so you can see for yourself ... but I'm not going to assume that anyone else felt the same way; people are not always precise about exactly how annoyed they were. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim
4. Do you think WP:3RR and WP:Edit warring encourage numerical gaming and off-wiki collaboration?
A: I'm not very knowledgeable about what to do about truly bad behavior, such as off-wiki conspiracies. On the other hand, I've been successful at helping out with some cases of long-haul, heavy-duty edit warring; see for instance the history of Cold fusion from May of this year, when I was doing the Good Article review. (It's now at Arbcom btw; sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. In what circumstances should an administrator impose editing restrictions on another user?
A: Again, topic bans and blocks are not my field. I don't recall ever reporting someone to ANI, although I've raised the subject a time or two; I'm actually kind of proud of the fact that diplomacy has worked for me so far (crossing my fingers). I'll tell you that if someone has said that they really don't like what's going on in a certain part of the wiki, but that's where they spend their time anyway, randomly pooping on people and processes, then I will first think about whether their actions are only a symptom of a larger conflict (in which case, the solution is to work on the larger conflict, IMO). I also try to be on the lookout for "scapegoating"; the people who are least liked, of course, are always the people who are saying things people don't want to hear, and banishing them to outer darkness doesn't solve the problem. Third, even if someone is being a jerk, no particular action is needed as long as everyone else is mature enough not to get bothered by it. But if someone's unhappy and taking it out on the world, and if "innocents" are getting caught in the dramahz and the crossfire and articles are suffering, then I would be inclined to bring up my feelings on the matter at ANI, supply all the relevant evidence I can, and leave the matter for others to decide. But the bottom line is, I have yet to run into a situation where I couldn't solve the problem diplomatically and I couldn't eliminate those other possibilities in my mind, which is why I've never reported anyone to ANI. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP
A: Unlike most policies, BLP does apply to pages outside of article-space. Again, this is getting into enforcement against really repugnant behavior; not my field, but I do believe all BLP incidents that might be serious should be reported to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log, and more general or less urgent questions should at least be discussed at the noticeboard. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from the skomorokh
7. You have only participated in a handful of deletion discussions in the eleven months since you began editing, and with the commendable exception of MfD, few of your contributions in this arena have been in-depth. What would you say to editors who are reluctant to support having administrators with your apparent level of deletion experience?
A: I have absolutely no objection to anyone voting against me based on lack of deletion experience. I understand that 18 months ago, it would have been an almost automatic disqualification. I think it's clear that standards have changed and many people with little or no AfD experience now routinely get the mop; but that doesn't mean that people can't change their minds back the other way, at any time, for any reason or no reason. I do want to say that I don't think it's just an issue of knowing a few relevant facts about deletion, it's also an issue of being a productive and valued member of the AfD community, which is why I'm going to start soon. As I say, I intended this all along. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Do you have much experience in new page patrolling, rescuing articles from deletion, dealing with hoaxes/spam/problematic content forks/copyright violations, assessing consensus, or similar situations that could give editors an impression of what you might be like as an administrator?
A: I have no experience in WP:PATROL. I think the most efficient route to finding out how competent I am with the rest of those is to look at the history of Robot and Talk:Robot, which I watchlisted from January until recently. It's been a favorite page for spam links, sillyness, obfuscation, and every other problem an article can have. It's had, literally, over 1000 different non-IP contributors. I was generally seen as the go-to guy for answers for how to deal with these problems, but see for yourself. I'll be happy to provide specific links of any kind, or answer questions on any aspect of policy or guidelines concerning those issues.
As for assessing and building consensus ... that, I do all the time. Give me a page or an issue, and I'll try to find a link that demonstrates that I was able to bring people together who weren't working together before, or explain something in a way that clarified the issue and helped people get back to work. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Your earliest contributions show familiarity with Wikipedia (fifth edit was a request for rollback). Do you have any previous experience (alternate account/IP edits/other wiki) you would care to disclose?
A: You should be able to find enough newby-isms in my December contributions to know that there's no way I had a previous account :) I am an eager learner though, so I did get up to speed quickly, but only on one issue at a time. I hung out in the Wikia chat channel for a while and developed a page at robots.wikia.com, but I found that no one showed up, which was when I came to understand how important Wikipedia is. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Stifle
10. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a person who is still alive be used on Wikipedia?
A: I got a complaint that my answers weren't detailed enough; I'll try to remedy that now.
When you say, "used on Wikipedia", I'm assuming you mean "at all"; there are maybe 20 extra reasons why an image might not be appropriate for some particular article.
The first question that I would ask is: is there some reason that you need a particular kind of image of the person, such as at a certain age or performing a certain activity? Are you looking for a particular famous photograph, pose, or scene? Point No.1 from WP:NFCC (and I'll just pick out a few points, although obviously all 10 points from NFCC have to be complied with) is that there has to be "no free equivalent", which the community has interpreted to mean "no reasonable expectation of a free equivalent". If you need a particular picture or type of picture, then obviously you might not be able to get a suitably licensed version. If the person is still living but unavailable for some reason, you have to make the case why you think they're unavailable and the picture is unobtainable. Many images have been deleted not because it's inconceivable that they would pass our criteria, but because the case was not stated convincingly and coherently in the Fair Use Rationale.
But as soon as we start talking about particular images or types of images, we run into a whole new set of problems. In the case of non-free images, the resolution also has to be low enough so that it doesn't run afoul of the relevant Fair Use and Copyright laws, and Wikipedia policy is not to skirt the edges of Fair Use, but instead to be absolutely, obviously within the bounds of Fair Use. That is, our goal isn't just defense from lawsuits, it's making it so obvious that there's not an issue that the goal of "free flow of information" is served. U.S. Fair Use can't be quickly and accurately summarized. But for this particular question, imagine that you print the image that appears in Wikipedia. If the printed Wikipedia image of someone notable, such as an actor, could reasonably eat into the profits that would otherwise be generated by selling licensed copies of his image, then the resolution of the image should be reduced. Also, if that particular photo or pose or scene is notable in its own right, then the question arises as to whether you're copying the image to take advantage of its notoriety to boost your own product (and the fact that Wikipedia is non-profit and doesn't cost readers anything is no defense at all; it's a question of reducing the value of the copyrighted image). When this is a concern can't really be summarized, but the arguments have to do with whether a reasonable person would think your goal was to add commentary on the work or whether you are simply reproducing it.
A very important consideration that also can't be easily summarized is whether the Wikipedian community would consider the image "unfair" or "intrusive" (I'm copying those words right out of WP:Image use policy, I can't think of better words). Some considerations are: whether the subject is famous, how private most people would consider the activity depicted, and how "demeaning" the image is. I feel strongly that we should not depict embarrassing medical details of identifiable, non-notable people, and I think policy backs me up on this.
When you add that the subject is living, then all of the above still applies, but you have to throw in WP:BLP too. That pulls in maybe 20 more issues, and I'm assuming you don't want that level of detail, although you're welcome to ask if you do. Any fact that BLP wouldn't allow us to express in words about a living person should also not be either proven or even strongly hinted at by an image.
The next thing that comes to mind is NFCC #5. The image has to be "encyclopedic", and even a summary of what that means in practice would take a page. Roughly, the question is whether the image imparts the kind of information readers of an encyclopedia would reasonably expect to see.
Most of the "interesting" discussions at IfD revolve around NFCC 8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") Again, my mind gets boggled when I think of "summarizing" what this means, and I'll be happy to give it a shot if you like. I'll just give you an example from one of my FAs that illustrates the point nicely, I think. Moni3 was able to get a copy of the only known photograph of the Stonewall Riots in progress. That may have made it encyclopedic (NFCC 5), but we still had to come up with a clear explanation of what it was you could see in the photo that couldn't have been described just as easily in words. We were able to pass NFCC 8 only by showing that people who just read the words of the text generally didn't get a clear idea of what was going on until they saw the photo.
Even after all that, there are still a pile of relevant issues that could keep the image out of Wikipedia: the image description page has to be accurate, with the appropriate image copyright tag; the image should be a "good" image in various senses (cropped correctly, suitable contrast, etc); the image resolution has to be high enough so that what's intended to be seen can be clearly seen; etc. I can go into more detail, or I can cover these issues more broadly, if you like. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Leujohn (talk)

11. You have just seen a page get vandalized. You decide to go to the user talk page to warn the user. You find that The user has been warned quite a few times already, (8 to be exact) and has been blocked once. On its 8th warning, you find that it says something along the lines of "This is you last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will get blocked from editing." You check the warning, and you are completely sure that the warning was issued before the vandal edit you found. What do you do?

A: First, per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems." Everything else flows from that principle. So, if it seems reasonable to believe that the vandalism won't continue (for instance, if the admin has reason to believe that the vandalism was done by someone other than the person who set up the account, and it's claimed that steps have been taken to stop that from happening again), the account shouldn't be blocked until if and when new evidence makes that claim less credible. Blocking is not a punishment for bad deeds. Second, the admin should consider whether there's a way to solve the problem without blocking. Maybe it's true that the user has done some vandalism in the past, but a better description of what's going on at the moment is that two accounts are vandalizing each other's edits because of some conflict or misunderstanding. If you think a sympathetic ear or conflict resolution might solve the problem, then try that first. (This is related to the frequent RfA question "When are cool-down blocks a good idea? Never.") Third, per WP:AIV, "Unregistered users must be active now." I've generally seen "now" to be interpreted as edits within the last hour. Finally, if there's a connection between the vandal's edits and the admin considering doing the blocking (for instance, if it's an edit to a page or about an issue the admin cares about), then the admin should at least consider the possibility that they're not being objective. Was the recent edit really vandalism, or are you annoyed because they're making life harder for you, or for projects you're connected to? There's no backlog at WP:AIV; it's better to give a full report and let someone else make the call in these cases. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm interpreting this as the tougher question about whether to block or not. I'll be happy to give details if you're asking what I should literally do, what edits I should make. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dank55 before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Strong support - I trust the nominator fully, and I've seen Dank in many places. We're doing great in getting good candidates. iMatthew 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support was sure he was one. Balloonman endorsement says it all... – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I've seen Dank around and trust him as an editor. He says that he needs the tools to make him a more effective editor, and that's good enough for me. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I don't know much about this user, but like some of the above user's have said, if the nominator (Who I've seen around Wiki alot) supports him that's good enough for me. SteelersFan-94 20:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SupportOver 11,000 edits, clean block log, and looking at talk and contribs I see an editor with clue and of high quality. You'll do well. ϢereSpielChequers 20:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Unlike above, I don't give a crap to whom the nominator is. But I know that Dank will not abuse my trust. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per self-proclaimed need for the tools + his rationale for needing tools seems sensible + no indication that he will abuse them/long history to back this up + nomination by someone with a history of good judgment in nominating future admins so I can be lazy and not to an in-depth investigation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC). PS: Unlike Editorofthewiki I do not know the candidate well enough to categorically say he won't abuse my trust, only that by all appearances he won't. I have to rely on reputable people to stand up for him or spend a good hour investigating his history. Thanks to Balloonman's nomination, I can be lazy and just spot-check his history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, I probably spent the least amount of time reviewing Dank than I do most of my candidates, but that is because every place I checked, I was impressed.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support civil, (friendly even!) at FAC. Clearly he will make good use of the tools and he has my full support. Graham Colm Talk 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I've enjoyed recent extremly positive interaction with the candidate. Lack of deletion work is neither here nor there when someone is focussed on creating stuff rather than getting rid of it, which is what I see. Net positive with the tools. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Another awesome candidate! —Ceran [speak] 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. His edits on contentious articles like Cold fusion have been nothing short of exemplary. We need more level-headed admins, even if they can't recite the WP:NFCC criteria in their sleep. Pcap ping 21:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - A long string of excellent candidates in a row, and it shows no sign of stopping. Candidate has clue, has need for the tools, and knows policy. — neuro(talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I'm glad I can support one of my peers who has contributed a lot to WikiProject Robotics. Dan is a very kind and friendly individual who likes to collaborate towards different articles, even creating a task force of his own. I enjoyed his contributions to the project and I would be honored to support his nomination for RfA. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I wrote four FAs with Dan's help. For two of them he was the main copy editor and co-nominator. I don't think I would have been able to do it without his assistance. Dan has a thorough knowledge of the MOS, Wikipedia policy in content, and is very conscientious in his editing. He would make an excellent admin. --Moni3 (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Absolutely. Well-rounded and experienced. Should make a terrific administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sure. No obvious issues and seems well-qualified. AGK 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. (ec)Without a shadow of a doubt. Calm, dogged and fair. Helped to make WP 0.7 happen--period. I've dealt with Dan on a few GA and FA articles (including one where he swooped in unsolicited and devoted hours of time to a peer review and a copy edit) and I've seen him in disputes over heated issues. In both cases he handled disagreement and dispute with aplomb. Perfect for the bit. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. No doubts that Dank55 will be a mop corps asset. — Athaenara ✉ 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Lots of quality edits, no concerns. Let's keep this happy rfa bus rolling! FlyingToaster 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Patient, polite, and helpful. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support He must be pretty good if Balloonman can make him seem good in less than ten paragraphs. :) 01:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[1]
    LOL---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. We have had a run at really good candidates here lately (plus a lot of the serial opposers are not here, so that helps too). Support for a great candidate. RockManQ (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Alastair Haines (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, no reason not to. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Has clue, will travel. Ironholds (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support. An excellent editor along the lines described by Moni and Protonk. (As an aside I'm getting bored of reading commentary about nominators of any sort whatsoever.) --JayHenry (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Net Positive. AdjustShift (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Dank is a great contributor to Wikipedia. He is also an excellent reviewer who works both in GA and FA areas. He may not have much experience in XFD, but the only question that is pertinent to this discussion is "Can Dank55 be trusted with tools?" My answer is yes. Therefore I support him. Ruslik (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose I am against him on the general principle that we have too many good candidates this month already, it screws up the statistics...just kidding, Support of course ;-) SoWhy 07:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - the CLUE is strong with this one. //roux   08:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'know, if you're secretly his father you should probably make people aware of your conflict of interest :P. Ironholds (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Solid contributor --Flewis(talk) 11:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I am the eggman...they are the eggmen...I am...in the wrong queue. (Sorry, I thought this was Magical Mystery Tour.) But while I am here: Support for a candidate who is clearly in tune with the project. And as we say in walrus-talk: goo goo g'joob! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Thought he already was an admin. — Realist2 15:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Seen him around FAC, always impressed with his work and dedication to Wikipedia. He is certainly trusted not to misuse the tools. --Aude (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I can trust Balloonman's nomination! America69 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support has enough of a clue to be trusted. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support. I actually came pretty close to opposing this RfA before deciding to strong support. I looked at this RfA and the first thing I noticed was a lack of patrol-based edits, and I thought that I might not be able to support this. The next thing I noticed was the low XfD participation and I was almost sure that I would actually oppose this RfA. Usually in cases when I see a low amount of participation in the projectspace and I don't see much of a chance for supporting, I look extra closelyat the candidate's answer to question 1 to see what areas they want to go into. This is where the tables started turning and I thought I could possibly support you. From what I saw, you had a genuine need for the tools that would not end up harming the encyclopedia because of your experience levels in the projectspace. Reading through the next few questions and your answers, I started to realize that you were an exceptional candidate. Your answer to question eight shows how you have dealt with delicate editing problems on Robot with skill and tact that most vandal-fighters can only dream of. In this process, my !vote went from a potential oppose to a strong support. I've realized that Ballonman's statement in his nomination ("In all honesty, this candidate has it all, and from what I've seen is probably the strongest admin candidates that I've ever nominated!") is true, and I'll be proud to work with you as an admin. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support His GA reviews are thoughtful and constructive, as this one recent example illustrates. They are a pleasure to read. I am hard pressed to find an instance of careless writing, so I am confident that I do not have to worry much about his careless use of tools. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support A great editor, although he did once give a barnstar for "outstanding clarity and research leading to a substantial and helpful change in a core content policy," for an edit which lasted for less than 24 hours on the policy page i think, but i still have the barnstar! Ameriquedialectics 06:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I KNOW that feeling... (take a look at my awards page---same thing)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You earned the barnstar by focusing (during that discussion and many times before) on relevant data instead of handwaving. Even when you don't win a particular argument, cheerfulness and good methodology are contagious, and WP:V was very much improved (and still is) by the spirit you brought. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aww, thanks. (This is your RFA, though, not mine!) Ameriquedialectics 17:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support; my outstanding concerns have been alleviated. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. +S. Feel free to copy/paste positive comments from previous Supports <here>. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Good article contributions, otherwise trustworthy. --Banime (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support A very good well-rounded candidate. Nsk92 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Enthusiastic support. Dank is an editor whose head and heart are in the right place. All my interactions with him indicate to me that his first priority is making Wikipedia the best free encyclopedia it can be and ensuring the world has access to it (hence his dedication to WP1.0). He's not here to promote a viewpoint on a particular issue, or to garner barnstars, featured stars and kudos. He's here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and a better place to contribute. We need more admins of this ilk. My only criticism is that he tends to be rather verbose on talk pages, but that's probably the pot calling the kettle black :-) Geometry guy 21:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. macy 23:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, he has extensive experience with policy and content writing. Interactions with him have been positive. No major issues. I trust him with the tools. Wronkiew (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support abf /talk to me/ 15:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. bibliomaniac15 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Net Positive. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 20:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I've worked with Dan extensively as a part of WP:ROBO, and Dan has been a tremendous help to both the project and myself. I'm confident that Dan will be an excellent admin. --Jiuguang (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Seems mop worthy Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Fully qualified candidate. To the opposer's point, I find it it unrealistic to expect candidates to have robust experience in every administrator area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. WOW I created this user!1. Srsly tho, I considered nominating him before, then got lazy... Looks like this user is still doing great to me. SQLQuery me! 18:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Only just bumped into him, but I've been very impressed with his calmness and clearheadedness in a discussion that otherwise could easily have gotten quite heated indeed. RayAYang (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. A user that is knowledgable in many areas, Dank55 will be an exellent addition to the admin group. MathCool10 01:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong support YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 04:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Well experienced user. Has every qualification to work in the areas he has mentioned, in my opinion. Chamal talk 08:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Epbr123 (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Yanksox (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Seems intelligent enough. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support ticks all the boxes (in a good way); per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I have always been happy to see Dank55 around science articles and policies. Spot checking a few months of contributions reveals a broad range of interests and suggests a clarity of thought that is not limited to some core area of competency, but is a general feature. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Net positive. DiverseMentality 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong support Well endowed with clue and excellent handling of tough situations. Shell babelfish 06:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Probably unnecessary support at this late stage, but I'm glad I caught this RfA anyway. I've run across Dan at GA, FA and elsewhere, and been impressed with his energy and dedication to improving the quality of our encyclopedia. He's clueful, trustworthy and refreshingly positive ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Yes MBisanz talk 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. --Kbdank71 16:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support — I swore I thought I !voted my support, but maybe that was another candidate. Solid contributor. MuZemike (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support for this clueful candidate, whose work I've seen. Actually would have guessed Dan was an admin already.  Frank  |  talk  18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support —BradV 19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Solid candidate with a good manner who will be an asset with the tools. Incidentally, when I became an admin in early 2007, I didn't have a single edit in AIV and had never patrolled. Never really hurt me when I did get to vandal whacking though - and that sort of work doesn't prepare one for the real trolls and nasties who are a far greater danger to the project anyway. Good luck. Orderinchaos 19:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - meets my standards; the opposing discussion does not convince me of any concerns. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose I feel strange being the first oppose, but I will have to be that person I guess. No WP:PATROL work whatsoever most likely means no work with vandals whatsoever, and that might result in some blocks that are way too long, or some blocks that should never be implemented. That is my greatest concern. If anyone can clear up this concern, I am willing to move my vote to neutral, or even support. Leujohn (talk) Switching to neutral while I think over this again. Leujohn (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Weak Oppose Now I'm sure. See message below. Leujohn (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See the full text of question 8; he has dealings with a load of vandals, just not through the traditional route. Going back through his contribs I found 37(or 36, I may have miscounted) AIV and AN/I postings; I'd say that's a clear sign he knows what he's doing in terms of vandal-wacking. Ironholds (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you tell me what you see in the answer for question 8 that I don't see? Leujohn (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the 'I think the most efficient route to finding out how competent I am with the rest of those is to look at the history of Robot and Talk:Robot, which I watchlisted from January until recently. It's been a favorite page for spam links, sillyness, obfuscation, and every other problem an article can have.' bit. Shows he knows how to deal with vandalism, and as noted the AIV and AN/I posts back that up (read: they don't on their own show experience with vandal-wacking, but the fact that he posted queries there shows he's dealt with vandal-reporting and therefore seen blocks and the conventions around them). Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't tell if "anyone" meant me too or just the voters, but I'll be happy to answer any questions you have, Leujohn, and don't feel strange about opposing; "contrary" voices in every Wikipedia process are sometimes the most valuable ones. It's a legitimate concern that I might not be on the best learning curve for vandal-fighting since I'm getting there by fighting vandalism on pages I care about rather than by experience at WP:RCP and WP:AIV. Fighting vandalism only on watchlisted pages can easily lead to bad decisions, when everyone is cheering you on to smack the vandals. However, I watchlist a lot of articles, and have generally reverted vandalism several times a day for a year, and I've never had any complaints about being too strict or too lenient, and that led me to think I didn't need the experience at WP:RCP; maybe I was wrong about that. The fastest way to find out if I know what you want me to know would be to see how I've handed vandalism at Robot, but a significant number of my edits on many pages have been vandal-fighting. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One key point to remember is that not every admin does new page patrolling and blocking isn't something that everybody does.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ... was that it? Leujohn, see my answer to #1: "I'm going to rely on you good folks over at ANI to know when someone has gone too far and what to do about it." How to resolve things so that you don't have to block, and when to block, and what to say when you do it, all require a lot of intelligence and experience, experience that I probably won't have time to pick up since I'm focused on copyediting and article reviewing. I'm not taking a hard stance that I "refuse to learn it", I'm just saying I don't see it happening, and as long as I don't know standards and practices at ANI in-depth, I'm not going to block anyone. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But you never know when you would wnat to have an urge to do so... Leujohn (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After further consideration, I have decided to keep my oppose vote, on the grounds of the reply above: (Quote) "As long as I don't know standards and practices at ANI in-depth, I'm not going to block anyone." Not quite good enough yet formy standards. Leujohn (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have high standards. If all RfA participants had those standards a lot fewer candidates would pass. While Wikipedia does give admins access to the same set of tools, it's not a "job" where they are "required" to act on any administrative request that comes their way at the risk of getting "fired." All admins can and should defer to someone else if they don't feel certain they don't knw the relevant policies. Furthermore, I'd say most admins don't know all the policies, guidelines, and best practices in and out, especially as these evolve over time. One of the reasons good admins don't make bad decisions is they know when to abstain and let someone more knowledgeable in a given policy area make the call. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 09:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Leujohn, you have questions about what I'm going to do when I get the urge to block someone. It may not be a "hot" question in my RfA, but I know there are more "content policy" candidates in the pipeline, so for their sake: please consider that you don't have to hang out at ANI to be exposed on a daily basis to tough questions of how much abuse (directed at a process, other people, or yourself) is too much, and what to do about it. If someone is the kind of person who can hold their tongue before they get the mop, they will probably still be the same person after. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dank, I'm notexpecting anyone to hang out at ANI every day, but at least admins should have a general criteria of why someone should be blocked. I see what you are trying to tell me, so I'll give you a chance, I will post a question in the beginning of this RFA. If you can satisfy my, well, worries, I'll change my vote. Leujohn (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I don't think that Dank55 has the clarity of thought or the intellectual consistency desirable in an administrator, and gets too caught up in "the really, really important issues of the day". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was expecting this oppose based upon this discussion.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion and similar ones. I am deeply unhappy with prepping for RfA by taking part in whatever areas of the project are considered to be de rigeur from time to time, simply to gain brownie points. I am even more unhappy about those who encourage such cynical behaviour, as in the discussion linked to above. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that you are referencing Dank's suggestion that people perform copy edits to prepare for coaching RfA, not that Dank himself went through any sort of preparation/coaching.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what "perform copy edits to prepare for coaching" means, Balloonman, so I better weigh in. As far as I'm concerned, Malleus can say anything he wants to me as long as he keeps doing the job he's doing at GAN, but he got it backwards this time. As I said there and elsewhere (clearly, I thought), I'm on a mission to recruit copyeditors (generally, but especially for FAC and GAN). I said that if Balloonman had trainees who were interested in copyediting, he should send them my way. I assume if they're already interested in RfA, then they're already highly motivated, and that's a plus, because copyediting is hard. Malleus put a spin on my comments that wasn't there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite possible that I misinterpreted your comments, and if my oppose would make the difference between this RfA succeeding or failing then I would withdraw it. As it is, my opinion is of no consequence, right or wrong. Oh, and Balloonman is quite right. I was not suggesting that you had gone through any RfA preparation/coaching, but that I perceived you to be encouraging others to engage in parts of project that they may have no interest in or aptitude for simply to tick a box at RfA. I do understand that your motivation is to encourage more editors to get involved with copyediting, I'm just not happy with the way you're doing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion is of great consequence. I'm not looking for you to change your vote, but I do want to hash this out a bit on your talk page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Yanksox (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite understand; you support, but your place your !vote under the oppose section? DiverseMentality 08:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's either made a mistake or is making some kind of point. I don't understand what that point might be, so it's probably the former--Patton123 12:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per answer to Q6, "BLPSE" never had consensus and I can't support someone who would use it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain how this users opinion on BLP special enforcement will affect their ability to be an administratoron wikipedia? To me this looks like you are opposing because he doesn't share your opinion, which is an argument we like to avoid.--Patton123 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles to avoid is an essay, not a policy/guideline... and while I nomed this candidate, I can understand the !vote. It comes down to a philosophical difference. Seaphimblade sees a fundamental philsophical difference with the candidate that he can't support. THat's his opinion, and he's entitled to have it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Seraphim apparently feels strongly about this, but graciously waited until the last day to say it, when it's less likely to cause trouble for me. The BLPSE issue is quite complex and contentious, and a simple answer of "do it" was not very nuanced; I should have said more. There is so much about RfA in general and this RfA in particular that impress the hell out of me. I'm not the RfA expert, but I'm impressed that people didn't give Leujohn any crap for a contrary position; the best way for the community to change its positions on issues is gradually, one person at a time, and you never know in advance which direction issues are going to go; best to let them evolve. I have generally tried to do things that weren't being done, so there are a lot of standard RfA questions I would probably suck at. I haven't "hung out" with admins much, and I haven't done anything that could remotely be called "prepping for RfA". Given that, the level of support I've gotten here is really more a testament to how broad-minded and inclusive the RfA community is than a testament to my relatively meager skills. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Balooman, I am aware, but what difference does that make? That page documents comments that crats will give much less weight too, and explains why, so what tag that page has at the top of it doesn't matter.--Patton123 17:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to Patton123, above, the candidate has stated in his nomination that he will utilize enforcement powers that lack community consensus. We, as admins, should be standing against such attempts by ArbCom to create policy, and largely, we are—by not really utilizing it. I believe acting in the interest of community consensus is one of the most important things an admin does. However, I'm impressed by the candidate's thoughtful response, and convinced that this is more a result of the unfortunate lack of space in the RfA format than an actual desire to act against consensus, that I'm going to change to a comment rather than an oppose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the essay is not an essay that comments on what crats will give much less weight too, but rather an essay on what some editors (which might include crats) have thought crats should give less weight to. It doesn't mean that it is a fact, nor does it mean that every argument to avoid holds the same weight and should be discarded equally...or that every crat agrees with what is written therein. Some of the ATA are outdated or IMO represent valid reasons to oppose. A fundamental philosophical difference is a valid reason to oppose. It is more than just a mere "we disagree on a specific policy" we have a fundamental difference.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Almost every single edit on the page was made by non-crats, in fact many were made by non-admins.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Seraphimeblade, I didn't realise the controvery surrounding that page, I simply assumed that a large minority of editors disagreed with its existence. Baloonman, none of the ATA are outdated, although you may yourself think that many of them are good reasons to oppose. It's just that we're so used to them that we no longer try to discourage them. A fundamental philosophical difference such as this is a good reason to oppose, I realise that now, however when I made my first post above I didn't know that the page had been introduced by arbcom without community consensus, I simply thought that some editors had opposed it's creation, which would be a bad oppose in my opinion.--Patton123 16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

Neutral for now per discussion above. Leujohn (talk)Switching back to oppose per message above. Leujohn (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral, still not quite comfortable with the idea that BLP issues would be taken straight to the controversial "special enforcement" setup, but I'm impressed with the candidate's cool under fire, and we need more like that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dank55&oldid=255273590"