Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel/August 2006

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Daniel

Final (2/7/2) ended 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel (talk · contribs) – I first came across Daniel on the article 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies which I listed for deletion. We discussed the article a little, and he made a massive contribution (essentially starting the article again) to the extent that I changed my nominaotrs vote on the AFD to keep. After that he worked tirelessly to keep the article NPOV free and well sourced, not an easy task. Since then he has come along in leaps and bounds, regularly using VP and has been getting involved in lots of WikiProjects and policies.

I have always been impressed with his editing and his attitude - which is hard but fair - and the way he always holds the principles of Wikipedia in high regard.

Daniel lives in Australia so I hardly ever get the chance to talk to him in real time but we do communicate of and on and he is definitely a friendly and open person. He is always willing to help (look at all those barnstars) and has some really cool page designs (definitely one to swing the vote)!

Basically I think in the few months he has been here he has become an excellent editor and with admin tools can become better still - but I'll let him tell you about that. Suffice to say I am ready to put my support in him as an admin and I hope you lot do too. Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: By the looks of things, everyone is going to oppose me on something they don't exactly understand (the GraalOnline incident). If that is going to be the case, I am withdrawing. If you really want to understand what went on, and what the hell went on with the below diffs, I ask that you ring up Danny at WMF head office and find out. I really can't believe that people "assume" what happened there, but I accept your decision. The sandbox (dff 2) was a legitmate action, which was going to be used to improve an article. Diff 1 was a protest to how I was being used as a scapegoat by certain members of the WMF to keep certain issues under control, of which I took offense to. Just imagine you currently have defamation, not based in fact, posted on a talk page, and cannot remove it because someone used their WMF powers (WP:OFFICE) to block the removal purely because "the situation is sensitive with these people" and "WMF has enough trouble with Graal (without removing the defamation)" and comments like "graal is making a huge mess, brad (Patrick) is trying to make it go away, but anything that will piss them off will make this blow up again" (All from IRC with Danny. I hope you understand that it was not my intention to vandalise, and have never vandalised, in my career on Wikipedia. Sometimes, you have to fight dirty against people who fight dirtily against you.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A:

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A:

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:

Comments

See Daniel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Edit count:

Username Daniel
Total edits 3901
Distinct pages edited 1560
Average edits/page 2.501
First edit 08:51, May 20, 2006
 
(main) 1069
Talk 155
User 727
User talk 1365
Image 38
Template 48
Template talk 3
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 405
Wikipedia talk 20
Portal 68
Portal talk 1

Support

Support no question. I know Daniel from IRC and despite having a user name a little too close to an infanous Wikipedian he's a great user who will use the tools wisely. - Glen 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support I also first encountered the candidate at the 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies article. He and nearly everyone that contributed to that article were phenomenal examples of how to collaborate to make a controversial article great and with a NPOV. The candidate has been a very good contributor in his few months of being a Wikipedian (albeit with a few rough patches) and while I think quite a bit more experience is needed for him to become an effective administrator, I'd like to note that many users occasionally become jaded or upset over something that happened on Wikipedia. I'd like to note that Daniel did not "destructively" contribute to Wikipedia and reverted himself about ninety minutes later. This RfA is admittedly way too soon after his very-short strike, but if the candidate continues to make great edits the way he's proven he can without any more striking, I'll nominate him myself in December or January. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This edit and this edit are not acceptable to me. If they were 8 or 10 months ago, maybe I'd let them pass but they're within the last month. If they were in regards to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict or even user boxes, maybe I'd let them pass but they were in regards to an on-line game (GraalOnline/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline) and Wikipedia's reactions to threats of legal action. The idea of making destructive edits or using policy loopholes for just about any reason is unacceptable to me - not if you want to become an admin. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not now, not ever... nobody who blatantly makes threats to wikipedia deserves adminship. Might as well create a new user account and start from scratch as far as I am concerned. Pedant 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you won't completely write off this user because of a few egregious mistakes hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per the diffs found by WKnight94. By the way, if you expect us to wait three hours to see your answers you should have waited three hours to post the RfA. Gwernol 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AKAICT he didn't post it. WKnight did. Why, at this stage, I'm less sure. --Doc 01:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tmorton166 initiated the RFA. I just transcluded it into the RFA area when I noticed that had not been done. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Had a good impression of the candidate from IRC conversations... but oppose per Wknight's diffs... that kind of mentality does not give me much confidence, and it doesn't help that it was so recent. --W.marsh 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not just as admin, but contributor too, in light of his admission he may be destructive. Moriori 01:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per the ridiculous edits you made as shown in Oppose Vote #1. You have too few mainspace edits and you barely show a edit summary. (+fix is not what I consider a good edit summary) Anyone who goes out and makes threats on Wikipedia like that does NOT does not deserve to be an administrator on Wikipedia. Isolated incidents like the ones stated above are what show the true character of people. I am appalled. --Nishkid64 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per destuctive comments. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

I'll keep neutral 'til you answer the questions, but those diffs on oppose number 1 make me strongly lean oppose right now... -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like Daniel and would love to support him, but that "editing destructively" threat is way too recent. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.