http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny#.5B.5BWi...
Danny's rerunning.
(Note me not voicing my opinion on this list.)
- d.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:40:22 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Danny's rerunning.
Good. we need him, and Brad too. I'm hoping Tony Sidaway will re0run one day as well.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny#.5B.5BWi...
Danny's rerunning.
The comments of the opposers make me cry. *Oppose, I can't help thinking that someone who resigned his adminship last month when he didn't need to does not have the best interest of the project at heart. *Oppose appears to brush off criticism, I tended to disagree with his decision processes on WP:OFFICE, his answers to the first few questions above reads to me sorta like "I'm danny I dont really need to go through this process". Sorry but I must oppose.
(that one is awful - opposing because he doesn't respect RFA?)
*Oppose Relinquished positions of trust along with his resignation from WMF. This is in itself a good thing. But he does not explain his reasons for departure. I would be happy to support if this was explained. Danny linked his departure with those positions of trust, including the admin position. Of course he did not need to explain why he resigned, but once the linkage is forged I can't evaluate his fitness without understanding the full reasons for his giving them up. *Oppose Sorry - unsatisfactory answers to questions. *Oppose per nom. (this is classy - he's opposing based on the fact that Cyde Weys supported him)
Steve
On 06/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The comments of the opposers make me cry. *Oppose, I can't help thinking that someone who resigned his adminship last month when he didn't need to does not have the best interest of the project at heart. *Oppose appears to brush off criticism, I tended to disagree with his decision processes on WP:OFFICE, his answers to the first few questions above reads to me sorta like "I'm danny I dont really need to go through this process". Sorry but I must oppose.
(that one is awful - opposing because he doesn't respect RFA?)
*Oppose Relinquished positions of trust along with his resignation from WMF. This is in itself a good thing. But he does not explain his reasons for departure. I would be happy to support if this was explained. Danny linked his departure with those positions of trust, including the admin position. Of course he did not need to explain why he resigned, but once the linkage is forged I can't evaluate his fitness without understanding the full reasons for his giving them up. *Oppose Sorry - unsatisfactory answers to questions. *Oppose per nom. (this is classy - he's opposing based on the fact that Cyde Weys supported him)
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
People will dig out the most ridiculous reasons to oppose that they can think of at RfA. Sometimes I think that people just like being obtuse.
On 4/5/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The comments of the opposers make me cry. *Oppose, I can't help thinking that someone who resigned his adminship last month when he didn't need to does not have the best interest of the project at heart. *Oppose appears to brush off criticism, I tended to disagree with his decision processes on WP:OFFICE, his answers to the first few questions above reads to me sorta like "I'm danny I dont really need to go through this process". Sorry but I must oppose.
(that one is awful - opposing because he doesn't respect RFA?)
*Oppose Relinquished positions of trust along with his resignation from WMF. This is in itself a good thing. But he does not explain his reasons for departure. I would be happy to support if this was explained. Danny linked his departure with those positions of trust, including the admin position. Of course he did not need to explain why he resigned, but once the linkage is forged I can't evaluate his fitness without understanding the full reasons for his giving them up. *Oppose Sorry - unsatisfactory answers to questions. *Oppose per nom. (this is classy - he's opposing based on the fact that Cyde Weys supported him)
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
People will dig out the most ridiculous reasons to oppose that they can think of at RfA. Sometimes I think that people just like being obtuse.
As with most things we "not-vote" on, you get both some well-thought-out, insightful opposes, and some cranks.
There are some legit concerns on Danny's RFA, and a lot of "OFFICE bit me he sucks", sometimes written slightly more coherently.
On 4/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There are some legit concerns on Danny's RFA, and a lot of "OFFICE bit me he sucks", sometimes written slightly more coherently.
WP:IDONTLIKEHIM(HER)
I think the overall comments on that RFA (troll festival if you ask me which you don't) is quite annoying. The allegedly "legit concerns" about the office in my opinion has no bearing on weather or not he would abuse admin tools.
I sincerely hope Danny continues to serve us despite us.
- Cool Cat
On 4/6/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There are some legit concerns on Danny's RFA, and a lot of "OFFICE bit me he sucks", sometimes written slightly more coherently.
WP:IDONTLIKEHIM(HER)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 06/04/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I think the overall comments on that RFA (troll festival if you ask me which you don't) is quite annoying. The allegedly "legit concerns" about the office in my opinion has no bearing on weather or not he would abuse admin tools.
I sincerely hope Danny continues to serve us despite us.
- Cool Cat
On 4/6/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There are some legit concerns on Danny's RFA, and a lot of "OFFICE bit me he sucks", sometimes written slightly more coherently.
WP:IDONTLIKEHIM(HER)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/D...
"
1. *Strong oppose* per many of the above, WP:OFFICEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OFFICEis the antithesis of consensus building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CON, which is the heart of Wikipedia. Danny was the tool that implimented this vicious and unfeeling policy. He's made his decisions, and those decisions are inconsistent with adminship.
??? I think I just lost what little faith I had in the RfA system. How dare Danny stop us from getting sued!
Also, what's with the trend of writing 'strong', 'firm', etc before votes? Does it actually add more weight to your opinion?
On 4/6/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/D...
"
- *Strong oppose* per many of the above,
WP:OFFICEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OFFICEis the antithesis of consensus building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CON, which is the heart of Wikipedia. Danny was the tool that implimented this vicious and unfeeling policy. He's made his decisions, and those decisions are inconsistent with adminship.
??? I think I just lost what little faith I had in the RfA system. How dare Danny stop us from getting sued!
Also, what's with the trend of writing 'strong', 'firm', etc before votes? Does it actually add more weight to your opinion?
While we're complaining about illogical votes, I found it incredibly odd for someone supporting to write "Danny = WP. WP = Danny." Perhaps it was just an ill-phrased comment, but I think it's dangerous to equate the project with any one person. Let's not go overboard, shall we?
Johnleemk
On 4/6/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/6/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/D...
"
- *Strong oppose* per many of the above,
WP:OFFICEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OFFICEis the antithesis of consensus building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CON, which is the heart of Wikipedia. Danny was the tool that implimented this vicious and unfeeling policy. He's made his decisions, and those decisions are inconsistent with adminship.
??? I think I just lost what little faith I had in the RfA system. How dare Danny stop us from getting sued!
Also, what's with the trend of writing 'strong', 'firm', etc before
votes?
Does it actually add more weight to your opinion?
While we're complaining about illogical votes, I found it incredibly odd for someone supporting to write "Danny = WP. WP = Danny." Perhaps it was just an ill-phrased comment, but I think it's dangerous to equate the project with any one person. Let's not go overboard, shall we?
Johnleemk
One of the reasons for a nay vote on a recent RFA was that the editor at issue is a teenager (16 I think). Now that was a shameful no vote--can't think of a reason to vote against them, so knock them for their age. Meanwhile, she really is a teenager and works in areas where few admins walk. I didn't see the no vote, so don't know if there was more attached to it, but age alone? Since when did Wikipedia show that age in either direction should be at a premium? KP
On 4/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
One of the reasons for a nay vote on a recent RFA was that the editor at issue is a teenager (16 I think). Now that was a shameful no vote--can't think of a reason to vote against them, so knock them for their age. Meanwhile, she really is a teenager and works in areas where few admins walk. I didn't see the no vote, so don't know if there was more attached to it, but age alone? Since when did Wikipedia show that age in either direction should be at a premium? KP
I became an admin when I was 14. I can't see anything wrong with teenaged admins; IIRC at one point we had a 13-year-old 'crat. Still, as long as this ageism is only a fringe thing on RfA, it's probably not worth knocking the process itself over a few misguided Wikipedians.
Johnleemk
On 4/6/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
One of the reasons for a nay vote on a recent RFA was that the editor at issue is a teenager (16 I think). Now that was a shameful no
vote--can't
think of a reason to vote against them, so knock them for their age. Meanwhile, she really is a teenager and works in areas where few admins walk. I didn't see the no vote, so don't know if there was more
attached
to it, but age alone? Since when did Wikipedia show that age in either direction should be at a premium? KP
I became an admin when I was 14. I can't see anything wrong with teenaged admins; IIRC at one point we had a 13-year-old 'crat. Still, as long as this ageism is only a fringe thing on RfA, it's probably not worth knocking the process itself over a few misguided Wikipedians.
Johnleemk
You're right, especially since there are plenty of worse reasons for not voting for someone that I've come across on occassion, and because I didn't actually see this vote. KP
I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not the fault of the bureaucrat.
-Phil
On 4/6/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not the fault of the bureaucrat.
IMHO:
Unnecessarily confrontational. He's going to "win" the RFA anyways in a few days, at this rate, and letting the community vent about someone is an important function of having RFAs. Clearly not all the opposes here are cranks or poorly founded.
George Herbert just had to cough out the following stream of bytes from the specified email client, on 4/6/2007 8:43 PM:
On 4/6/07, Phil Sandifer XXXXXXXXXXX@XXXXX.XXX wrote:
I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not the fault of the bureaucrat.
IMHO:
Unnecessarily confrontational. He's going to "win" the RFA anyways in a few days, at this rate, and letting the community vent about someone is an important function of having RFAs. Clearly not all the opposes here are cranks or poorly founded.
Of course he will win RFA. Everybody's two cents are there, but it looks like the rational reasons for *Support* are dominating.
-- Charli (Vishwin60) I'm pleased that the Ministry of Culture is protecting the morals of the expat bankers and their girlfriends that are going to be coming. ~Mick Jagger
Charli Li wrote:
Of course he will win RFA. Everybody's two cents are there, but it looks like the rational reasons for *Support* are dominating.
I have a very hard time swallowing many of the support votes concerning trust and qualifications when he's shown time and time again that he's been overly abusive with the tools. When more than a few people are citing trust, and even more are responding with evidence as to why he simply can't be trusted (and his flip response to question 20 ("The question is moot. I have 75 percent. Do they intend to change their attitudes seeing that 75 percent support me?") certainly isn't condusive to seeing a need to adjust), I'm not sure what to say.
-Jeff
On 07/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I have a very hard time swallowing many of the support votes concerning trust and qualifications when he's shown time and time again that he's been overly abusive with the tools.
{{fact}}
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 07/04/07, Jeff Raymond wrote:
I have a very hard time swallowing many of the support votes concerning trust and qualifications when he's shown time and time again that he's been overly abusive with the tools.
{{fact}}
I suppose we could accept a letter from his physician as proof that he is having difficulty swallowing. ;-)
Ec
On 4/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I have a very hard time swallowing many of the support votes concerning trust and qualifications when he's shown time and time again that he's been overly abusive with the tools.
{{fact}}
David, I have enormous respect for you but you could at least make an effort to read the oppose votes. They list many of the things he has done that would not be tolerated at all from any other admin (and no, they weren't office actions). Just take his dealings with newbies (such as blocking someone for a month for simple newbie mistakes, instead of educating them and trying to educate them and possibly create a solid wikipedian). This is something I personally care a lot about because that's one of the things I spend a lot of time doing. That sort of behavior is unacceptable, in my opinion.
It's not like all the opposers are insane trolls. Look at that list and you'll see a whole lot of fantastic wikipedians. Some of them are insane trolls, of course (with terrible reasons for opposing, as Steve Bennet points out), but you cannot deny that there are real concerns about Danny.
--Oskar
--Oskar
on 4/8/07 6:14 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson at oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Just take his dealings with newbies (such as blocking someone for a month for simple newbie mistakes, instead of educating them and trying to educate them and possibly create a solid wikipedian). This is something I personally care a lot about because that's one of the things I spend a lot of time doing. That sort of behavior is unacceptable, in my opinion.
It's not like all the opposers are insane trolls. Look at that list and you'll see a whole lot of fantastic wikipedians.
Wonderful attitude, Oskar! I hope there are many more out there like you.
This is how a healthy culture is built.
Marc Riddell
On 4/8/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
It's not like all the opposers are insane trolls. Look at that list and you'll see a whole lot of fantastic wikipedians. Some of them are insane trolls, of course (with terrible reasons for opposing, as Steve Bennet points out), but you cannot deny that there are real concerns about Danny.
I think, frankly, that Danny was left to do a hard job in terms of handling a huge volume of complaints and crap, more than he probably should have had to handle, and the stress of that is largely responsible for some poor judgment on occasion.
I also think that, freed of the load of the office, Danny will be a much better administrator.
-Matt
On 4/9/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think, frankly, that Danny was left to do a hard job in terms of handling a huge volume of complaints and crap, more than he probably should have had to handle, and the stress of that is largely responsible for some poor judgment on occasion.
This is probably true, but it's not really an excuse to treat your fellow wikipedians badly when not in an office capacity.
I also think that, freed of the load of the office, Danny will be a much better administrator.
This could certainly be the case, but it also brings up another point: you don't need to be an admin to be a great wikipedian. If he wants to get back to basics and just do good things for wikipedia, the best way would probably be to go back to writing articles, or start copyediting, or participate in discussions, resolving disputes and consensus building. The people that spend a lot of time doing that are doing more good for wikipedia than your average afd-closing, vandal-blocking, speedy-deletioning admin. It's true that a lot of people doing that are admins, but it is certainly not required.
--Oskar
On 07/04/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not the fault of the bureaucrat.
Didn't Danny resign his adminship to go through the process of RfA again?
On 4/7/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not the fault of the bureaucrat.
Didn't Danny resign his adminship to go through the process of RfA again?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
He sure did.
Pilotguy wrote:
On 4/7/07, Oldak Quill wrote:
On 07/04/07, Phil Sandifer wrote:
I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not the fault of the bureaucrat.
Didn't Danny resign his adminship to go through the process of RfA again?
He sure did.
In the words of Samuel Beckett it's "aggressive masochism".
Ec
On 06/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
(that one is awful - opposing because he doesn't respect RFA?)
That surprises you? The majority of the oppose votes in my RfA were for the exact same reason.