Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danaman5


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Danaman5
'''Final (26/1/2); Originally scheduled to end 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)'''

- Hi, everyone, I'm Danaman5. I've been a Wikipedian since November of 2004 officially, and began editing actively at the end of January, 2006. I tend to be a Wikignome of sorts, and I've done a lot of different things on Wikipedia. I've done some article writing, mostly on topics related to China (see question 2 below for specifics). I've participated in some WP:XFD debates as well. I've done other things at various times, including article categorization and tagging for WP:CHINA. I've also done a little bit of vandal fighting and new pages patrol. I also want to say a quick word about my edit rate. I seem to always land at about 150-200 edits per month, except in months when my count was inflated by the aforementioned article tagging, or I was on a break. This used to bother me, and I would try to think of ways to edit more. However, nothing seemed to have any effect, and eventually I resolved to disregard edit rate in favor of simply making quality edits. I'm on track to make the same number of edits this month, and it doesn't matter to me, because I believe that I have helped the encyclopedia. With all of these things said, thanks for stopping by and I look forward to your comments. Danaman5 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to start out slowly in undertaking admin tasks. I have a pretty good understanding of what is a valid CSD candidate and what isn't, so I would delete articles that fit that criteria.  My ability to revert vandalism and deal with vandalism-only accounts would also be improved.  Also, I have long believed in the importance of referencing contributions, especially when it comes to sensitive topics, and I would gladly help to enforce the Biographies of Living Persons policy.  Outside of these areas, I would slowly move into other areas where administrators are needed, e.g. WP:RFPP, and WP:AN and its related pages.  I won't be the administrator who is taking the most admin actions right away, but I will be motivated to move into areas that need help from admins.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I improved the article Beijing opera to FA status earlier this year. Recently, I have been working on Jin Shengtan.  I have also created articles like Jian Bozan and Macartney Embassy.  Outside of the mainspace, I am proud of my contributions to WP:CHINA, where I revived article assessment, participated in policy discussions, and have made some changes to Template:WPCHINA.  There are lots of other little things that I am proud of.


 * 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: About 9 months ago, I foolishly moved the page Unequal Treaties to a new title without seeking consensus first. It was a dumb thing to do, and I quickly reverted the move and fixed all redirects.  I have also mediated a dispute or two, once on the page South Tibet, and a little bit unofficially when the dispute between User:Ideogram and User:Certified.Gangsta was going on.  In general, I believe in the utmost civility on Wikipedia.   We're all volunteers here, and if you are uncivil to others, they are just going to leave, and we will have lost a valuable contributor.  I like to drop thank-you notes to contributors who have helped something I am working on in some way.  I also tried for a long time to welcome five new users every day to prevent the loss of contributors through lack of attention to them.  Things that happen on Wikipedia don't usually stress me out, but if they do, I just get away from the computer for a little while.   In the future, I will always try to release tension during conflicts through dialogue, rather than just slapping a block on someone.


 * Optional questions from User:Geo Swan
 * 4. Would you agree that, once entrusted with administrator authority, administrators should continue to feel obliged to fully comply with WP:CIV? Cheers!  Geo Swan 16:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A: Every user is bound by WP:CIV, regardless of their status. I strongly believe in adhering to a high standard of civility, and doing so would not hamper me from completing any of the responsibilities that are related to adminship.  Even if I have to block a vandalism-only account, for instance, I can do so politely, give warnings beforehand, and follow all policies and guidelines in doing so.  An example of an admin not following WP:CIV would be blocking the user indefinitely without warning and rudely telling him or her that s/he is not welcome here.  This type of incivility from an administrator is not to be tolerated.


 * 5. IMO an important quality I would like to see all our administrators possess is enough objectivity and humility to keep in mind that they too are fallible, capable of error. I try my best to own up, and acknowledge when I have a made a mistake.  I believe owning up to errors is extremely important when trying to build communities of people who work together in an atmosphere of trust.  I'd like to see all wikipedians try to do this  I see it as a corollary of WP:AGF.  And I'd really like to see wikipedia administrators set an example.  If you were entrusted with administrator authority do you think you could appraoch questions about your decisions with enough objectivity to considedr that each one might be a (rare) instance where the questioners questions held merit, and you may have made a mistake?  If you recognized you made a mistake, would you openly acknowledge it?  Thanks!  Geo Swan 16:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Recognizing when you are in error is the only way to form solid relationships with people, both in real life and on Wikipedia. I try to be in the habit of admitting my own mistakes when they happen (see Question 3 above, where I admitted to an improper move of an article).  I agree with your idea of this being a corollary of WP:AGF.  Fortunately, we here work in an environment where discussion is encouraged, and many actions are easily reversible.  I will certainly seek opinions from my fellow editors when necessary and admit to errors when I am in the wrong.


 * 6: There is Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Less than ten percent of the existing administrators have volunteered to be open to recall.  Were you planning to open up your administratorship for review?  If not, why not?  Cheers!  Geo Swan 16:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A: Honestly, I'll admit to being somewhat ambivalent about the recall system. I tend to prefer that Arbcom retain the right to desysop nearly exclusively, as this ensures that all desysoppings occur through the same, formal process.  It also means that each case is reviewed by a jury of my peers - other experienced, active users.  However, I can see the appeal of the recall system, as it makes administrators more immediately accountable.  After some consideration, I have decided that, if this RFA is successful, I will be open to recall, at a threshold of 6 users with at least 500 edits and 3 months of tenure.  No more than 3 of those users may have worked together substantially on the same article or WikiProject.  The reasoning behind the first set of requirements is pretty straightfoward - I believe that I should be judged by peers who have been around for a while and understand Wikipedia and our policies, rather than a new user who is angry that I deleted his or her vanity article because it was not encyclopedic under our policies.  The second requirement - that no more than 3 of those asking for recall have worked together on the same article or WikiProject - might seem a little strange.  It is intended to prevent a user who I blocked for persistent edit warring, for instance, from simply canvassing like-minded individuals on his or her WikiProject to support my recall.  Instead, the editor would need to solicit outside opinion, which I believe is more fair.


 * This answer was a bit longwinded, but I wanted to explain my views toward recall and the reasoning behind the particular recall standards I would set for myself. I believe that recall can be a good process, but it needs to be a forum for an objective assessment of my actions as an administrator from all sides.  Sad as it may be, an administrator does sometimes need to block a user, or take steps to prevent POV material from being added to a biography of a living person, and having recall with no standards could be detrimental to that effort.  I believe that my recall standards get the best of both worlds.

General comments

 * See Danaman5's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Danaman5:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Danaman5 before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Excellent project space participation. I know I'm supposed to look at your articles too - and you've done great work there.  All round support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- has plenty of edits, fine articles (especially Ten-pin bowling), has admitted to mistakes, and has been around long enough to trust. Bearian 00:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) With the long experience that you have, and with quality not quantity, I will support. —O (说 • 喝) 00:43, 23 September 2007 (GMT)
 * 4) Support No problems here. A great editor as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Meets my standards. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I've briefly looked at user's contribs, all in order, and will give full support, unless there are serious concerns raised by potential opposers in the future. Phgao 04:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) No reason not no. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Good mix of article work and admin stuff. No flags here. Ronnotel 23:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Everything looks good to me. Dureo 01:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 05:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support A few weeks ago, I read a comment by this fellow where he complained about the high standards of RFA, saying that he couldn't make it.  At that time I checked his edit logs and thought about nominating him because he's experienced and up to standard.  I hope that other users who think they can't pass RFA, but know how to help, learn from Danaman's example. Shalom Hello 13:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Very reasonable, mature and intelligent. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I combed through your various contributions for several minutes and only found examples of good article work, solid collaborative efforts and pleasant interactions. I see nothing that would suggest you cannot be trusted with the tools. Good luck! &mdash; Scientizzle 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - thoughtful and patient editor. Addhoc 16:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) No convincing reason not to support. Acalamari 22:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - nearly two years of steady edits. Seems to understand policy and shows sound judgment. Sensible comments in discussions. I don't think any minimum "per month" edit count should be required, especially given the number of admins who burn out. Nothing wrong with giving the tools to someone who can be trusted to use them well from time to time... WjBscribe 00:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support This strangely uncommented on RfA. Steady but surely is no issue for me, and your edits demonstrate calmness and knowledge of policy. Pedro : Chat  12:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Hopeshopes 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Note from EVula: User has been indefinitely blocked for vandalizing various RfAs. Striking comment. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -- the slow but steady edit rate doesn't concern me -- if anything, this candidate may bring a calmer perspective to thorny issues by virtue of having a life off-Wikipedia. -- A. B. (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I spent a bit of time going through some of your contributions, and I have to say that I'm quite impressed.  I fully anticipate you will be a fine admin.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rlevse 13:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support no reason not to. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Reviewing user's contributions, everything looks good. -- Marcsin |Talk 18:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Good contribution to articles and at various points behind the scenes. Interactions with other users in talk pages demonstrates civility & patience, both good traits in an admin. :) Though he isn't always a prolific contributor, he certainly seems to be a dedicated one who has demonstrated a sustained interest in Wikipedia since at least December of 2006. (And far prior to that, allowing for a couple of lulls.) His primary stated use for the tools is at CSD, and his contributions to AfDs suggests he does, as he says, understand deletion criteria. I don't see any reason to believe he'll abuse the tools, but rather expect he'll apply them prudently. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support as per Moonriddengirl. Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support All looks good. --Kudret abi Talk 22:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - averaging 150 edits a month, one edit to AIV, none to AN, ANI, UAA - I don't see the experience. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral I like what you are doing around here so far, but I can't support quite yet, as your all-around editing isn't exactly where I would prefer it to be. Jmlk  1  7  08:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I'd just like to see more participation in Wikipedia space that's all.  Lra drama 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I generally won't support with less than 500 WP space edits.  If you can prove knowledge of policy, notify me on my talk page.  •Malinaccier• T / C  23:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.