Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Danny 2

Right at the top
It is late, and it has been a tense day, so I want to thank everyone. First, I want to thank the bureaucrats, who made a very difficult decision.

It goes without saying that I want to thank my supporters, but at the same time, I also want to thank my opposers and ask them to keep an eye on me. If I get out of line, let me know, and I will take your concerns into careful consideration.

I am grateful for this chance to help Wikipedia become the remarkable resource that it can be. Danny 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good RfA, way to use the force. Much better than my "easy to close" RfA. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Danny

 * run at Tue Apr 3 01:55:22 2007 GMT


 * Category talk:	2
 * Category:	21
 * Image:	43
 * Mainspace	26235
 * MediaWiki talk:	7
 * MediaWiki:	122
 * Portal talk:	3
 * Portal:	37
 * Talk:	1292
 * Template talk:	10
 * Template:	93
 * User talk:	1111
 * User:	693
 * Wikipedia talk:	200
 * Wikipedia:	3629
 * avg edits per page	1.58
 * earliest	11:04, 18 February 2002
 * number of unique pages	21244
 * total	33498

User:Dannyisme

 * run at Tue Apr 3 01:54:36 2007 GMT


 * Mainspace	13
 * Talk:	1
 * User talk:	4
 * User:	1
 * Wikipedia:	9
 * avg edits per page	2.00
 * earliest	16:48, 18 April 2006
 * number of unique pages	14
 * total	28

Michael Billington (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No arguing
There's just no possbile, valid way of arguing with 26235 mainspace contributions. --Deskana (ya rly)  02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, edit count matters after all ;-) Admin stats would be nice. -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So my bot can become an admin now? Sweet. No possible way of arguing after all. --W.marsh 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good thing no one is arguing with his mainspace contributions then (edit summaries notwithstanding), but with his administrative actions. -- nae'blis 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He deserves a working man's barnstar, or even twelve, yes. But that's not what's being debated here. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * W.marsh: I said that you can't argue with his mainspace contributions, nowhere did I say that's an automatic entitlement to be an admin. --Deskana (ya rly)  14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So what did it mean, that no one could argue with the fact that he had "26235 mainspace contributions"? Why point it out then, if it doesn't mean anything more than the number of mainspace edits my bot has? You made the comment in the early bandwagon phase of the RFA when no one was arguing, so I think it speaks for itself. --W.marsh 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion period before an RfA

 * Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship, as this is not just about Danny's RFA. -- nae'blis'' 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a call
This RfA will finish below 75%, with better arguments from the opposition, but will finish as a pass, with one of the following rationales from the closing bureaucrat:

1.The range of bureaucratic discretion is actually 70-80%, even though, well, it never has been in any of the archives or anywhere until Raul654 decided it was. 2.The candidate was a former admin and therefore entitled to a lower consensus threshold (which may be fair, actually.)

Hilarity will ensue on the RfA talk page, but Danny will be a more quiet and reasonable admin than before, having taken the opposition to heart. That, or a large group of editors will quickly call for his desysopping. One or the other. Grand master  ka  02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take your call and raise it an alternative: The RFA will close inside the amount where people are normally passed without issue, but not by much ... however, unless a highly unlikely 90%+ pass happens there will be people whining about rogue bureaucrats. So I'm predicting the same measurable outcome that you are.
 * My bet, however, is based on the hope that English Wikipedia isn't as horribly broken as this process has made it out to be so far. ...  We'll see. --Gmaxwell 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish Danny success as he is a very valuable Wikipedian in spite of the issues raised by the oppose votes. However, I would be very strongly opposed to the promotion if it is done below the 75% threshold. Yes, I know the usual arguments that numbers don't matter, judge by the quality of the votes, etc. Nevertheless, the absolute majority of the people so far who had under 75% failed. It would be extremely unfair to everybody else if Danny passes under 75%. As far as I can tell, the whole point of Danny resigning adminship and bureaucratship in addition to his WP:OFFICE position was to make sure that whatever future position he'd have on Wikipedia would be based on community decisions. Having this promotion pass below the established consensus would defeat the whole purpose of this RfA then. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * People will complain, ask for the closing crat's head, and then forget. Just like ever. -- ReyBrujo 04:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The closure will be the subject of at least one news article, which will contain at least one factual error related to how RFA works. If the RFA is unsuccessful, the story will either explicitly or implicitly state that "Wikipedia editors have fired a member of the Wikipedia board". The story will eventually be linked on Slashdot (titled "Shakeup at Wikipedia") and tagged with "slownewsday", followed by comments regarding the unreliability of Wikipedia. The first comment will be modded +5 Funny for a joke about editing the result to say something different :) --- RockMFR 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't care about what news says of this RfA.  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  08:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll sweeten the pot: no matter the outcome, Gmaxwell's will use the word "whining" about the expression of any view that opposes his own. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Surely nobody would be stupid enough to take that bet at even odds. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we put bets on other words, too, like betting red and black at roulette? I'll bet that "idiots" is being used liberally now on IRC and that it will make it into at least one if not all of the "the crats should tell the users to shut up and obey" arguments.  (N.b. I have not voted, and I think the most depressing thing is that Danny has allowed the polemicists to claim him as "theirs."  If I were him, I'd be running from friends like that.)  Geogre 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I opposed this RFA. At the moment, I'm willing to give the crats the benefit of the doubt and assume they will correctly determine consensus, however I would like to suggest something for them to think about. The "75-80%" idea is intended as a numerical approximation of "rough consensus". The reason it is "rough consensus" and not "consensus" is because a very small number of opposers could block an RFA if absolute consensus was required, so we basically say at least 20% of the people voting have to oppose for their opinion to be significant. Generally, that works quite well. In RFAs with a very large number of contributors, however, 20% ends up being a very large number of (usually) respected members of the community. Something happening with a large number of opposers, irrespective of the proportion of opposers, goes against the concept of consensus. I think we justifiably dismiss the opinions of a handful of opposers and say there is a "rough consensus", but can we dismiss the opinions of well over 50 people? (Remember, when the 75-80% range was decided, it was unusual for 50 people to contribute to an RFA at all.) To summarise: Does the 75-80% approximation of "rough consensus" scale for discussions involving very large numbers? Possibly useful information: According to there have been only 3 successful RFAs with 35 of more opposers, one of which was Carnildo (the others were Sean Black and Tawker - I don't remember if those were controversial). --Tango 22:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was also Ryulong's last RfA. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Question for understanding: Are you suggesting that if any candidate receives greater than X opposes, regardless of the number of supports, that the candidate should not be sysoped? --After Midnight 0001 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that there's some merit to that, although with caveats. If administrator position is a position of trust, then any significant demonstration of grounds for mistrust should be pretty devastating.  This has nothing to do with "he called me a doo-doo head a year ago," but any evidence of incliniation, avowal, or actual misuse of tools and acting against policy should be worrisome in the extreme.  Geogre 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tango, although I don't desire to draw a bright-line on a specific number. Absolute numbers matter in determining consensus. Also in the present case almost all oppose voters have articulated reasons for there position. Edivorce 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I am not suggesting that we give an automatic veto to X opposers, for some fixed X. Determining consensus is not an exercise in counting. A crat shouldn't determine consensus by calculating the percentage support, possibly after discounting a few bad !votes, and then seeing if it is more than 80%. They should determine consensus by reading through the RFA and seeing if, in their judgement, a consensus exists. What I am suggesting is that they take absolute numbers of !voters, as well as relative numbers, into account. There shouldn't be a hard and fast cutoff for percentages, and there shouldn't be a hard and fast cutoff for absolute numbers, it should be a matter of judgement. That's why Tangobot (which is not my bot, despite the name) doesn't close RFAs. I trust the crat's judgement, I just hope they use that judgement, rather than just going by percentages. --Tango 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not like the idea of an absolute cutoff. Admin actions are essentially confrontational (otherwise they would not be limited to the holders of the admin bits) - somebody for them and somebody against them. If a supermajority of the wikipedians support the actions they must be right, if not they probably wrong. Every candidate to the adminship has a number of supporting friends the rest !vote based on his or her actions. If we have a supermajority of supporters here the candidate is good, otherwise we are in troubles. Thus, I guess with the increase of participation in an RfA we should slightly decrease the thereshod not increase it. Alex Bakharev 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, no-one has suggested a cutoff, just that absolute numbers be taken into account. I understand the argument for reducing the requirements when there are lots of !voters, but I disagree. Adminship should be given unless there is a reason not to. I think that is generally accepted. RFA is meant to determine if there is a reason not to. A large number of support votes is largely irrelevant, as support is the default. A large number of oppose votes suggests there is a reason not to promote. I don't really see the point of support votes at all, but this is not the place to discuss RFA reform. --Tango 13:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of Support !votes which express disagreement with the Oppose !votes. There's a lot of people out there who appear to believe that some of the concerns raised in the Oppose section aren't a bar to Danny being promoted and there's a lot of disagreement and downright nonsense about WP:OFFICE actions which is being countered by those Supporting. It's not a typical RfA and there's probably going to be no right or wrong determination of consensus. -- Nick  t  13:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there can't be a right determination, the only option is to close as no consensus. --Tango 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong not to sysop Danny if he would get 74% (as a very visible admin on the frontline he deserved a few percentage points bonus) and wrong to sysop if he would get 61%. The best (and quite possible scenario) would be him getting ~78%. Enough to get the adminship he obviously deserves, enough to prevent a voting controversy but with the opposition strong enough to pass some message Alex Bakharev 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My Sidebet
Maybe this is a given to some, but I would offer a long term sidebet to the tune of this adminship promotion/non-promotion generating a lot of *both* light and heat in the short term, but being hugely beneficial to our general processus in the long term. Twas always thus with wikipedia. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tangobot
Slight problem with this RFA, Tangobot is parsing Pathoschild's support as a duplicate !vote from Xiner. Nothing major, of course, but still. – Chacor 11:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand these things, but is it possible that it's because Pathoschild's signature is small, like this:
 * — {admin} Pathoschild 04:33:04, 06 April 2007 (UTC)
 * and because Pathoschild links to User:Xiner in his comment, so the bot doesn't recognise Pathoschild's signature as a real one, and thinks that Xiner's name is the signature? ElinorD (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the bot looks for the last userspace link on the first line of the vote. If the line break was not there, I think it would parse correctly. --- RockMFR 12:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've edited the page to remove the line break. We'll see in about ten minutes's time, when Tangobot next updates, if it has worked or not. ElinorD (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, it didn't work, so I've undone my edit, and I tried delinking Xiner's name, and simplifying Pathoschild's signature. I've just checked Tangobot's RfA page, and it seems to have worked perfectly, but I'll leave a note for Pathoschild in case he thinks I'm out of line. ElinorD (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't. ;) — {admin} Pathoschild 01:08:31, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

Loss of faith, sadness abounding
I've always been a Danny fan. I've always thought that he was a good content person who generally reasoned his way well through the obstacles. When the mess with IRC emerged, he seemed to have allowed himself to be literally hoodwinked. On IRC, people who abused others spoke in the most smarmy, polite, and sycophantic way, and, as soon as Danny "left" went right back to talking about all the people they hate (which amounted to most users, it seems). I wrote to Danny privately, trying to make him aware of the hypocrisy and outrageousness of the position he had been putting himself in. I had confidence that he'd investigate. I never got a response, but I figured that life is simply like that. I thought I would ask the hard questions, here, let him distance himself from the abuse, and then vote to support. After all, this is about being an admin, and that has nothing to do with IRC, nothing to do with Office stuff, nothing to do with anything except, "Do I trust this person to not abuse the rules as an administrator." It was an automatic.

Then the slanderers began trying to attack anyone offering an oppose. Then Phil Bosworth came in with a shocking personal attack. Then Danny said that he didn't seem to care about the 22%, if the 78% voted for.

This has been staggering and sad. I cannot believe that I'm having to think really hard about whether I can vote to support Danny for a position that I always assumed he would fill flawlessly. I'm extremely depressed by this. Geogre 18:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, you are correct in saying that the only question here is: 'Do you trust this person to not abuse the rules as an administrator'? (or rather tools?).--Docg 19:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm so dumbfounded by the amount of support he has - I can't imagine how anyone can trust him at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Adminship is no big deal, which is why I'd give it even to people I strongly disagree with (like you). The question is whether, on balance, Wikipedia would be worse off with any hypothetical harm he'd do, compared to any predictable use he'd be. The answer to that question is fairly clear - we'd be better off. I really can't understand any right-thinking person coming to any other conclusion. Most of the opposition seems to be about politics, anti-establishment grumbles, and holding Danny responsible for things people didn't like about the OFFICE Jimbo entrusted to him. This is a very poor show. Improvement of the encyclopedia should rate over politics and personalities.--Docg 19:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If we didn't have a track record of administrative action to work off of, I'd agree - perhaps the benefit of the doubt would be in place. But the track record combined with the utter disdain he's showing for those who disagree with his repromotion is more than enough to give anyone reasonable pause, I would hope. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Utter disdain? O_o difflink? I think he's been quite respectful to everyone all around. --Gmaxwell 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly the feeling I get from question 20. Maybe disdain is the wrong word?  Condescension?  Hostility?  Disrespect? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question 20 is misleading and is out to misrepresent, plain and simple. There's no way in hell anything about this situation can be compared to George W. Bush.  Bush, as well as nearly all presidents in US history, would've eaten babies for 75% approval ratings.  -- Cyde Weys  20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's misleading about it, exactly? Forget the GWB comparison and focus on what's being said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's kind of hard to forget the GWB comparison seeing as how it occupies a large part of the question. Maybe if he really wanted to get a good answer, rather than score political points, he would've asked a question that doesn't include a front-and-center comparison that lacks any basis in reality?  -- Cyde Weys  20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The implication is that, since we're the minority, we're the problem, and not him. Certainly, you don't believe this to be true, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a very poor question. I don't think the answer is illustrative of anything other than the poor nature of the question.  Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.  And no, I certainly don't believe that Danny thinks that 25% of Wikipedia is the "problem".  -- Cyde Weys  23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As the writer of the Q, I believe it is a good question. They are both acting the same way. There are over 60 people that have reservations about him and the way he is acting. If 60 people told you that they didn't agree with how you were acting, wouldn't at least take a second and think about changing? Danny doesn't seem to care. Wikipedia is about compromise and that doesn't seem to be Danny's way. I did support but now I am changing to oppose. -Ravedave 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your complaint would have more merit if it weren't trivial to demonstrate as factually incorrect. Many of the oppose votes are making suggestions which are in direct conflict with the majority view, and while I can't speak for all the supporters I have high confidence that a large number would oppose him if he acted on the suggestions of all of the opposition. Clearly he can't, nor should he, act as per everyone's will. Based on the commentary of many respected editors on the support side, there are a non-trivial number of people who regard a significant number of the oppositions as patently ridiculous. In this light I do not think that it's unfair of Danny to answer "will you change your actions to reflect the will of the 25%" with "will the 25% change their position to match the will of the 75%?" ... Both of those questions are basically unanswerable. Like many things "It depends". --Gmaxwell 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa he's willing to change his opionion on an incredibly trivial item, whoop de doo! His answers make him seem aloof. If he had said "I will listen to dissenting opinions, if they are logical and if I feel good points are made I will change my behavior." Do you think his support would have gone up or down? Seriously have you read his responses compared to other RFAs? He is evasive on almost every one. He is acting like he is above this process. He hasn't taken it seriously until his % dropped close to 70 and responded with his 7 points. If he fails this RFa, I hope he takes a bit to realize that he is part of a community, reapplies later and passes. -Ravedave 03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So people oppose because they feel disdained? Understandable perhaps, but disappointing still.--Docg 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * People oppose because he has not shown that he's able to use the tools properly. His feelings toward those who feel that way about it indicate that he's not going to change.  We need less admins like that, we already have too many who could give a rat's ass about those who disagree with them.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We need admins who can do the job, not ones who are expert in ass-kissing. Yes, Danny might be a better human being if he suffered critics better, but this isn't a character interpretation. It is a question of whether him helping out with admin tasks would be of benefit. Whilst Danny may not bring a superfluity of grace and wikilove into the happy little community, he's got thousands of hours experience of dealing with the type of complex issues that most of the eager-beaver admins you might prefer haven't got a clue about. I'm one of those that helps out at the crap end of wikipedia - and having Danny on the bench, unable even to read a deleted edit and advise makes zero sense. Yes, a lot of folk might love him more if he wasn't an awkward sod, but he comes as a package - and for goodness sake don't let the boy scouts chase him away.--Docg 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We agree again - I simply don't think his track record indicates a fitness to do the job properly. I don't see where people are seeing otherwise while looking at the track record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm telling you that we need Danny doing the particular jobs that he's good at. You are makign adminship too big a deal.--Docg 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. I'm sure that he would make more good decisions than bad, and I agree that nobody should dispute that. The issue is that he will make mistakes, just like everyone else. And if he is going to just brush off criticism when he does make a mistake, that is bad. -Amarkov moo! 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He showed contempt for one question? (Which was a contemptible question, anyway.) We're picking a janitor not a politician. We know Danny, and we know what we're getting, and rejecting him because he won't ass-kiss and jump through the hoops of the RfA flea-circus is madness.....but since this is RfA-land perhaps I should not have expected otherwise. I fully expect that Danny will, and does, listen to reasonable, good-faith, straightforward constructive criticism. But that's not really what one gets in RfA-land. --Docg 20:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... as far as I know, that's not why people are opposing. Mine is the only reason that is even close to that, and even then, the problem is not so much that he won't jump through a bunch of hoops, more that he jumps through them acting as though there is absolutely no reason he might need to. -Amarkov moo! 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he didn't have to. But at any rate, when your floor is really filthy, it is a bit silly not to hand the mop to a willing volunteer because he didn't ask for it nicely.--Docg 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? Adminship has been denied for far more trivial reasons. EnsRedShirt 06:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Geogre, this kind of broad brush personal attack has no place on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

IRC stuff again?! Geogre, I don't think you can grind that ax any more sharply. Let go of your vendetta; it isn't helping anything. -- Cyde Weys 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, what's the attack, Tony? I shouldn't consider these matters, or I shouldn't consider the trolling and thuggery of Phil and Cyde? I'm not sure what you think has no place on Wikipedia. Ooooooh, riiiiight! It has a place on Wikipedia's IRC! I forgot. You go there to say horrible things! Geogre 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Got my talk page watchlisted still, Cyde? How many articles have you worked on lately?  How many talk pages to you stalk?  Spent fewer than 3 hours on IRC today?  You remain trivial, from my perspective, as I work on Wikipedia, not Facebook, and whatever you do all day, it isn't on Wikipedia.  Geogre 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, Cyde, drop it. Let's not do this.--Docg 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Methinks you missed one there ... Cyde Weys  20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to cool this, not be righteous.--Docg 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Get on IRC, I think we're talking past each other. -- Cyde Weys  20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not right now.--Docg 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There you go! Get on IRC!  By all means.  That's where Wikipedia business should be conducted.  "Missing one" is supposed to mean me.  Horrible that I would think of voting to oppose based on Danny's invocation as hero of Cyde and Kelly and Gmaxwell.  Horrible that I would regard anyone Phil Bosworth decides to attack for to be deeply disturbing.  I had, of course, only been thinking of opposing.  I had tried to come here to express the views without influencing votes.  Now, of course, young Cyde's sniping and lens wherein all things must be a "vendetta" and about him is surely moving me faster to oppose.  If Danny is of Cyde's opinion, then I could never trust him as an administrator.  Geogre 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * /Sigh/ This is what I was try to avoid. Geogre, I've every confidence that you'll pause and come to your own view of whether we're well served by Danny having the tools. Whether he'll do harm or good with them. Really, the history of poor relationships or closer associations of certain users should not really come into this. This isn't about wikipolitics and factions - it's about the 'no big deal' of adminship. That's why I was trying to tell Cyde and Tony to shut the **** up, and I didn't comment on your comment, because I did't think that would help me calm things down. And, in all sincerity, if the post doesn't help either, I'm genuinely sorry. Peace.--Docg 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


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

Hello. What is going on? :-) -- ReyBrujo 22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pride, folly and long memories....full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.--Docg 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly questions
Come on guys, this is getting quite pointy.. --Conti|✉ 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To do that, I would need to have a point. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken. :) --Conti|✉ 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The questions really are of the variety "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Let's look at this question:
 * Do you believe that you, in general, are a good model for new editors? Would you suggest that new editors emulate your style in editing and administrative-style work, given your long resume?

This question comes from the same person who has already strongly opposed the adminship request with this reasoning:
 * Strong oppose per most people above and my own experiences, where Danny has shown himself to be unresponsive, unrepentant, and overly jumpy. Abused the tools when there was no reasonable way to stop him since he worked for the Foundation, why are we willing to hand them back now? For clarification - I no longer trust him to do the right thing and make a net improvement to the project with the tools, and that's unfortunate.

What in the world is he hoping to do by asking that question? Make Danny look bad, of course. If Danny says that he thinks he is a good role model, he will be attacked for it &mdash; how in the world could someone who is "unresponsive, unrepentant, and overly jumpy", as well as "abused the tools" possibly be a good role model? If he says he thinks he isn't a good role model, he'll be attacked for that, with this guy saying why in the world he thinks he should become an admin if he isn't a good role model. It's a loaded question and the only way for Danny to win is not to play; and to his credit, he seems to have realized that. It's a shame how despicable some people get in RFAs, and it really points to the larger issue of how terribly broken RFA is. It's turned into more of a lynch mob than anything, with people putting all shame to the wind and trying to get as many pokes and jabs in as possible. -- Cyde Weys 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that some questions aren't especially neutral, and some of them were clearly asked just to paint him in a bad light. But then again, question 21 clearly tries to paint him in a good light (or did Doc not know that Danny made the map before he asked the question?). Both sides try to get their desired result, and I think both sides should calm down a bit. Adding nonsense questions isn't going to help in any way. --Conti|✉ 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question 21 is fluff. It isn't good, it isn't bad; it's basically just a waste of space, which is a far, far cry from some of the more pointed, triple-edged questions.  And as for question 22 &mdash; man, that reads more like an essay than a question.  Unfortunately, Danny is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one.  There was a lot more going on in the background surrounding that incident than most people will never know about.  All you really need to know, though, is that Danny and Erik have reconciled, and that it isn't a forward-looking problem.   Also, it isn't a generalizable example of Danny's overall administrative technique, because it was intimately tied to the peculiarities and legal issues of that situation.  -- Cyde Weys  18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just don't buy it, Cyde. What could possibly justify the extreme actions Danny took against Erik - including refusing to take his calls? Apparently no-one else thought these actions were justified, including Jimbo who was presumably privy to all pertinent information. Haukur 18:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, funny you should bring up Jimbo. There's a lot more to this situation than is public knowledge, including Jimbo's involvement in it itself.  Until you get the full details of it, which really isn't going to happen, there's no real way to evaluate it; my advice is, seeing as how it's been reconciled, to just ignore it.  -- Cyde Weys  18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if I were to ignore it completely I believe I'd have ample reason to oppose the candidacy. Haukur 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cyde, could I politely request that you stop asking those who still have concerns over the incident to simply ignore it? It's a disservice to simply ignore a glaring incident and to not ask questions, and their concerns are valid, even if you don't necessarily agree with them. As for my question: yes, it was extremely lengthy (although I will disagree with your assessment of it as an "essay"), but its primary purpose was to provide my view of the incident (which had not been greatly discussed prior to my question), and then ask a question to Danny regarding the incident. I could not, in good conscience, have either supported or opposed the RfA without expounding on my personal view of the situation further or allowing Danny a chance to elucidate on the situation and appease my concerns, which he has done now. With that being said, though, I do encourage those people opposing to re-evaluate the situation, now that I have posted a follow-up to my question. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 19:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cyde, when you say, "There was a lot more going on in the background surrounding that incident than most people will never know about", you're basically mirroring one of the major concerns about Danny's candidacy If he's promoted, how many other situations will be handled off the grid in the future? Transparency is a good thing in and of itself; when people start trying to resolve situations in private, you get wheel warring and rancor as they run up against each other without knowing it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that. Wikipedia is not a spy agency; we don't need "classified" information. The fact that he responded to question 22 by sending an email rather than responding on-wiki, or even just saying "I am contractually prevented from discussing that situation", was a motivation for my opinion on the RFA. CMummert · talk 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the above touches an important issue: Danny has had access to a lot of confidential information, and in 'defending' himself, he's often not allowed to use that information. I agree that sometimes his communication skills were lacking when communicating about that, but it's also not hard to imagine that the pressure (time, demands) he was under made him snap once in a while. He was working on Wikimedia issues full time, that can make it hard to put things into perspective sometimes. That said, I understand some of the concerns that are raised, but at the same time, working on OTRS for a bit over the last year or so has made me realise that often, there's more to some actions that meets the eye, and it's that area that it's very hard not to make occassional mistakes in (even though that's sadly where those mistakes are most visible and have a great impact). --JoanneB 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What am I hoping to do? I'm hoping to figure out what's going on here.  I'm hoping to figure out what he's trying to accomplish at this stage.  I have people telling me that my opinion may be misguided, so I'm trying to maybe get an answer.  He doesn't want to give them, and you'd assume the worst about me as you always do, and it again stops being about the candidate.  Get a grip, Cyde, the act is stale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats: please ignore all opposes regarding Office actions
The most idiotic opposes are those who don't want him back as an admin because they don't like what he did in his role as a Foundation employee.

Bureaucrats: you do realise the AC has your back if you show greater discretion - David Gerard 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To the first sentence I agree, to the second I know nothing about. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, some of the comments in the RfA may not be optimal, regardless of whether they're supporting or opposing, but keep in mind that we should still treat them with the utmost respect, and that some valid concerns have been raised, even if you and I don't necessarily agree with them. With that being said, I do want to point out that we (as in the Arbitration Committee) would treat a case like any other, and judge it based on its merits. That's neither reason to exercise undue care, nor to be too bold and radical; simply put, please do your jobs that the community has entrusted you. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the most important thing it to keep the discussion civil. Offending people you don't agree with rarely produces anything useful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely the point I was trying to make, and I couldn't agree more :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

By that token, shouldn't supports based on his work as a foundation employee also be discounted? "Strong Support. As a former employee..." etc. --W.marsh 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but those supports typically refer to the fact that he's proven he can be trusted, so I'm not sure discounting them is particularly productive. --Deskana (ya rly)  22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess there's a difference in that none of the opposes say "Oppose because he was a foundation employee". Or at least I assume none of them do. But still, it's not exactly apples and oranges here, there's some similarity. --W.marsh 22:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty pointless to say "Please ignore this vote!" anyways. Do we really need to tell the bureaucrats how to do their job? They know how to close an RfA. Really. :) --Conti|✉ 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the impression this thread was created to tell b'crats how to do their job. "Arbcom has your back if you close it the way I want" come on... this ordeal keeps hitting new lows. --W.marsh 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, which is exactly why I felt I needed to comment above, asking for more calmness and civility in this heated debate. I also walked a delicate line there - of course we'll treat each case on its merits, but that should not be an excuse to either overreact or be too conservative. In short, we (referring to the Arbitration Committee) should have absolutely nothing to do with this, and I'm sorry that we were dragged into the conversation - it just creates undue pressure and gives the appearance that we'll either condone or not condone any such actions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For ArbCom's view of bureaucratship one can read Requests for arbitration/Giano and the sections below it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Flcelloguy, I wish "calmness and civility" would prevail. But when the bcrats give Danny the mop with a support percentage below 75% (and maybe 70%), those qualities will be in very short supply. The "idiotic opposes" comment that started this section will look mild compared to what we'll see. As another poster put it, hilarity will ensue. In fact, the bcrats might as well close now with the baked-in-the-cake approval, and let the hilarity begin immediately. Casey Abell 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems highly inappropriate. Gerard is obviously trying to influence the bureaucrats by referring to ArbCom backing for promoting Danny even if he falls under the generally accepted minimum for consensus. A case like this is actually the absolute worst time for bureaucratic discretion (although I feel there is really no good time for it), considering the sheer number of participants and the amount of passion involved. This should be decided by a simple percentage, and every participant's vote (barring any sockpuppets) should be counted even if some people don't like the reasons they give. Everyking 02:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Checkusers are already refusing to sockcheck on this, I'm told. .. A quick masssockcheck is no more than a "select a.rc_user_text,b.rc_user_text from recentchanges as a join recentchanges as b on (a.rc_ip=b.rc_ip and a.rc_user_text!=b.rc_user_text) where a.rc_title='Requests_for_adminship/Danny' and b.rc_title=a.rc_title group by a.rc_user_text,b.rc_user_text ;" away .. but not if our checkusers wanna keep their butts out of the political fire. --Gmaxwell 02:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, why are we bothering with this charade? Danny will get the mop regardless of the percentages. Close this thing now with the obviously decided-in-advance approval, and let the fun begin. Casey Abell 03:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Heavens, that's an unkind thing to say. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Unkind"? Um, okay. But WP insider David Gerard just told the bcrats to promote Danny regardless of the percentages. We're supposed to believe the decision hasn't already been made? I assume good faith, but I'm not blind. If that's being "unkind", then I'll just have to skip kindness today. Anyhow, get it over with and make the outcome official. In fact, I don't think Danny will run wild as an admin, after all the noise this RfA has attracted. So the decision is okay with me. Casey Abell 13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you're not assuming good faith because you're assuming that the cabal rigged the !vote. If the decision has been made nobody told me, and I really ought to know (damn you David, keeping me in the dark!) What David Gerard has said is empirically demonstrable. Every time a great outcry has occurred over a bureaucrat using his discretion and promoting without strict reference to numbers, the Arbitration Committee has concurred that there's nothing improper in that. I suppose I have higher standards for civility and kindness than most, at least these days. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please. Good faith doesn't mean blind faith. When David Gerard shows up and tells the bcrats to promote Danny, the decision is made. Whether there was an explicit agreement (which I doubt) is beside the point. The bcrats have been given the go-ahead "for promoting without strict reference to numbers," to use your own words. As I said, I don't have any particular problems with that outcome, because I think Danny will be very careful with the mop after all the fuss on this RfA. But let's not play pretend here. Casey Abell 13:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be utterly amazed and somewhat disconcerted to have the mind-control powers you attribute to me - David Gerard 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, when WP insiders nudge the bcrats that Danny should get the mop regardless of percentages, it has no effect at all. None whatsoever. Nothing to see here, move along.


 * Oh, come on. Look, I don't mind Danny getting the mop. If he's not crazy (and I don't think he is) he'll be extra-careful after all the ruckus. But let's not play games. You don't have to be Daniel Brandt to see influence at work. No, pace Daniel, there almost certainly wasn't any big horrible secret mind-controling CIA/KGB/PDQ cabal agreement. But the bcrats were reminded none too subtly that promoting Danny without regard to percentages - Mackensen's own phrasing - wouldn't bother important people at WP. After that, the conclusion wasn't in much doubt. And this will be my final comment on the matter. Casey Abell 15:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to dismiss all oppose votes based on OFFICE actions, I think we should dismiss all support votes based on those who like the OFFICE actions. What about those who did not like the OFFICE actions, and did not like some other actions either? What about those who agree with the OFFICE actions but dislike that he used the account Danny instead of the office account Dannyisme? Just because you disagree with someone's reasoning is not the same as calling it invalid. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So ... we should ignore the potentially flawed reasoning of a few of the oppose votes (and who knows if that's the entirely of one's reasoning in opposing this RfA) in favor of all those support votes with absolutely no reasoning at all? You have to admit that a lot of the votes on both sides look pretty silly and probably aren't thought out very well. Discounting poorly-reasoned votes on one side ought to see the same discretion on the other side, as well.

And bureaucrats: *wink* I got this. *nudge* &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsurpassed bullying and rudeness
I want to take the time to express my concern regarding the unsurpassed bullying and rudeness that is occuring during this vote. Editors are entitled to their opinions and to voice oppose or support without having to watch every second of the day for rude and bullying comments to be added to their vote - which are clearly designed to sway the next voter (who doesn't want to get an earful). Indeed in some editors eg: User:Atshields0 (only 23 edits before the Danny vote commenced) have not only commented at the commencement of the project page, then legitimately voted support - but then added 6 further comments against editors who differ in their vote - with 3 of those comments being rude to very rude. If this was any other talk page those editors would probably receive a WP:NPA advisement (even though they are likely to blank their talk page directly afterwards).-- VS talk 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Picaroon 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. RxS 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe me. Contentious RfAs generate lots of conflict and feelings. If you jump into one, you should expect people to try to engage in discussion with you. That's all. Picaroon 01:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been in plenty of RFA's thank you. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen is not engaging in discussion, it's being a bully and you should be ashamed. RxS 01:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Triple edit conflict) On second thought, that's the stupidest thing I've said since in weeks. I apologize to VirtualSteve for such an unwarranted reply and to everyone for implying that incivility is acceptable. I'm getting too worked up over this RfA. Picaroon 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This complaint is useless without difflinks. In any case, Atshields0 is in a better position to know about Danny's qualities and qualifications that most of the people participating in this RFA. --Gmaxwell 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


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


 * I am shocked and dismayed at some of the responses in this thread; no matter whether you are supporting or opposing this particular candidate, there is absolutely no excuse for rudeness or incivility. We treat each other with the utmost respect and civility, and if faced with incivility, we absolutely do not reply back with rudeness of our own. Please, everyone, let's remain calm and civil - there's absolutely no reason to be jumping at either the supporters or opposers. There's only a need for civil discussion and discourse, and VS's reminder should be taken to heart by everyone. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Picaroon (I note your retraction and your apology - thank you) to clear it up a little the heat wasn't put on me by User:Atshields0 in fact he never commented about my vote and I'm not saying if it was that I couldn't take it - I was just asking for civility (as others have said now also) and suitable consideration when the votes are accumulated. My concern is reflected in the way that Atshields0 and others use diverse forms of Personal Attack on voters (I think in the main if not only those that oppose Danny's adminship) to influence future voters. And yes I could add difflinks - but then again why lengthen this already large sized page - alternatively you could just go to the project page and do a search for Atshields. However - I don't know what to make of the comment that Atshields0 is in a better position to know about Danny's qualities and qualifications that most of the people participating in this RFA - I mean are we supposed to guess that or do we just assume it because he wrote on his talk page (and then deleted).... I am smarter and stronger and have more potential than any human alive today & I will be the greatest programmer God has ever created.?-- VS talk 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Atshields has worked with Danny for a while at the WMF offices. -- Nick  t  02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nick - perhaps even more reason for us all being a little concerned by his methods and his neutrality?-- VS talk 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No such thing as neutrality on any RfA and it's great to see this RfA develop from a silly vote into a discussion, even if it is getting people's backs up. -- Nick  t  02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Question evasion?
I just saw Danny edited page but did not answer the questions asked by User:badlydrawnjeff an my questions. Why would he evade those questions, because they are too sensitive? WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

See the section three sections up entitled "Silly questions". Just because a question has been asked does not mean it deserves an answer, something you will have surely dealt with in real life by now. In this case, those three questions were asked by someone who has already "strongly opposed" and is just trying to get in further jabs using the fallacy of many questions, so really, it would look worse for Danny's intelligence and analytical ability if he did not recognize this and did bother to answer the silly questions. -- Cyde Weys 03:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm referring to my question (see "Question by Wooyi"), which is a serious one and I voted support. Not the silly ones that were deleted. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe he didn't have time?  Daniel Bryant  10:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should stop categorizing my serious questions as silly, Cyde. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would use a word other than silly but that would be even less productive. -- Cyde Weys  12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you could. I'm sorry that your passioned defenses of your buddy are so transparent that you need to knock down those who disagree with you, though.  Classy on your part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wheeeeee, more of that word-that-must-not-be-named. I'm not going to bother responding to anything else you might say; it's obvious what's going on here.  -- Cyde Weys  13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it most certainly is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read below the questions he says "Rather than answer all the remaining questions, I think that I will simply make a statement here." and goes on to give info. You can find this here Requests_for_adminship/Danny. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Resolved now, Danny answered my question. Thanks Danny. Regarding to the other 3 questions above, I don't know if they are "silly" or not, but I think Danny will make the judgment. WooyiTalk, Editor review 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Open the umbrellas, it is going to rain. Very hard.
So, the request is reaching its closing day, and it appears that a simple "support / (support + oppose)" is not going to help decide this one. Regardless of the taken decision, a part of the community will not be happy. I wonder whether a single bureaucrat is going to take the full blunt of the charges or it will be divided into several ones. I would love to be optimistic, think nobody will question the bureaucrats, and that a decision will be respected, but we have a brilliant history of questioning decisions. -- ReyBrujo 20:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope against hope that a high level of civility will be maintained by all concerned regardless of the outcome. I have never seen a Wikipedia discussion that was improved by lots of name-calling and accusations of bad faith, and I doubt very much that this would be the first. Newyorkbrad 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Well, Danny could withdraw/choose not to be appointed under these circumstances. All things considered I think withdrawing now and trying for a clearer consensus in the future would be better for the community, but I've yet to see any candidate actually refuse a controversial appointment.  Dragons flight 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainly because a controversial appointment soon ceases to be controversial, everybody soon forgets about it. If Danny is promoted, he's got a fantastic mandate to prove the Oppose camp that their Opposition, whilst valid at the time, is not going to be valid in the future. -- Nick  t  20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On the first, I think you are wrong, many people have a long memory for controversial promotions. On the second I hope you are right, but Danny hasn't provided a lot of evidence that he plans to act differently as a result of criticism.  Continuing a similar pattern of behavior as people have objected to could serve to further the resentment in the opposers rather than relieve it.  Dragons flight 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be using a different definition of mandate than I am, or else I'm not understanding you correctly. How would promoting Danny over significant opposition possibly prove the opposition 'wrong', and moreover, how would it possibly be 'valid' now but 'invalid' later? Did you mean to say that he will take the constructive criticism to heart? -- nae'blis 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Come on. We all know that he's going to get his adminship, 70% or no. Xihr 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so confident, but it's important to consider that he could have just requested it back anyway, with no RfA. --Deskana (ya rly)  22:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have an idea that is sure to help. When the 'crat closes this, I will refrain from complaining. Now, if we can all do that then we may just avoid the whole issue. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How do "we all know" that? CMummert · talk 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We all know he's going to get his adminship? That's news to me and I say that as a supporter. I'd be happy to have Danny as an admin but I'll be the first to cry foul if he gets it now. There's just no way that any bureaucrat can conclude from this chaos that there's a consensus to promote. Pascal.Tesson 22:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very insightful Pascal.Tesson and absolutely correct. I just hope Danny can see that too?-- VS talk 23:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Office Incident
I will refrain from commenting in detail or voting on this RfA due to Danny's relationship with the Board & his expressed intention to run for a Board seat, but I will note that the incident between me & Danny last year was amicably resolved and should have no bearing on this RfA whatsoever. Danny's actions had complex reasons that involve his former role as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. They should not be held against him.--Eloquence* 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Erik - Were you unaware of this RfA for 6.9 days or is there any other reason you waited until 1 hour before this RfA is due to close before leaving a comment that could potentially have prevented (or created) more Oppose votes ? -- Nick  t  23:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I only now saw many comments referring to this incident. I hope the bureaucrat who closes this RfA will consider my comment.--Eloquence* 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think many editors don't have an issue with what Office actions were performed, but do have an issue with how they were carried out. RxS 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you feel he was justified in desysopping you, indefinitely blocking you and refusing to talk to you? Because if you're not then this is still a perfectly valid reason to oppose, regardless of your undoubted and commendable reconciliation with Danny and good-will towards him. In any case the only way to find out the effect of your statement is to extend the nomination and give those who commented on this issue a chance to reconsider. Haukur 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm saying he did not necessarily have the freedom of action you attribute to him.--Eloquence* 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So he was justified, in the sense that he had no other real choice? Haukur 00:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I really can't think of a situation where someone interfering with an OFFICE action should be desysopped on a different project to the one where the edit was committed, then ignored until the mailing list uprises in outrage. I can understand the block and desysopping on Wikipedia as being part of a greater plan I do not understand, but not the mean way in which it was dealt. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying he doesn't even have the freedom to publicly say that he didn't have the freedom of action? If, for example, Jimbo ordered him to do it, and he's now covering up for Jimbo, that would still be reason to oppose. Bramlet Abercrombie 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole Cloak and dagger bit is embarassing. Danny had ample opportunity to address these points and chose not to. I took this as a sign that he did not wish us to consider his motivations in performing these actions. What's the need for further speculation? CMummert · talk 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you're saying Satan made him do it, Erik, you're just not making much sense, and this is more of the same bullshit that some of us have opposed Danny for in the first place. Even if one agrees that there should be covert actions that go unexplained, there are still ways to do them that are acceptable, and ways that aren't. And, I have to say, in what purports to be an open project, the first agreement is not necessarily something that can be counted on. The answer to "I have my reasons" on a wiki is nearly always going to be "so let's hear them then". Grace Note 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, the Office issue is just a red herring. Danny had it in his hand to sway many opposers with a more concilliatory attitude (me included), and the RFA swung towards clear support until his answer to Question #20. After that the support rate deteriorated sharply and in the end was trending towards 50%. There were a lot of people intially undecided who did't feel like he conducted himself as they expect from an admin, and the progression of the RFA showed that. ~ trialsanderrors 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

People are still voting
Wow, people have been voting up until the very minute of the close... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been quite a flurry actually. Viridae Talk 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that people often continue voting after the official ending date and as far as I know the bureaucrats do pay attention to such votes. Haukur 00:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. People are still voting. It has not yet been closed. Isn't it due for closing? Are closings usually late? Should it be closed? Thanks. – A stroHur ricane  00 1 (Talk+Contribs+Ubx) ( +sign here+How's my editing? ) 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * it will take some time to close, as Taxman says above. Until it is closed, new votes may be added. Closings are usually a little late, and this one may be quite late. CMummert · talk 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)As Haukur says, (somewhat) late closure is by no means unusual or out of order, with this as with most Wiki "processes". Formal "elections", such as for arbcom, are the only real case where split-minute precision is the expectation and practice.  Alai 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do hope they hurry, though. My first RFA failed (with 69%, discounting one sock) but wasn't closed until a day after the putative ending date. That was quite stressful for me so I hope Danny is spared it. Haukur 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though even if there's a BC watching with a view to closing, they may wish to reflect or confer. Even if it were "administratively closed" pending an actual decision, the delay would still be the same (though there'd be less commotion in the meantime).  However, that itself might be contentious, so I'm not going near that one...  Alai 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well lets just remember that the checkusers and the B-crats need time to go over things :). Give them the time they need to do what they have to do. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Preliminary CheckUser results confirm that, , , and , all of which have expressed an opinion in the RFA using a different persona, are all the same person. There may be more reports to follow, since there appear to be a large number of single-purpose accounts here. I would urge the bureaucrats to take that into account when closing. Dmcdevit·t 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind alternating your checkuser reports with sockpuppet supports as well? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not checking based on support or opposition. Do you have any obvious SPAs to suggest I check? Dmcdevit·t 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Throwawayhack has under 250 edits since 2005, and no talk page comments since 2005, in addition to a provocative name.  CMummert · talk 01:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologise for being a slacker and not editing very much, but I'm not a sockpuppet or an SPA; I just upload my pictures and fix spelling mistakes (when I get round to it). Apologies for having a stupid username. Throwawayhack 18:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I would never have recognised those votes as being all the same user (especially as they all have contribs going as far back as August last year), I was just mildly discomforted to see that the first block of sockpuppets were all opposers. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it has to be one or the other (I can confirm Dmcdevit's findings). Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with these socks, at any rate. – Steel 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, do we need a bureaucrat to strike out the socks' votes, or can anyone do it? -- Cyde Weys  00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume anyone can as long as they reference this thread. – Steel 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do hope that who ever is doing the check users are doing it on both sides of this debate. EnsRedShirt 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We are. Mackensen (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IAR! IAR! Checkusers for everyone! :-D -- ReyBrujo 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How about Bec-Thorn-Berry, low edit count, first RfA vote as far as I see, and their vote appears to come on their 7th day of editing. KnightLago 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I didn't phrase that right, she has edits on 7 days since account creation. Before voting in this debate her last edit was in January. Sorry for the confusion. KnightLago 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bec-Thorn-Berry has been editing since December - I know because I sent her a message on her first day of editing. – Riana ऋ 01:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And Christian Mortensen and James Anthony Stewart, whose usepages are identical as well as their votes, modus operandi and sockmaster. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, quite. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Are you aware that Christian Moretensen [ supported] Mackensen's bureaucratship while Just H [ opposed] it? I really don't think we should be discounting user's input based on "possible" sockpuppetry instead based on "confirmed" sockpuppetry. --Iamunknown 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, I really disagree with the edit to Christian Mortensen's input and am inclined to revert. --Iamunknown 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Christian Mortenson was a sockpuppet of JustH.... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't particularly matter whose sock he is; no one finds RFA on his third edit. &mdash;Cryptic 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So?? Does that mean we are going to discount any vote by any user based on the number of edits they have? It would turn into a lynch mob and it would be ridiculous. --Iamunknown 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been common practice to discount new editors for years. It would be odd if this was any different. Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)My comment was not entirely to you, I saw your comment, saw that Wizardman hashed out Christian Mortensen's comment, and replied to the nearest place I could. Unfortunately the RFA is locked so I can't do anything. --Iamunknown 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I didn't say they were sockpuppets of Just H. They're sockpuppets of each other, as Dev920 implied. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the alleged RFCU file? A checkuser without file? WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those happen all of the time. -- Cyde Weys  02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Confirming, yes they do. RFCU is a means to bring requests for checkuser to the Checkusers' attention, but it is not the exclusive source of their ability to run checks, or else this RfA would now sit here for a day and a half while anyone with a suspicion filed a formal checkuser case. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is correct. RFCU exists so that the community can bring requests to the attention of checkusers at large. While this is a useful we aren't required to use it whatsoever. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't know that. Thanks. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More.  Daniel Bryant  08:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly failed...

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Clearly unhelpfull and inflamatory considering the situation. Archived. Viridae Talk 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ... and I can't wait to read the excuse for promoting him! Bring it! Grace Note 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That comment is not helpful. ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the least bit interested in what you think is helpful. Yours is yet another of the passive-aggressive, null-content comments that people make to curry favour but not progress debate here. Grace Note 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repetition of the above, Grace Note, your comment is not helpful. This is just inflaming passions for no good reason. I doubt people will bait, but still, this is not appropriate. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that there is a set ratio to determine consensus, although the 75% range is generally a safe harbor; this is not a vote. At approximately 68% and a degree of bogus votes probably on both sides, it seems that consensus must be evaluated with a bit more finesse than using simple arithmetic.  --Kevin Murray 01:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You what? I don't think there has ever been a candidacy that has been opposed by so many editors. Maybe one of eequor's. I'd have to go and check. Even by Wikipedia's odd notion of "consensus", there is no way that one has been achieved here. Grace Note 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's all that clear cut - there has been considerably sock puppet usage on both sides here, as well as a fair few o voters voting for dubious reasons. In the end I hope that everyone will just be happy with whatever the 'crats decide and not make a big song and dance over it. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, I can just count the editors I know to be real and it's still a huge opposition. This is not meant to be a vote! If a hundred editors bother opposing something, that should be taken seriously. Grace Note 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's looking like a fairly cleanly fought discussion on both sides, with only one instance of sockpuppetry on the Oppose/Neutral stance and one questionable account on the Support side, thus far. -- Nick  t  01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this "excuse"? Requests for arbitration/Giano held that "Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion." Danny went through an RFA in January 2004 that predates his role with the foundation. His departure was voluntary and non-controversial. He is thus entitled to automatically have his admin bit restored. I really am disappointed with some of the issues raised here in my and other oppose !votes, but the fact is, he is entitled to be re-sysopped. --BigDT 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He also chose to go through RfA again. For whatever reason, I think the 'crats would have a lot of trouble promoting someone who saw how an RfA was going and then said "Nah, just give me the bit back."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, had he not gone through an RFA, seeking endorsement, I would agree with this. Grace Note 01:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say his resigning was controversal but hey thats just me..EnsRedShirt 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I recall, Danny gave up his bit because he was given it as an employee of the Foundation, not as an editor, and wanted it officially. His RfA in 2004 was purely procedural (Can you imagine what would have happened if someone had opposed a man who blocked someone for six months for the crime of adding an external link?). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Danny started working for the foundation in September 2005 . His RFA in January 2004 predates that. --BigDT 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In what way was his resignation of his sysop bit controversial? What abuse of his tools can you point to that triggered such resignation? None. You're conflating two wholly separate issues, that of his employment with the Foundation, and that of his sysophood on en-wiki. -- Cyde Weys 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just let the 'crats do their job folks. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Grace for once. I hope our comments will be helpful to the crats, SqueakBox 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Someone please close this
Could someone just please close this? It's 2:30am and I have to get up in three hours to make a pie. My eye hurt... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Go to sleep :) Seriously, checkusers are still working on this, and I'm sure the bureaucrats are huddling, so it might take a while.  Ral315 » 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, go to sleep. I have a feeling this won't close within the next few hours. – Riana ऋ 01:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A comment to the community and a comment to Danny
Repeating a theme that was struck higher on this page, this is going to be a controversial closing no matter what the bureaucrats (and I do think more than one should be involved) decide. It is obvious that the candidate is extremely knowledgeable, experienced, and dedicated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and at times has had to take actions that even now he is not at liberty to fully explain. It also is obvious that the candidate has become a somewhat divisive figure, to an extent far greater than I would have realized before this RfA began. Both Support and Oppose !votes can and have been cast in good faith and with valid reason on this RfA.

I hope that whatever decision is made, it will be accepted and that we will go forward with working together and writing the content. No one's interests will be served via bitter denunciations, vitriolic protests, or especially by angry departures from editing.

I also would like to say that if the result here is to declare the RfA successful, that Danny should carefully consider the substance of the views that have been expressed by many of the oppose and neutral commenters and even by some supporters. To the extent that admins who have been promoted in the past with lower-than-usual percentages have now blended into the ranks, to a large extent it has been by moderating the behaviors that had previously brought about concern.

As I said in my own support !vote, if this RfA succeeds you will need to readjust yourself to being one of 1000+ admins and not as a uniquely positioned office-person with access to confidential information and the right and sometimes even duty to act unilaterally, peremptorally, and without explanation to those who might question your administrator actions. See generally Requests for arbitration/InShaneee, where the ArbCom wrote that (with the possible exception of OTRS or BLP situations), "administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner." This RfA would have gone more smoothly had you acknowledged this principle several days ago, and your adminship now or in the future will go far more smoothly if you acknowledge it now. Newyorkbrad 01:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As an editor in the other !lobby (after the already-noted flapping and internal running around), I'd like to very much second Brad's sentiments here, especially the content of his second paragraph. It's regretable that some people in both camps seem to be moving into "bitter denunciation" mode, even outside the RFA page itself, and I hope that we can move past that as soon as possible, and ideally step back from it.  Alai 02:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting data about this RfA
I've collected some data: Of the supporters, 177 had more than 5000 edits (70%). Of the opposers, 53 (40%). No interpretation is implied, just something interesting I noticed. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support !voters with less than 250 edits: 5 (or 1/50th of them)
 * Oppose !voters with less that 250 edits: 10 (or 1/12th of them)
 * Finally! Conclusive proof of the Cabal. This is a great day.  A  Train ''talk 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon? If I'm a member of the cabal, I haven't gotten any newsletters or my special pin or anything yet. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's in the mail. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My interpretation is that people who have known Danny personally or who have been here for longer, are more likely to symphatize with Danny than newer people. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It could also be interpreted as a result of Danny's attitude towards newbies, brought up in the RfA. What's the point in speculating what the data's worth-K @ ng <font color = "#EE0000">i <font face = "stop" color = "black">e <font face="courier" color = "brown">meep! 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably true. However people who know Danny better should also be more knowledgeable about his trustworthiness. @Mackensen, mail! That is where all the donations go, into postage! Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering this is essentially a reconfirmation of adminship, I would be interested to see if there is any imbalance of admins on the support or oppose sides. Right now I don;'t have the time to trawl through that lot though. Viridae Talk 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for discrediting so-called "votes" and wannabe "opinions" by anyone with less than 5000 edits. That includes my own bad-faithed immature oppose. Thanks for not(h)ing, Chairboy, and especially for not implying anything. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. What am I being accused of, if you please? - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One of Kncyu38's edit summaries was "no, I really think such an observation is bad faithed". I have to wonder too.  I opposed and have under 5 000 edits last time I checked.  Oh, but no interpretation is implied, just something interesting I noticed.  --Iamunknown 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Too subtle for me, I guess, I still don't follow. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the implication is that your summary implies that only users with over 5000 edits matter. But it wouldn't be a strong argument for you to make, because 177 to 53 is only 76%, not exactly an overwhelming consensus. CMummert · talk 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Chairboy, I'm not accusing you of anything since you didn't mean to imply anything by posting your bean-counting results here, right? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In less subtle words: It may have been wiser not to expressly declare that "no interpretation is impled", when the opposite is self-evident. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it biased? Is there a different query you'd like run? - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 02:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have preferred no query at all. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5,000 seems like a rather high threshold--do we really only want the extremely experienced editors making all decisions? It seems to me that even those with under 250 edits have something to contribute, although their opinions may be given slightly less credit. Ultimately, however, RfA is a discussion not a vote. In a discussion all opinion's are equally valid, and it's the job of the bureaucrat to determine what the discussion concluded. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said that users with <250 contribs didn't have anything to contribute? I just presented some raw data.  I picked 250 based off a sock discussion higher in the page, and 5000 because that's Mediawiki's limit to the # of contributions you can show in one page.  I'd hope that if I were an evil genius of some sort, I could be more clever than using statistics to 'jab' at people, or whatever it is the folks above seem to be implying.  I'd want at least a secret volcano lair or something. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But where do I file a WP:RFCSVL? Obvious acronym seems to be a disappointing redlink.  Alai 02:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to note that 58,9% of people will extrapolate an irrelevant conclusion from this data. I, for one, find that this shows that IRC is evil. Pascal.Tesson 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Actually, based on the people who I know are IRC regulars, the percentage is relatively consistent with the final total. At first glance I mean, I dunno if I'm gonna go through every single nom to see if that's true.-- Wizardman 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey don't think too much about it, it was a random nonsensical joke. Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, alright. Everyone's kinda high-strung right now so I didn't assume good faith, lol.-- Wizardman 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


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

Page protected until bureaucrats figure it out
I've protected this page pending closure, once we bureaucrats figure out which way to close it. As I write this, Prodego and Wizardman were the last two people to edit this page (within seconds of my page protection, so I figure it was accidental). That said, however, no more editing here, please. Raul654 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean you've protected the !voting page, not this page. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He does indeed. Viridae Talk 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. To an administrator: please un-discount Christian Moretensen James Anthony Stewart's comments.  They were not directly implicated by CheckUser, they were hashed out only as "possible sockpuppetry".  This is ridiculous, if we are going to discount any vote by a user with "few or no edits outside of this topic" ... that's not good in my mind.  --Iamunknown 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Iamunknown, isn;'t it kinda a coincidence then that their accounts were just created?-- Wizardman 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The page was not protected when I began editing, no. I could have sworn I signed my comment though, perhaps because I was looking to update the count, and when it wasn't in that section I forgot to sign. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I gave you the unsigned bit. It most definately wasn't signed. I thought that considering it was about to be closed, it wuld be better to give the unsigned rather than notify you and have it closed in the meantime. Viridae Talk 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wizardman, it is a coincidence, nothing more. --Iamunknown 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. And their nearly identical user pages are a coincidence too ;)-- Wizardman 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... did you miss the part where Mackensen, a checkuser, confirmed? — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Er.. a little late there. Sorry, didn't see Mack's response below.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Can this RFA be considered closed? &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Closed (in the sense that there will not be any new supports or opposes) but not yet decided. Raul654 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

They weren't directly implicated by checkuser? Gosh, that's news to me. When I say that they'r the same user, I'm explicitly speaking as a checkuser. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) On both and, they seem pretty obvious sockpuppets to me.  New accounts, few contribs, both made a beeline for RfA/RfB, both filled up some of their contrib list by posting welcome templates to nonexistent user accounts, both have similar userpages, and both are responding to ID queries with, "Gee, I'm just looking around," comments. Shall I post the details to ANI, or is listing the info here, sufficient? --Elonka 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec*N)I'm very much inclined to leave them dented (as it were). If the BCs are still free to take their views into account if they're so inclined.  Alai 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it's not about the numbers, but if JAS and CM were shown to be sockpuppets of each other (but not any other accounts), doesn't one of them count? -- nae'blis 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your tone could be a bit less...mocking, Mackensen. I am not infallible and was merely taken by surprise that admins were making a bee-line for editors that seemed to me, based on my current information, to be only "suspected" sock puppets.  --Iamunknown 02:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was about to strike them too, and you can't accuse Elonka or me of trying to bolster the support side... In any case, there is no evidence of massive sockpuppeteering, and individual votes are by now too marginal to have a major impact on the final tally. ~ trialsanderrors 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. --Iamunknown 02:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and I wasn't implying what you did. I only pointed out that admins in both camps came to the same conclusion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...but I inferred it anyways. Apologies, Iamunknown 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question
Well, if the RfA was closed when it was protected, shouldn't the !vote here be discarded?-<font face = "stop" color = "purple">K <font face = "stop" color = "green">@ <font face = "stop" color = "blue">ng <font color = "#EE0000">i <font face = "stop" color = "black">e <font face="courier" color = "brown">meep! 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Late votes are accepted in rfas until it is closed, as it just was by MessedRocker.-- Wizardman 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they are fine, per my message in the above thread. Raul654 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? If we're still accepting votes, why is the page protected? AmiDaniel (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not still accepting votes. They just happened to edit this page at the very second I protected it, so I'm inclined to give them (Prodego and Wizardman) the benefit of the doubt. Raul654 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand. Thanks :) AmiDaniel (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And my edit was actually just to change the # to reflect Prodego's vote.-- Wizardman 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are an admin and you click edit before the page is protected, then it is protected, and you hit save, the edit will occur after the page is protected, but you don't get any warning of this. I would call it a bug. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having recentlymyself gotten into temporary hot water by inadvertently editing a high-profile, just-that-minute-protected page (the Essjay RfC), I can confirm what HighInBC says and his conclusion. Newyorkbrad 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As unfond as I am of edit conflicts, I'd have to agree that this would logically be flagged as such. (Don't ask me whether that'd make sense in terms of the internal logic, my PHP is worse than my Python, which is saying something.)  Though let's be kind to the devs and call it an "unexpected feature".  Alai 03:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some comments
This RFA is numerically in the questionable zone, the area in which a bureaucrat is expected to exercise his discretion. I have read the entire dialogue, with a slight prejudice against promoting because the percentage is on the low end. I have, however, not given undue attention to this fact; Dmcdevit and others have drawn attention to possible sockpuppetry, so the numbers may not be quite as they seem.

His supporters cite a particular few qualities in his favor, but my concern has been primarily with the objections, as there is no risk to the project in not promoting him. The opposers give more various justifications. Those most frequently mentioned are his brusque attitude to questions, history of newbie-biting, and aggressive deletion habits, but other editors have objected on the grounds that: the resignation of adminship last month shows a lack of devotion; he has not explained his reasons for resigning from his Foundation positions; Cyde nominated him; his actions as a bureaucrat have been questionable; many trustworthy users have opposed him; WP:OFFICE is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and Danny's role in its implementation reflects a similar attitude. These latter few rationales (after the colon) I find irrelevant to the matter at hand: whether he should be trusted with the powers of an administrator.

The nearness of the count coupled with the slight bias in Danny's favor discovered by sockpuppet checks leave the matter numerically indeterminate. On consideration of the rationales for supporting and opposing, I and the several bureaucrats with whom I have conferred (see Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat) believe it is in the project's interest to promote Danny. I have not exceeded the role which the community has defined for a bureaucrat: I have done no more than my job. I trust that even those who disagree with my decision will respect that fact.

I further hope it is quite clear that I am not myself judging the candidate (my own experience with him is miniscule; I have seen neither his great successes nor his great failures, as presented by supporters and opposers) but rather making sense of the community's judgment of the candidate. I have read all arguments presented, regardless of the source. My decision was informed by the numbers only insofar as the numbers have told me that the community has no clear opinion on this issue. I hope everyone has a lovely evening. &mdash; Dan | talk 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole thing finally ended, and I'm glad he's now promoted. This incident has much resemblance with Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination, which also ended in success. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is still discussion ongoing at Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat. CMummert · talk 03:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The rush to close this while discussion was still occurring on that sub-page is another red flag. Force10 03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's to over-dramatise things. Looks to me like a good-faith miscommunication on the matter of the on-going discussion (if even truly "mis-").  Bear in mind that any of the BCs could have closed it to their personal liking without any prior discussion, so personally I applaud the fact that there was the discussion in the first place.  Alai 04:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems to have ended and all who commented there have, at least implicitly, supported the decision. CMummert · talk 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, now that's a low blow. Danny isn't nearly as bad as Samuel Alito.  -- Cyde Weys  03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify somthing, please? You state "...rather making sense of the community's judgment of the candidate. I have read all arguments presented, regardless of the source. My decision was informed by the numbers only insofar as the numbers have told me that the community has no clear opinion on this issue."  If the community has no clear opinion on this issue, isn't that the same as "no consensus" which in turn is the same as "keep the status quo and try again later"? Force10 03:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I find that rather confusing too-<font face = "stop" color = "purple">K <font face = "stop" color = "green">@ <font face = "stop" color = "blue">ng <font color = "#EE0000">i <font face = "stop" color = "black">e <font face="courier" color = "brown">meep! 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe all he was saying is that the raw numbers didn't answer it. Then you have to shift to the substance. Also Kangie, do you mind shortening your signature? It makes talk pages easier to read. - Taxman Talk 04:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (inevitable fivefold ec)I don't want this to be construed as in any way critical of the above, since it's very much been done in the manner I'd hope (consultation, and looking at whether individual opinions gel with the general thrust of the will of the community in the large), and of course I'd stand by what I said above in agreement with NYB that we should all accept the outcome with as good grace as possible, whatever it is. But I do have an observation about the comment that the "concern has been primarily with the objections, as there is no risk to the project in not promoting him".  That's somewhat conflicted, since of course if one only looks at the opposes, with a view to "counting" or "not counting" those, but takes the supports as being a given, one is inevitably only ever going to "move" things towards promotion, which isn't really consistent with any presumption of non-promotion.  But yes, that's of course what the "supermajority" aspect if for, and it's in many way a natural thing to do, since it's going to be inherently hard to distinguish between "routine, nom says it all, no big deal" support, and "unconvincing" support, so I offer this only as a meta-observation.  Alai 03:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the reason why I oppose Mackensen's "reform" proposal. The undue scrutiny of one camp's arguments skews a process that is already skewed even further. Sorry, but as long as there is enough participation, vote count tends to be a less biased predicitor than human analysis. I also found the equation of "lower contribution count" = "more sockpuppet risk" uncaled for. ~ trialsanderrors 04:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion, this was closed rather professionally (definitely much better than Danny's own promotions, heh :) I wish Rdsmith4 didn't just vote and promote, and that he didn't rush to close this while bureaucrats were still discussing, but I guess there's only so much one can hope for. My general impression of how properly Wikipedia follows due process is that things are improving (at least over the last 2.5 years I was able to follow). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy on the damning with faint praise, there. :) OK, those aspects aren't ideal, but they don't appear to have changed the outcome, as far as can be told.  I give all involved a solid "B", with a view to the next round of BC confirmation electi-- oh, wait...  Alai 04:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that nobody will be too mad immediately, considering that he could have just not done an RfA. I expect a reactionary Arbcom case within 6 months, when Danny does something controversial that would get anyone else no more than a polite comment on their talkpage, but that's better than something now... -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable
Danny received 68% support, below the accepted 70% minimum. Why are we making an exception for Danny? Personally, I am all in favor of lowering the minimum a bit, but only if it's applied to all editors. Danny's experience is no justification for the exception; his experience includes a great deal of misuse of admin tools and the consistent display of an attitude that's very unbecoming of an administrator. His voluntary submission to a vote is no justification: does that gesture mean that his RfA should not be conducted with the same standards as we would normally apply? Why should any of us waste our time in a rubber stamp process? It seems very clear to me that the community made one decision here, and the bureaucrats made a different one. Everyking 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nearly everyone agrees that a sysop, by the nature of having admin tools, will gain enemies. Thus, anyone who was once a sysop and voluntarily resigned should be given more weight towards adminship, firstly because they did well enough to not get into serious trouble, and secondly because it's a certainty they will have less support than they would were they never an admin. -Amarkov moo! 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Count me as one of the supposedly tiny minority that disagrees. Making enemies all over the place due to the use of admin tools is only a sign that you're doing a poor job as an admin. It is, in any case, insulting to oppose voters to say that they voted against Danny because they are his enemies. It is my impression that people voted against Danny mainly because of his long record of extreme harshness and overreaction: you don't have to be his enemy to see that he did some very bad and irresponsible things. Everyking 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... hi... I voted against him too. The point is not that any of the opposition reasons are invalid, just that they would be made of almost anyone, if we had complete information on how they will act as an admin. -Amarkov moo! 05:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was fortunate that we knew in advance this time how he would act as an admin. Would "almost anyone" have such a record of misusing the tools? In fact there are very few admins who ever go to the kinds of extremes that were routine for Danny. This is what all that passionate opposition was about. Danny didn't behave as an ordinary administrator. Everyking 06:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I don't know if you're qualified to speak on misuse of administrator tools. You were desysopped by ArbCom, whereas Danny wasn't.  -- Cyde Weys  12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant and ad hominem. If anything, a desysoped administrator is more qualified to speak about abuse of power than the general populace. -- nae'blis 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the bureaucrat discussion. This decision was not made on the strength of one crat determining consensus, but with discussion among a good handfull of them. Congratulations on being the first person to complain on a purely numerical basis, totally missing the point of an RfA. Viridae Talk 05:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the discussion. Notice my use of the plural in my initial comment. Everyking 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The bureaucrats discussed this transparently here. I particularly recommend that everyone read Redux's long comment. Two quotes from that page cut to the heart of the issue, the first is from Redux:
 * "I'm not about to disregard anyone's input because I don't agree with them, but it is also our job not to allow unrelated grudges, personal dislikes and the like to interfere with what is really the purpose of a RfA. And those cases are there, and it's not just one or two of them — Dan has just exposed them."
 * And the second is from Taxman:
 * "After Warofdreams last comments, what it left us at was the only people that wouldn't have called it a promotion ourselves stated that we would support the decision to promote. That's as close as you can get to full consensus in my book. Not everyone has to state they would have made the same decision, but if everyone can support the outcome, that's as good as it gets."
 * --bainer (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have said, "very frustrating" rather than "totally unacceptable" but, yeah. I'm afraid I don't see much difference between disregarding someone's input because you don't agree with them and "not to allow[ing] unrelated grudges, personal dislikes and the like to interfere"? 6 of one, half dozen the other.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that it's far from clear whether the community made a decision, or whether it didn't, therefore it's considerably overstating things to say that the BCs clearly "made a different one". At least in this case there was some attempt at analysis of the nature of the opposition, as opposed to the BC corps simply making some separate decision based on their own opinions.  Mind you, I think they might have done at least some analysis of the supports (remember the "don't count me if it's 70%" from me ol' mucka CHL?).  Alai 06:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This RfA should have been successful even it is below 68% because of its special nature. Danny has been opposed here because of his office actions, which I would say this kind of opposition is not all valid because even if Danny is promoted (which he is), he will still not have that power to do office actions like before. Those who disagree with office actions by him should definitely oppose his election to the board, not in his RFA, because an admin doesn't do office actions. WooyiTalk, Editor review 06:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the bureaucrats found a good way to make a decision. I agree with Everyking that this should not be an exception, and hope that future RfAs of less well-known people are treated with the same extra scrutiny if they happen to fall into the grey area (which the bureaucrats also seem to be expanding). I think the opposition showed that there was no consensus to promote Danny, but it isn't possible to reach consensus in a discussion with 300+ participants anyway. In discussions that won't ever reach consensus, it is sometimes better not to use the default result, and the bureaucrats decided that here. Kusma (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly disagree. Other admins have received close to 300 votes of support with virtually no opposition. // Internet Esquire 06:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of those were not discussions, but pile-on record voting. Kusma (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could not the same thing be said of the votes supporting Danny's RfA? The bottom line is that Danny's RfA was the most well-attended and contentious RfA Wikipedia has ever had, and the clear result was that there was no consensus to promote, but this didn't stop the 'crats from acting independently and promoting Danny.  So why bother having the RfA in the first place? // Internet Esquire 08:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure they are. My vote (pure vote, no rationale) was not a part of the discussion (which took place mostly in the oppose vote section; the RfA format is not very suited to discussion of support votes anyway). The crats were bending the rules a little, but the rules were made years ago when there was no RfA with more than 50 participants, and when adminship was not a big deal. It is time to change the rules, and that the crats have been recently promoting high-profile cases well below the old threshold that people used to judge when a supermajority magically becomes consensus shows that the rules are perhaps really changing now. Changing rules are normal on Wikis, blind adherence to old process is not. Kusma (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The part of the discussion that concerns me most is this comment by Redux:


 * "All that said, I must say that despite what the bots are showing, the actual support ratio, taking everything I mentioned into account, is probably closer to somewhere between 74% and 76%. That doesn't mean we should necessarily promote though. There is substantial valid opposition, and the sheer number of opposers is remarkable. However at the moment I'm also inclined to promote."

He's saying that even after taking into account all the arguments for dismissing !votes, the amount of support is still right at the bottom of the usual "crat discretion" range, so let's promote anyway. I don't follow the reasoning at all. I would have been happy to accept a promotion if it was accompanied by a valid reasoning, but the reasoning I've seen here makes no sense at all. I don't even understand what was wrong with many of the oppose reasons that were listed as being irrelevant (The WP:OFFICE opposes are the only ones I would have dismissed). --Tango 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just let the 'crats decide in the future?
I'm totally confused as to how and why the bureaucrats made the call they did in re Danny. After closing the RFA and having their own private discussion wherein they determined that there was no consensus among the unwashed masses to promote Danny, they promoted him anyway, not unlike the way the United States Supreme Court decided the 2000 presidential election. Why not just skip all the contentious RfAs and let the 'crats decide for themselves who gets the mop? // Internet Esquire 06:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't think that hasn't been suggested before (in earnest). Alai 06:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Did anyone submit WP:RFA for deletion in the past when such suggestions were in the air? --Irpen 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone did that I would close it as soon as I saw it as an extreme violation of WP:POINT. There are some things within the project space that we can delete or historify without serious issues occuring, but WP:RFA isn't one of them. To nominate it for deletion without having an alterntive in place is foolhardy, especially because, as previous discussions have shown, the community has a hard time making it smind up on such issues as RfA reform. Viridae Talk 06:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Firstly it was a private discussion because it is firstly their job, and their job only to decide if there is consensus for promotion and secondly because the community had had a chance to have its say the bureaucrats needed somewhere where they could openly discuss the issue without interference from everyone else. They have outlined a clear reason as to why they have promoted him there, and have stated categorically it has nothing to do with raw percentages (which, if RfA is to run correctly, it shouldn't). They also stated that they have discounted certain votes because they either have nothing to do with Danny as an admin - or even nothing to do with danny at all (ie I don't like WP:OFFICE, its against the spirit of wiki - issues that are beyond argument and vote as stated in meta, board issues) they also stated that they have taken into account votes from people with grudges because they, once again, have no bearing on danny as an admin. Finnally I belive they have taken into account that every admin will make enemies doing admin actions. Not everyone likes what you do as an admin, as every admin knows and danny having been OFFICE/WMF tsaff is more likely to come across situations like that. But of course, you know all that because you have read the discussion page. Viridae Talk 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC}


 * It's always amazed me how two people can witness the same event and come away with two completely different accounts of what happened. In this particular instance, it was pretty clear to me that the 'crats decided that there was no consensus to promote, and that they then decided to act independently, marginalizing and ignoring the well over 100 people who voted in opposition to Danny's RfA.  While I remain "strongly neutral" on whether this particular promotion was justified, it still seems pretty clear to me that those who opposed Danny's promotion had (and have) legitimate gripes that have yet to be addressed. // Internet Esquire 07:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly what a RfA is, is not uniformly agreed with among WP users. What it is, is not a vote, and not a popularity contest (though elements of unpopularity contests do come into play).  It's not exactly the consensus game listed on its own description page, either.  We elect the Burecrats to have and use judgement.  Georgewilliamherbert 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No person whose RfA is not only the most opposed RfA ever, but also breaks WP:100 for the first time in the number of opposes, should be promoted, regardless of who they are. You say that the crats should have discounted various rationales - should they have discounted the lengthy and numerous accusations of tool abuse, accompanied by diffs? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I supported Danny and I believe the project is better off with him as an admin. Yet, as I said earlier, there's simply no way that this chaotic RfA can be interpreted as a consensus to promote, no matter how inconvenient and sad we might find that state of affairs. It's a poor decision on the part of the bureaucrats and a rash one: a one-hour long chit chat is simply not enough to make an enlightened decision and it is quite clear that the discussion is mostly trying to find a way to justify the desired outcome. Clearly I'm ok with Danny being an admin but the cost being paid is way too high: the trust editors have in the b'crats has been hit and the community can't be so confident that consensus is truly respected when the top of the pyramid finds it inconvenient. I strongly encourage Danny to prove his critics wrong and to re-run for adminship in a few months (yes, I'm that crazy). Pascal.Tesson 11:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As one who remains "strongly neutral" about Danny's RfA, I echo these sentiments. It concerns me greatly that the 'crats went out of their way to find a rationale for promoting Danny.  In the end, it was their decision and theirs alone, and the RfA was simply a facade. // Internet Esquire 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did we go through this process?
Why even have RfAs? Just put up nominations and let the bureaucrats do whatever the hell they want. Corvus cornix 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you being sincere, or sarcastic? If you are sincere then I disagree, if you are being sarcastic, please be sincere, it is easier to understand. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to know why the community should be involved, if their opinions are going to be ignored based solely on the popularity of the individual involved. Corvus cornix 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Solely" is a bit of an exaggeration. It was the second most supported nomination of all time, after all. It wasn't arbitrary. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And the most opposed of all time, as well. Corvus cornix 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To say that the 'crats did not take the community input into account is a plain falsehood, they used the community input as the basis for their decision as you can see in their discussions. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To say that the 'crats used the community input as the basis for their decision is a falsehood. They clearly concluded that their was no consensus to promote, and then they exercised their own independent judgment.  In the process, legitimate gripes were marginalized and/or ignored.  Meanwhile, pile on votes in opposition were discounted while pile on votes in support were not.  In other words, this RfA demonstrates in no uncertain terms that RfAs are nothing more than a dog and pony show, and that 'crats can pretty much do whatever they want in deciding who gets the mop. // Internet Esquire 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're devolving to the point of conspiracy theory pretty quickly here, Netesq. The 'crats quite clearly read the entire RFA to gather what the community consensus was. It's never been about the numbers only. -- nae'blis 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And you're devolving to cheap shots even more quickly. The initial impression of the 'crats, in their own words, was that there was no consensus to promote.  Rather than acting on that lack of consensus, they rationalized a decision that was in opposition to it.  Some people clearly don't have a problem with that.  To wit, as noted by other commentators here, the idea that 'crats *SHOULD* exercise their own independent judgment enjoys a significant amount of support.  As one who remains "strongly neutral" on the issue of Danny's RfA, I respectfully disagree, but I see no reason for calling a spade a shovel when its clearly a spade. // Internet Esquire


 * Too late. -- ReyBrujo 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Better, merging the discussions. -- ReyBrujo 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynamics
Just something I noticed and mentioned earlier. At the time Danny answered question #20, the tally was 195/54 (or 78% support). After that, the split was 61/64, less than 50%. Draw your own conclusions. ~ trialsanderrors 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to worry. The 'crats were able to exercise their own independent judgment rather than worry about something trivial like a lack of consensus. // Internet Esquire 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny and trust
I note this comment in the bureaucrat discussion:

"I don't think even Danny's worst critic would allege he is not trustworthy (I didn't see any of that in the RFA). - Raul654"

That's not what I see. Let's look at the RFA:


 * "I can't see how we can trust him to be an administrator" - RockMFR
 * "Oppose; has used power irresponsibly too often to be trusted with it again." - Everyking
 * "A second, independent reason to oppose is trust." - Jreferee
 * "I do not trust this user to follow or enforce WP policy as understood by the community." - Meersan
 * "I no longer trust him to do the right thing, and make a net improvement to the project with the tools" - badlydrawnjeff
 * "recent developments have made me question how trustworthy I may have perceived him to be"
 * "I cannot trust him to use the admin tools fairly and reasonably" - Αργυριου
 * "Danny's attitude ... leaves me unable to trust him with admin tools" - A Train

Anyway, kudos on holding an open discussion. I think you made the wrong decision for very unconvincing reasons but at least the decision-making is out there in the open where it can be criticized. Haukur 08:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Raul's point was that having been trusted with WP:OFFICE as well as fundraising for the WMF, he has certainly proved himself trustworthy. Wether you believe he will use the tools appropriately or not, does anyone really believe he will actually, intentionally, abuse them? Viridae Talk 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think he would intentionally abuse the tools, but that's setting the bar very low. Yes, he was hired to do a job and he did that job&mdash;that's how the rest of us work too&mdash;but that's really not the point. In fact we were repeatedly told by his supporters that we should not consider his actions in that job. Haukur 09:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It didn't stop the Opposing camp from using his job as a stick to beat him with. Put simply, his job showed he could be trusted, he resignation and what he did in the job didn't show he couldn't be trusted. -- Nick  <sup style="color:blue;">t  09:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was in the opposing camp, and I did not beat Danny with any WP:OFFICE stick. I acknowledged that WP:OFFICE issues could be difficult, but that I had concerns about his actions beyond WP:OFFICE. I think that saying that that the opposing camp beat him up over WP:OFFICE is wrong. The truth is that a few of the opposers did so. It is not so for the majority of them. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that any WP:OFFICE actions should be off-limits for criticism, as it is by design difficult or impossible to discern their rationale. It appeared that the bureaucrats concurred with me on this point.  However, I felt that there were a number of important issues raised (especially WP:BITE issues) which were only based on his actions as an administrator. JavaTenor 09:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If his job showed that he could be trusted by the Foundation, that doesn't mean he could be trusted by the community. We don't have a say in who the Foundation chooses to hire. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, very frankly, all of those people who said they could not trust Danny are simply wrong. I don't know where the hell they've been these past years, but there's nobody we can trust more than Danny.  -- Cyde Weys  12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And you're entitled to your opinion. That doesn't change the fact that others don't have that same trust in Danny. Everyone who disagrees with your opinion isn't "wrong" and it's rather unhelpful to make comments like "I don't know where the hell they've been these past years...". Danny has misused and even verged on abusing admin tools in the past and that's a valid reason to oppose his readminship (To clarify, I'm not referring to anything remotely related to OFFICE actions). ChazBeckett 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I'm wrong. I've been here, same place you have, and his use of the tools simply does not demonstrate trust in that area.  We have enough poor admins we can't trust, and we just got back another. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no valid judgment on his use of the tools. Nearly everything you're complaining about was required per WMF's council, and by its very nature, couldn't be explained in public.  Those of us actually in the know, in the backroom IRC channels and such, saw a completely different side of how these things unfolded.  -- Cyde Weys  12:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, this star chamber rationale offers me little comfort. I say this as someone who remains "strongly neutral" in re Danny's RfA.  Simply put, I do not trust those "in the know" at Wikipedia to exercise their own independent judgment, as they have clearly demonstrated by their words and their actions that they will marginalize the valid concerns of others and overrule any consensus brought forth by open discussion, or lack thereof.  This high profile and highly contentious RfA has probably both humbled and hobbled Danny, but he is clearly a "vested contributor" who receives special consideration from the powers that be. // Internet Esquire 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish that you wouldn't make that argument. This is not a spy agency, and "backroom" information has no place at RFA. Editors must be judged on their public edits and public comments. CMummert · talk 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no valid determination on what I'm judging the use of his tools on, based on that answer. Guess what - you don't know better than a lot of us, as much as you may think you do.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of Haukur's assessment, and it is similar to what I posted on WT:RFA and have moved here:

I am very disappointed at how the Danny RFA was closed, and not just because I opposed. Can somebody answer me these questions:
 * Why is it acceptable for a bureaucrat who supported the RFA to participate in the discussion? I would think it were patently obvious that someone supporting an RFA should be utterly recused from participating in the closing process.
 * What was the bureaucrat's final tally after casting aside irrelevant !votes (e.g. "I don't like WP:OFFICE.")?
 * Did Danny receive special treatment with a lower threshold due to the fact that he voluntarily relenquished his adminship?
 * I am aware that giving up adminship in non-controversial circumstances allows entitles you to ask for the sysop bit to be returned without another RFA process. Does it entitle you to pass an RFA if you do choose that path?
 * Is the standard for promotion rough consensus in the community, or consensus among bureaucrats advised by the community?
 * Among the support !votes we find the reason "if this one fails, it's proof that RFA is so broken it will need to be abolished immmediately". Was the support with this rationale counted?
 * On the bureaucrat discussion page, Raul654 writes: "I don't think even Danny's worst critic would allege he is not trustworthy (I didn't see any of that in the RFA)". When I read over the oppose section I see:
 * Lack of trust over Danny's previous handling of the delete button. (Actions over Israel news agency, and a number of other speedy deletions if you look at Elonka's oppose)
 * Lack of trust over Danny's ability to treat newcomers with respect.
 * Lack of trust over Danny's use of the block button (for example concerns were expressed over overly quick use of the block button without warning for adding what may have been an inappropriate external link.)
 * Lack of trust over Danny's willingness to communicate and explain his admin actions.
 * Lack of trust over Danny's respect to the community when given admin tools.
 * How can one say that there were no allegations of lack of trustworthiness?


 * I think Kappa should have passed his RFA two years ago, and I found the many of the reasons given to oppose (too inclusionist) as irrelevant to adminship. Would the bureaucrats' deceision be to promote if Kappa ran for RFA today and got the same support percentage, and same rationales as he did then?

Regarding the adminship and RFA itself, i am not too disturbed by Danny getting back the admin tools par se. (After all, having resigned them as an admin in good standing he was entitled to have them back upon request without an RFA dicussion at all.)

However, I do feel that there among several supporters was a feeling that Danny was not only entitled to get back his adminship, but that he was also entitled to pass the RFA, and moreover, to pass the RFA with acclamation. Perhaps that is why it shocked somebody so much when I made an early oppose that they could write that my "ignorance was sticking out the back of my pants. Hope that helps. Have a nice day", and that I needed to read the WP:AGF policy because I had clearly forgotten it.

Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have apologised for expressing myself badly, but you have obviously forgotten what it was you actually said. It was the WP:OFFICE policy which you brought into question, and your reference to it made it quite clear that you had totally misunderstood the point thereof: "I am deleting this, I have reasons for this which you don't know of, please trust me" is a basic paraphrase of what an "office action" is about. Criticising Danny for undertaking "office actions" under instruction from those who were perfectly entitled to instruct him so to do is hardly fair or just. As for "HTH HAND", maybe my attempts to be pleasant to people fail dismally, but at least I actually try. —Phil | Talk 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your accusation: "It was the WP:OFFICE policy which you brought into question" is wrong, wrong and wrong. I was refering to Danny using the "trust me" attitude on matters which were not OFFICE. I found it so ironic that you were accusing me of ignorance. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to echo Haukur and Sjakkalle's opinion that the logic behind the close was extremely questionable. It seems like they were going out of their way to disregard the opinions of the people who were against promotion, for reasons of their own. I don't want to shout "Cabal" in a crowded theater, but at the same time, when there was this line-by-line parsing of !votes, why did no one address the large number of "support" opinions who offered no rationale at all, beyond a bolded word and a sig? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the comments fully, you will see it has been adressed. You will also see that this isn't an uncommon occurance on RfAs where, because the noms are supported by a nomination statement and answers to pre-set questions it can be assumed that they are supporting them for per the nomination. Oppose votes are expected to back their opposition with a staement of reasoning for various reasonns. It gives the candidate valuable feedback (which in this case Danny has said he will take on board), it raises points that may not have been seen by the supporters and it shows that since adminship is No Big Deal (tm) they have a strong reason for opposing, considering the default position is promotion. (also avoids IDONTLIKEIT arguments) Viridae Talk 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Get a bunch of people to comment on something and someone will say something stupid. In any RFA a percentage of the votes will be silly or weak. There's nothing unusual about Danny's RFA in this respect except that there are more votes of all types. In any RFA running at 60-70% support you could pick out some of the oppose votes as weak and discount them. If bureaucrats did this all the time that would probably be fine. The point is that they don't, they routinely fail RFAs in that range. Haukur 12:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first RFA I've seen, Viridae, but you must admit that it's curious to disregard the opinions of people who disapprove of his candidacy for well-stated and concrete reasons, while counting those of people whose 'argument' contained nothing of substance: "Of course" (Jkelly), "But of course" (Picaroon), "Very much" (Rdsmith4), "Absolutely" (Khoikhoi), "as self" (Bastique), "Duh" (Danntm), "Definitely" (Joanneb), "of course" (Rory096), "No reason not to" (Winhunter), "obviously..." (Yonatan), etc. Try taking that to basically any other "discussion" area here on WP (like an xFD) and see how far it flies. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan's conduct

 * 01:45, 3 April 2007 Dan supports Danny for adminship
 * 03:17, 10 April 2007 Dan sysops Danny
 * 03:40, 10 April 2007 Dan says: "none of the other bureaucrats is truly more disinterested than I in this matter"

During his RFB Dan stated "The community has decided that 80% is the magic proportion of support votes, and I will abide by this decision, using, as always, a bureaucrat's discretion with regard to sockpuppet or otherwise questionable voters." On contentious nominations he further added: "My standards for all nominations, contentious or otherwise, are the same."

Voting in an RFA means you are not disinterested. Promoting at 68% support after discounting sockpuppets is not congruent with Dan's RFB statements. It only makes sense if you extend "questionable voters" far beyond what anyone reading it at the time could have reasonably thought it meant. I think Dan's conduct in this affair is poor and that he has broken the pledges he gave at his RFB. Haukur 11:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like some editors thought they were electing a robot. Wikipedia got a thinker instead. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, it's you who keep treating the people who vote at RFA as some sort of weird robots who generate random numbers. The support ratio a candidate has indicates the aggregate of the human judgment of dozens of people. In this case, hundreds of people. Haukur 15:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We got some bureaucrats who "overlooked" the concerns over Danny's trustworthiness, and wrote that such concerns were not made on the RFA. I really don't think the closure was well thought through. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think any editor here would seriously challenge Danny's trustworthiness. His commitment to the project, and his long, long record of excellent service, are not in doubt.  --Tony Sidaway 13:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Many editors did question his trustworthiness; did you not look at the RFA, or are you saying they weren't serious? I have seen this claim several times now, but I don't see how that many comments at the RFA can be completely ignored. I'm not saying the beaurocrats weren't free to ignore the comments, but it doesn't make sense to speak as if there was no serious opposition at all. CMummert · talk 13:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it needs to be said that, throughout the entire adminship bid, there was not one serious challenge to Danny's trustworthiness. --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, I was serious when I challenged Danny's trustworthiness with his tools, based on his past usage of them. I believe that you feel that there were no challenges to Danny's trustworthiness which you agreed with. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you weren't really bothering to read people's opposition. There's no other way to view it with this kind of glib defiance of what people are telling you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, the only way your statement can be correct is for you to define "serious challenge" as "challenge I agree with". ChazBeckett 14:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are of course free to ignore all those who did raise issues, but that doesn't mean that the issues were not raised. CMummert · talk 13:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC


 * No, I'm saying precisely what I said above. Your own objections for instance  seem to be more about your personal philosophical opposition to bold actions (which you call "unilateral") by administrators.  You also raised some matters related to your opposition to certain bureaucrat actions, but such opposition was explicitly discounted by consensus of the bureaucrats in their closing statement. Your opposition spoke much about your personal approach to adminship, but did not address the question of Danny's trustworthiness in any way. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, his comment directly addresses the question of Danny's trustworthiness - Cmummert simply does not trust Danny to abide by consensus in non-office-related controversial matters. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While that is an accurate summary of my opinion, the link Tony provided was actually to Sjakkalle's comment. It's not necessary to add the sentence "Therefore I don't trust this user" to every oppose comment - it's implicit. CMummert · talk 14:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My response was to sjakkalle--apologies for misplacing it. On CMummert's opposition, again he seems to cite other opposers who expressed largely philosophical differences with Danny's approach to adminship.  It's a broad church and we don't all agree with what makes a good administrator or when an action respects consensus (viz: this very discussion!) but really what you're saying is "this person's approach to adminship is so different that I don't trust him to make decisions I would personally agree with."  That's a lot different from the substantive question of whether, having set your philosophical differences aside, the candidate can be trusted.  Remembering that Danny has held the position of utmost trust for more than a year and served well, it would take a lot more than "I don't trust this guy to act the way I would have done". --Tony Sidaway 14:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We explicitly aren't allowed to remember his work in "the position of utmost trust", Tony. Didn't you read the Bureaucrats' statement? Or maybe we're only prohibited from remembering it if our opinion was negative. It's so hard to keep the line straight... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the bureaucrats' statement. Please read it again.  You appear to have misunderstood it. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, I understand that you'd prefer for this to just all go away, but did you even read this part of the statement? In Redux's analysis, he is explicitly throwing out !votes from users who were "judging [Danny] for exercising discretion in a position completely different then the one he is nominated to". And then, of course, you've got Dan's statement: "...editors have objected on the grounds that: the resignation of adminship last month shows a lack of devotion; he has not explained his reasons for resigning from his Foundation positions; Cyde nominated him; his actions as a bureaucrat have been questionable; many trustworthy users have opposed him; WP:OFFICE is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and Danny's role in its implementation reflects a similar attitude. These latter few rationales (after the colon) I find irrelevant to the matter at hand: whether he should be trusted with the powers of an administrator." Maybe YOU ought to re-read it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (reducing indent quite a lot)
 * Hi, Bull (sorry I don't know how else to address you, not trying to be funny).
 * Firstly, no obviously I don't want this to go away. I've been advocating bureaucrat discretion for over eighteen months now and here we have a corps of bureaucrats willing to say (1) there was no consensus but (2) they've promoted anyway, by a consensus within themselves.  Wikipedia wins.
 * Yes, I've read Redux's analysis. I'm not sure what your point is here.
 * Yes, I've read Dan's statement, too. I'm not sure what your point is here.
 * Could you elaborate on these two points, please? I'm really not sure what relevance this has to my statements. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can call me whatever you want. Bull is fine, if that's what floats your boat. As for the post, I was attempting to call attention to the irony of you citing Danny's record as a Foundation employee as evidence that he's reliable and trustworthy, when at least two of the 'crats who actively participated in the close stated that people weren't allowed to use any aspect of his performance as a Foundation employee as a reason to oppose the nomination. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, please read what's being said. This has nothing to do with his approach to adminship, which differs no matter what. When you can point to A, B, and C as absolutely 100% improper and wrong, it's a trust issue, period. You don't buck consensus. You don't make long-term blocks like he did. If you can't trust someone to do the right thing, you don't trust them. It's not a matter of approach, it's a matter of action. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read CMummert's oppose, yours and Sjakkalle. I see nothing there that calls into question his trustworthiness. I do see quite a lot to explain why you, CMummert and Sjakkalle wouldnt' trust him to do what you would have wanted him to do.  There is a very, very important distinction there.  If you think there is no distinction, then it follows that you think the bureaucrats made a very bad call and promoted a person unworthy of trust.  In which case I can only advise that you take it to the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I may in fact take it to the ArbCom if need be. I do think the bureaucrats made a poor call, especially based on how they decided to judge the consensus by deliberately ignoring a major facet of many arguments.  You can't see the questions of trustworthiness?  Then I'm glad you're not a 'crat, because it has to be a conscious decision you're making to ignore the clarity involved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't. It was indisputably a difficult, borderline case. I doubt a dozen arbitrators would make that different a decision than half a dozen bureaucrats. Also note that many arbitrators argued in Danny's favor at the RfA, so what do you expect them to do at the arbitration? Someone had to be unhappy here whichever way it closed. Let's see what happens; I'm sure there are now at least 100 users that will be looking at Danny's actions. Maybe it will turn out all right. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I may. It doesn't mean I will or have to - I could have immediately following the close if I were that offended by it, but we can see where the discussion pans out first.  But sealing that off as "not an option" is, well, not an option. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So it seems to boil down to this: Jimbo trusts him, the bureaucrats trust him, hundreds of Wikipedians trust him. You don't trust him so you want to do something about it, but you can't because (oops!) the arbitrators also trust him.  This really demonstrates just how strong a case you'd have to have against Danny. --Tony Sidaway 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, I understand you're trying to help, but I should think it's fairly clear that you're doing anything but that. Your participation here has done nothing but add heat. Please just contribute to something else. - Taxman Talk 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to echo that statement. Tony, Jeff, I think you're both about as diametrically opposed in your view points as you can be right now, and I think continuing this thread of discussion is only serving to make more heat than light, if not for each other, than for the community present.  --InkSplotch 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yawn. It's either make sure the facts are presented, or continue to let falsehoods go unchecked.  I'll take the former, thanks - to continue to see the same falsehoods trotted out doesn't benefit the community or the discussion at hand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Similarly, many opposers noted a series of questionable long-term blocks which didn't appear supported by blocking policy and also seemed to be instances of biting the newcomers. Even if not stated explicitly, that appears to imply a lack of trust in his usage of the block tool. JavaTenor 14:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure opposes based on real issues were counted, they just did not have enough numbers once the others were discounted. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If your going to try and hold Dan to his RfB statement, then perhaps I could do the same with your RfA statement

"I'd like to be able to speedy delete pages when doing RC-patrol. I'd also like to be able to move pages to locations with edit histories to sort out redirect jungles (of course discussing anything controversial before moving). A rollback button would be really nice since I monitor a bunch of pages for vandalism. If the community trusts me with adminship I would also do my share of work in clearing out backlogs in copyright violations, requested moves etc. I don't think I'll use the blocking option for a while. I feel I'd need more experience first and I don't want to block anyone unless I'm absolutely sure I know what I'm doing."

- Haukurth


 * I have to say, strictly no offence intended and strictly playing devils advocate - your not doing much of what you promised either, fortunately, I realise that doesn't make you a bad admin or contributor and I wouldn't normally even think of bringing something like this up, but if your going to raise such questions about the bureaucrat, it's only fair we look at your RfA and record since. -- Nick  <sup style="color:blue;">t  13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I still feel comfortable with my statement above, I think I've done all of the things I said I would. I've not been very active as an admin for the last few months, if that's what you mean - my last burst of great activity was in September-October 2006. I'm happy that you'll hold me to my statement. If there's some particular admin work you'd like me to help you with now then I'll gladly have a go. Haukur 13:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this show anything other than campaign promises during RfAs/RfBs are generally unreliable and therefore a stupid thing to ask for? Kusma (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The larger issue here isn't the RfB statement, though that's certainly interesting and illustritive. The larger issue is that Dan chose to participate in the closure of a discussion in which he was plainly involved, while claiming that he wasn't involved, even though another 'crat had already noted the ethical impropriety of involved parties participating in the close. Again, ask yourself: if we don't let admins block users with whom they're involved in a dispute, or close xFDs where they've advocated one side or another, why are his actions here acceptable? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the bureaucrats involved in this decision have endorsed it. --Tony Sidaway 13:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The decision is well within the range of 'crat discretion, and they went to extraordinary measures to gain a greater consensus among themselves than is required. Agree with it or no, this is a good call. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't complain to the lengths they went, but there's certainly question as to how they got there - when they start saying that there weren't issues of trust, I don't believe we're being heard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, give this a rest please. As this discussion makes clear, some of the crats if closing individually would have promoted, some would not have, but by the time Dan acted, all of them who had participated were in a position of supporting the decision. Here's the key quote, from Taxman:
 * "After Warofdreams last comments, what it left us at was the only people that wouldn't have called it a promotion ourselves stated that we would support the decision to promote. That's as close as you can get to full consensus in my book. Not everyone has to state they would have made the same decision, but if everyone can support the outcome, that's as good as it gets."
 * Trying to pick this decision apart by looking for some weakness in the person who actually pushed the button is silly. The crats were all behind the decision, whether they would have made that call acting individually or not - and these are people like Redux and Taxman for crying out loud, some of the most impeccably upstanding people ever to edit the wiki. If we can't trust them when they've made a decision (and this is their decision) then we might as well just pack up and go home because there's no hope. --bainer (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. I'll address further comments on individual user talk pages, if I need to. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the bureaucrats who voted in the RFA hadn't participated in the closing of it then it is quite likely that it would have been closed the other way. This is obviously bonkers, the same person shouldn't vote and close. Haukur 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. Dan pushed the button, yes, but they all supported the call. They. All. Supported. The. Call. All of them. The opposite of none of them. Even the ones who would have closed differently had they been closing individually, explicitly stated that they were satisfied with supporting the decision. --bainer (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. If it hadn't been for those who both voted and participated in the closing it is not at all clear that it would have been closed the same way, in fact I rather suspect it wouldn't have been. That the bureaucrats in question said what amounts to "well, that wouldn't be my call but I'll go along with it" doesn't affect this at all. It just shows that they want to get along as best they can and project a unified front, which is fine. Haukur 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To me it does not look like Warofdreams really supported this action. It looks more like he accepted it after conceding that he was in the minority. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be clear, as I stated in the discussion, I supported this action and continue to do so. Warofdreams talk 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In particular, Dan was the first person on the bureaucrat discussion page to favor promotion, and did so without acknowledging that he had expressed an opinion on the RFA. Instead of acknowledging this, he said "I further hope it is quite clear that I am not myself judging the candidate." CMummert · talk 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, Haukur. That's not quite likely. - Taxman Talk 16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps it is unlikely, then, but it could have happened. The principle of the thing is important, in any case. I should note that I think you personally did rather well. I have to give you lots of points for starting a publicly readable discussion, showing that you've taken on board criticism from previous controversies and are now living up to your RFB pledge. I still don't see how you could come to the conclusion that no one was arguing Danny wasn't trustworthy but I'll give you credit where credit is due. Haukur 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a lot easier to tell people to shut up and stop making a stink when you don't care about the particular ox that's being gored, Bainer. You're welcome to stop commenting if you want, of course, but don't tell me what to do. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I love it! We got a "thinker". Next time a politician lies his way into office, he ought to borrow Mr Sidaway's sophistry. "I'm sorry, you thought you elected a Democrat, but you were voting for a 'thinker'." Brilliant! And I have to say, Stephen, we don't have to fold our tents if we don't trust the bureaucrats. (After all, there's still an encyclopaedia here.) We can simply consider that we have some "thinking" going on, and that those of us who were cynical about the outcome's being predestined were quite right to feel that way. Grace Note 02:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Making ends meet
On one side there are people who are utterly perturbed by the idea of Danny having adminship. Then there are people who think Danny would simply be swell as an admin, and there are people complaining about a lack of consensus. If people are uncomfortable with Danny being an admin, I suggest that they keep an eye on him and see if he lives up to the standards of adminship. If he steps out of line, bring it up, please. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My hope is, is that Danny read through, understood, and at least acknowledged to himself, the concerns listed in the opposition. That he will take those concerns seriously, and set out to prove those concerns wrong. If he does so, I will be very, very delighted. I was on the other side of the contentious Carnildo re-RFA (i.e. I supported it), and argued that even though I felt that closure was inappropriate, it was not a reason to desysop Carnildo again. I will argue the same with regard to Danny, and I will most certainly not ask him to resign adminship, or ask ArbCom to desysop him, unless he starts doing something crazy such as blocking everyone who opposed him. Some very serious discussion on the role of bureaucrats however, is in order. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this "It goes without saying that I want to thank my supporters, but at the same time, I also want to thank my opposers and ask them to keep an eye on me. If I get out of line, let me know, and I will take your concerns into careful consideration." (from User:Danny) shows that Danny has definitely taken on board criticisms from the RfA. --Guinnog 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We wish him the best, of course, and hope he does well. Haukur 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was a LOT more sanguine about the odds of him accepting constructive criticism before I read his response to question #20. I think Danny's past positions of authority are going to make it functionally nigh-impossible to alter his course if he starts behaving inappropriately (as noted in my !vote here). People are just going to say, "Oh, it's Danny, he must be doing it for a good reason" and then ignore the situation. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As one who opposed the RfA, and had concerns both about some of Danny's conduct (mainly blocks without warnings) and about the potential for this RfA to divide the community, I certainly wish him well. I never had any doubts about his integrity or commitment to the project, and his statement (quoted above) is very reassuring to me. --Guinnog 15:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And then there are people like me (and I believe I'm not alone) who voted in support of Danny and are perfectly happy with him being an admin, yet are very much uncomfortable with a promotion after an RfA that had nothing close to the usual level of consensus we have time and again deemed to be acceptable, uncomfortable with the systematic hunt for sockpuppets in the opposing camp without any evidence that the support camp came under the same scrutiny, uncomfortable with the discounting of opposing opinions because "hey if they say they don't trust Danny they can't possibly be serious", uncomfortable with the hour long chit chat among bureaucrats that was cut short by one B'crat who had supported Danny's nomination. It wouldn't be the first time that a good candidate for adminship fails to get consensus and the practice has always been that this candidate goes back to editing as any other editor and reapplies a little while later when he feels that he's got the necessary support. The B'crats are treating this as if the non-promotion of Danny would have been a disaster of untold proportion but Danny can be a great asset to Wikipedia without admin rights. The cost of this decision in terms of trust that people have in the fairness of the RfA process is prohibitive. Pascal.Tesson 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this perspicuous retrospective exegesis. My primary concern in re Danny's RFA was his failure to acknowledge the fact that he was a "vested contributor" who would receive special consideration by the powers that be.  This concern has been validated by the 'crats, which is why I remain "strongly neutral" in re Danny's RfA. // Internet Esquire 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of this except I'm sure they did check the supporter column for sockpuppets too. Sock-checking, when unsuccessful, isn't something that naturally lends itself to public evidence on who has been checked. Haukur 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would adding the statement "All editors who expressed an opinion have been checked to ensure they did not enter multiple opinions from the same IP address" be too difficult to add to the top of the RFA page? That would be adequate public acknowledgment that a fair process had been carried out. Choosing which editors to verify at whim is clearly not going to be unbiased. I am not saying that anything inappropriate happened here; only that more transparency would help demonstrate that there is no bias in the selection of users to verify. CMummert · talk 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It must have been a very difficult one to call, and I appreciate the lengths the bureaucrats went to to be transparent and fair. --Guinnog 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I too am very uncomfortable with the bureaucrat decision. I am particularly concerned by:
 * Bureaucrats who supported him in the debate, also participating in the discussion
 * The dismissive attitude expressed towards newer (< 5000 edits) users
 * The double standard. Many oppose comments were dismissed out of hand as "not a good enough reason," but many supports that were just "me too" supports seem to have been counted. But if people would have opposed as "me too", I feel that they would have been discounted as not articulate enough.
 * Or in other words, if the bureaucrats who supported Danny had not participated in the discussion, I think the decision would have gone the other way, towards "no consensus." Though Dan participated in the RfA, it was clear that he was already going to make a unilateral decision and promote. He even had his decision already written. I don't regard that as a "fair and impartial analysis." --Elonka 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about Opposes getting more scrutiny in RfA discussions in general, but I believe the reason for that may be the larger impact they have. A single oppose is "worth" five supports, in terms of its impact on the outcome of the discussion, assuming the usual 80% guideline.  If the decision was a simple majority, then I would hope both "sides" would receive equal scrutiny.  This is not an endorsement for disregarding the the veracity of the support !votes completely, merely an attempt to determine the why of how things are currently. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, that's not the case Elonka. Once the decision was clear, it didn't matter who pressed the buttons. It was pure paperwork at that point. The only unilateral decision that could have been made at that point would be to close it as a non promotion in the face of a bcrat consensus to close it as a promotion. - Taxman Talk 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep saying it was cut short or rushed, Pascal, but it wasn't. The majority of us pretty much agreed that we didn't have anything more to say on it. Many of us had already spent hours looking into it. - Taxman Talk 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So how did you come to the agreed conclusion that the opposers weren't talking about trust? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A small mistake really. After hours looking through the nomination and a couple hours break I didn't recall those specific comments. So my statement was incorrect, but the number of people expressing his trustworthiness was high as well, counterbalancing them anyway. I say small mistake because it didn't really play into my decision. - Taxman Talk 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Taxman, Redux made this comment, indicating that he thought Dan should be recused since he participated in the RFA and that more time was needed: "I think for this one we do need to reach a clear consensus. I don't think we are quite there yet. I must note that Dan and Secretlondon, who also made a small comment, have participated in the RfA itself. That considered, we are pretty much split at the moment. And for my part, I should make it clear that I've not made any kind of final decision that we should promote." This was immediately followed by Dan saying: "I fear it's a bit too late; I ... have promoted Danny."  This was completely inappropriate of him to do. That you might have reached the same conclusion regardless doesn't change the fact that what Dan did was inappropriate. He should have recused himself and he didn't. Haukur 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in complete agreement with Haukur. --Elonka 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (followup) The behavior of some of the bureaucrats set a bad example. Administrators are told not to close discussions that they are involved in. see Deletion guidelines for administrators and Protection policy.  Should administrators emulate the behavior that was exhibited in this promotion? Do we want to see admins closing AfDs that they participated in? I would hope not. It seems obvious to me that admins should not use their tools in situations in which they are personally involved, but that's exactly what it appears that a bureaucrat has done in this case. --Elonka 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To avoid repetition, I'll simply remark that this canard has already been raised and refuted one or twice on this very page. A number of bureaucrats were involved in the decision and every single one endorsed the decision. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's part of why this is problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is endorsing a decision after someone else has made it really the same thing? I think it is not.  It's human nature, in a small team of decision-makers, to not "rock the boat" by disagreeing with a decision that has already been (publicly) acted upon.  *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (indent reduced somewhat) Interesting comment, but that isn't what happened.
 * Taxman: "After Warofdreams last comments, what it left us at was the only people that wouldn't have called it a promotion ourselves stated that we would support the decision to promote. That's as close as you can get to full consensus in my book. Not everyone has to state they would have made the same decision, but if everyone can support the outcome, that's as good as it gets."
 * Redux: I agree. After I said we were not quite there yet, I started thinking that there might well not be anywhere else for us to get to. I think that the level of agreement reached is the possible one, and it is more than enough to present the conserted decision on that RfA that the community asked of us.
 * I'm sure this decision will not satisfy everyone, but it isn't accurate to state that the decision was only made by one person and endorsed post-hoc. --Tony Sidaway 07:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Shorter Tony: "No, it wasn't made and then endorsed post-hoc as proven by those two comments endorsing it post hoc!" Haukur 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No that's obviously not what I'm saying at all, nor is it what Taxman and Redux said. It's okay to disagree with me, but it probably isn't sensible to misrepresent what I have said, below the very words in which I have said it. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's obviously not what you're saying then, don't worry, anyone reading has your own words right above and can check. But you did cite two post-hoc endorsements in a comment arguing against the post-hoc-endorsement theory. I just thought that was a bit funny. Haukur 11:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You and I look at the same words and you see post-hoc whereas I see references to prior agreement. I can see why you might be emphasizing the post hoc aspect, and you can probably see why I refer (as did the bureaucrats in their discussion) to the existence of that prior agreement.  But the existence of the prior agreement makes this moot to me, although it obviously doesn't convince you, for reasons I don't yet apprehend. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point was not what those comments said, but when they were made. I'm simply pointing out that both comments you reference above were made after the act of promotion was already made.  It's "moot" to argue that they show agreement, because that's not what is under dispute here.  We can all read, we know they do.  My point was that we'll never actually know how much the "jump to action" influenced them, even if the comments defend it after-the-fact.  That doesn't bolster confidence or trust.  *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

RfArb?
I hate to get legalistic at this point, but I am not sure there is a different way. While there was consensus among bureaucrats to promote (small irregularities nonwithstanding), the bureacurats did not do their job as specified at Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, which was not to create a consensus for promotion, but to interpret if there is a consensus in the community. And the consensus clearly was not there. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I've lost my faith in a lot of bureaucrats over a lot of different things. Perhaps a RfAr is a good idea, but perhaps a bit more general with regards to RfA, rather than just over this specific case. And note: I've every faith in Danny as an administrator, I supported that RfA --Deskana (ya rly)  16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see it. Consensus is not vote counting, and the 'crats explained in great detail how they did their analysis. Though, going to arbcom would be better than just talking about something we can do nothing about. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Adminship should be no big deal. The 'crats had a really tough call to make, and they'd make someone angry no matter what they did. I don't think an arbitration case is in order, but one probably will get filed at some point. // PTO 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Adminship is no big deal. Not following community consensus is a big deal I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please point me the page where it is written that every nomination must finish at over 70% in order to be sysoped. -- ReyBrujo 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All we did was interpret the consensus to promote, and as a group we determined that there was one. If you think the encyclopedia would be improved by a RFARB, go ahead, but I don't see any conceivable way in which it would. - Taxman Talk 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If potentially helpful contributors are going to get six month blocks for the crime of adding an external link, I think the encyclopedia may be far better off. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that will happen, and if it did, there are plenty of checks and balances in place. It's worth remembering that bureaucrats are volunteers just like we all are. I don't see an abuse of process here; I see a good-faith attempt to resolve a very difficult situation, and I see a far better and cleaner process here than we had in certain cases in the past. I don't think it will benefit anyone to go to RFARB. --Guinnog 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, at the moment. Given the crats and arbitrators are all in cahoots, it would be futile to simply knock at Arbcom and say "This isn't right!". I am prepared to believe that Danny may actually take these RfA comments on board, but if he makes one more block of a newbie, refuses to discuss an admin action, and is infernally rude, to ArbCom it should go. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that "in cahoots" is a bit strong, but such circumstances are exactly why we shouldn't have people wearing both "hats" (and yes, I'm aware we have one person who has done so for quite some time, another who did so briefly (before all heck broke loose), and currently have a candidate being quite strongly supported to complete the brace). Alai 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Handling RFA is the bureaucrats' purview, not ArbCom's. I don't see how it's under ArbCom's jurisdiction. -- Cyde Weys 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * Re Taxman's comment, I appreciate that consensus is hard to determine in cases like these. But Dan went out of his way to say "My decision was informed by the numbers only insofar as the numbers have told me that the community has no clear opinion on this issue." If the community has no clear opinion, an argument might go, then there is no consensus to promote. CMummert · talk 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Take this to the arbcom. While I at first thought this RfA was generally quite well conducted (my only objection was that Dan promoted a user whose RfA he supported), I'm slowly discovering that it was flawed on many many levels. While I respect the difficulty of being a Bureaucrat, this is part of the job--they need to be held accountable for their actions. I think an RfArb will help not only to determine if the crats' decision here was well-founded and correct, as well as perhaps helping to improve the RfA process in the future. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the suggestion to take this to arbitration if you have a problem with it. Most of us are looking at the decision and seeing the bureaucrats do a pretty good job, even if we don't all agree with the outcome.  A few of us are looking at the same thing and seeing something terrible for Wikipedia.  It has been said of the bureaucrats that they ignored Wikipedia policy.  If there is evidence for this, then I have no hesitation in saying "take it to the arbitration committee."  --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support taking this to arbcom, mainly because it would be an end to the discussion (well, I guess people could appeal to Jimbo, but I doubt he would overrule arbcom on this matter). I think people generally trust arbcom (assuming any arbitrators than are also crats recuse), so would accept whatever decision they make. --Tango 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom was created to arbitrate disputes amongst users. It was not created to set policy, including Requests for adminship policy. If you have a problem with the process (and many of us do), it needs to be changed through discussion within the community. ArbCom is not going to step in and dictate how it should work; that's not under their jurisdiction. As the process currently stands, bureaucrats are allowed to exercise discretion, and they have done so. What could you possibly take them to ArbCom over? "I didn't get my way?" -- Cyde Weys 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The question of whether ArbCom has jurisdiction is an interesting one to argue, but it sidesteps the larger issue of whether the 'crats acted appropriately. On that note, if ArbCom does decide to take jurisdiction of this situation and further decides that the 'crats acted ultra vires of *THEIR* jurisdiction by promoting Danny without a community consensus, I wager that very few people will argue that ArbCom has itself acted without proper jurisdiction.  As such, arguing against taking this dispute to ArbCom based on a question of jurisdiction is simply disingenuous wikilawyering.  That having been said, I really don't see ArbCom second-guessing and overruling the 'crats.  My guess is that they'll just rubberstamp this decision as being one of them there "tough calls." // Internet Esquire 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He didn't argue that they couldn't, .. indeed that would be a little be rules lawyerish, he argued that they won't and that you shouldn't take it to them on the basis of it not being their purpose rather than some rule. --Gmaxwell 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


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

What would there be to arbitrate? Danny had every right to have his admin powers restored based on his previous RFA. So are we going to ask ArbCom to rule that the meaningless result of a meaningless process is even more meaningless? --BigDT 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Danny give up that right when he stood for RfA, so that's irrelevant. If Danny kept that right, then standing for RfA is a violation of WP:POINT (this RfA has certainly caused disruption, and if it's meaningless, then all it does it make a point). --Tango 01:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * When one relinquishes his permissions, even on good terms, he is in no way entitled to have these permissions automatically restored without gaining prior consensus for promotion. Of course, some with friends in high places have cheated, but this does not indicate a precedent but rather a betrayal of the system. If there was no consensus for Danny's promotion, as I believe was certainly the case here, he should not have been promoted, regardless of any "right" you believe him entitled to. End of story. The arbcom would be asked not to confirm the "meaningless result of a meaningless process," but rather to decide whether Wikipedia should be driven by consensus or by the whims of a handful of individuals. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of your statement may represent your personal opinion, but it does not accurately represent Wikipedia policy (for which see Requests_for_arbitration/Giano). Your accusation that some editors have "cheated" is both incorrect and extremely insulting, and I'm sure that you'll withdraw it with an apology as soon as you recognise this. In any case this has nothing to do with the present case.  Danny freely chose to go through RFA and to accept the decision of the community. --Tony Sidaway 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider my assertion withdrawn--I simply assumed, apparently incorrectly, that, as most admins who have voluntarily requested desysopping have gone through an RfA to become "resysopped", this was necessary. It is in any case certainly, at least IMO, the decent thing to do. With respect to the Doc, I did not mean this statement to be offensive but rather jocular--it clearly did not come across this way, and so I must apologize. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Write down this day if you like, but I agree with Tony 100% here. Danny could have just requested the bit back (or in fact never resigned it a few scant weeks beforehand), but he wanted to reaffirm that his adminship had the consensus of the community, pursuant to his stated intention to run for the WMF Board. Once he made that decision, his pre-existing privilege to recover a sysop bit given up under clear circumstances was voided, but until that moment he (or anyone in his circumstance) had it. I even made that clear when opposing his RFA. -- nae'blis 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a little story attached to that. On the first day of his request for adminship, Danny got a high number of supports.  I told him to be prepared for a rough ride, predicting (accurately as it turned out) that the percentage of supports would probably fall to 70% or even lower.  He took that on board--it was clearly a surprise to him--and said that he was quite prepared to accept a "no" from the community.  If you don't want to know the answer you don't ask.  Danny asked. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing that concerns me, is trend lines. It was clear that there was momentum building up to oppose Danny.  The RfA wasn't in a stable, "Okay, no one's posting anything new, let's close it," state, it was still highly active, and the support % was dropping steadily.  If it would have been left open another week, I'm confident that it would have dropped much much lower.  So again, it put a questionable perception on the entire proceeding.  It really did look like, "Quick, let's close the door on any more opposers.  Hmm, but it did drop as low as 68%, and we don't normally promote except for 75% minimum?  Well, let's see if we can cook the books a bit.  Look, how about we disregard this block of opposes, and, oh yeah, this block doesn't look like a good enough reason either, let's just strike those out too.  Oh, and look, there're a half dozen people who had fewer than 5,000 edits, let's question those as well. Which just squeaks the % up to 75%.  Well, that's borderline, so, hmm, gee-that's-a-tough-decision-okay-let's-promote."  That kind of bend-over-backwards rationalizing, plus the fact that, as I've said before, Bureaucrats who were participating in the RfA, were also participating in the debate on how to interpret the results, strikes me as unethical behavior.  It gives the appearance that even if the RfA would have come in with lower support, say 55%, that there still would have been a lot of massaging of the numbers in order to try and squeak out a promotion.  For what it's worth, I am honestly surprised that the bureaucrats did this, because I thought better of them.  I am also honestly surprised that Danny accepted their decision.  The more ethical thing to do would have been to decline such a  controversial nomination.  That would have earned some respect. --Elonka 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That last part's certainly true. If Danny had said that he didn't want it unless it was unambiguous, I would've had a hard time NOT supporting him in a subsequent bid. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Elonka's nailed it. It is a conflict of interest (or an obvious appearance of a conflict of interest) for multiple 'crats to both support the RFA and participate in the final decision, where multiple oppose comments were discounted for one reason or another. Elonka's other points are no less valid. Firsfron of Ronchester  17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And don't forget that the actual promotion was done by a Bureaucrat who supported the nomination--the ultimate Bureaucrat faux-pas. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if enough members of the community feel that this issue should be pursued, I would still rather that we looked at ArbCom as a last resort, rather than a first resort. There are other methods that could (and should) be tried first. --Elonka 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Next question
When Danny runs for the Board, will he be promoted to that by fiat, as well? Corvus cornix 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mu Raul654 17:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop with this behavior, it does not help the discussion. If you want to provide useful feedback, please do so, but be constructive, not destructive. -- ReyBrujo 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? You think it is "constructive" to hold votes and ignore the results when they don't match what you want? Why not move straight to appointing admins by fiat? Why waste time pretending that our opinions matter? And can we stop with this attitude that simply bending the knee is "constructive" and questioning authority is "destructive"? In itself, it's not all that constructive, you know. Grace Note 02:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Corvus cornix has been posting these notes at every opportunity, just as Majorly did when Raul sysop'ed Ryulong. You think there is a problem in the process? Great, find a solution, don't just point to it. sofixit -- ReyBrujo 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


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

Not all Board members are elected, remember. The two most recently added were appointed. -- Cyde Weys 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious, who are the voters in Board elections? WooyiTalk, Editor review 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


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

The real problem
I don't think the problem is that Danny was elected considering the end results, I think the real problem is the quality individuals who have failed RfAs who were also borderline. One that immediately comes to mind in terms of injustice is Requests for adminship/Bushytails, where people opposed because one of the articles he pushed to featured status was picked as a Did You Know? and they didn't like the subject matter. Failed RfAs like that are harmful to the integrity of the process. The hard work the 'crats did here (documented in the chat) to make their decision is an example of the system working, I hope that it will be more consistent in the future. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? It seems to me less like an "example of the system working" than a desperate attempt to make the system appear somehow less broken. We all know RfA is broken, simply because the Wikipedia community is broken. The only thing we could count on RfA for was that the crats have always been excellent judges of consensus, and so RfAs typically do typically conclude as community consensus dictates. In this case, consensus was shat all over by disregarding the statements of 118 dissenters, and it demonstrates to me, not that RfA is still working, but that it is more broken than I originally thought. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia community is broken? I guess if you mean in the manner that the human race is a little broken. For a group of thousands of humans working together, I think we are doing a fine job. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but the wikipedia community is neither the admin system nor even less is it the Rfa process. The wikipedia community may not be broken but I think the Rfa system is seriously flawed and Danny's case highlights a deeper problem, SqueakBox 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the real problem is that the bureaucrats never think that long and hard about borderline cases and there's always been a tacit acceptance by the community that adminship required a strong, undeniable consensus. That's not a problem as far as I'm concerned. It precisely avoids relying too much on a handful of bureaucrats' judgment in a process where the community is supposedly voicing its opinion. When in doubt, don't promote seems like a reasonable principle and it's pretty much how RfA has worked since I've known about it. However open the bureaucrats' chat was, it still very much looks like a chat about how to justify passing the nomination rather than one on whether or not the discussion resulted in a clear consensus to promote. Again, I don't think the promotion of Danny is a problem in itself but the way it was done is in my mind an unacceptable exception to previous practice. Pascal.Tesson 18:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * With shades of Fight Club running through my mind, I (once again) echo these sentiments. // Internet Esquire 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you my sockpuppet? :-) Pascal.Tesson 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am confident you cannot justify your statement that "the bureaucrats never think that long and hard about borderline cases". Why are you making comments like this and how do you think your present efforts are helping the encyclopedia? I don't have a problem with being disagreed with as long as there is an effort to consider the best interests of the encyclopedia. - Taxman Talk 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taxman, I didn't mean that sentence to be insulting. But I fear I'm being misunderstood. As far as I know, the low level of raw support for Danny is almost unprecedented for a successful RfA. The stance I've seen from bureaucrats on RfA has consistently to not grant adminship in RfAs that seemed borderline cases in terms of raw numbers quite simply because they are strongly indicative of a less than solid consensus. Even the guide to adminship notes that > 80% support or <75% support are almost sure things. Why is that? Because bureaucrats, correctly, decide to not overthink things and choose to trust the community's judgment. That's a good thing.
 * As for your second sentence, you should never invite people to stay silent so that Wikipedia runs smoother. It's very important that you hear from those who feel you've erred. Pascal.Tesson 18:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pascal. Moreover, if discussions like this shed light on objectionable procedures, then they patently do help the long-term functioning of the encyclopaedia.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you to stay silent for smoothness sake, I asked you how you thought your present efforts were improving the encyclopedia. I didn't take your sentence as insulting because it was incorrect, and simple enough to point that out so we can both move on. No offense taken. Each time we comment we should weigh if our comments will appreciably improve the encyclopedia more than the cost of the time spent leaving them and others reading and responding. In many cases that cost is greater, but we ignore that or never consider it. In fact the vast majority of contributors to this conversation will not consider that, but such is the reality of a free (as in freedom) project. I submit for consideration that that is the most important consideration in anything not directly related to improving an article. Will my actions improve the encyclopedia? - Taxman Talk 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, the results of the vast majority of RfAs (excluding a very few exceptional cases) evince very little thought, so it is not surprising that people believe you are not doing much thinking. The natural assumption from looking at which candidacies succeed and which fail is that you are basically counting votes and closing them straightforwardly on the basis of that counting. Frankly I think it is difficult to read the results in any other way. If the bureaucrats want to be seen as doing something other than counting votes, it may be wise to explain the actual thought process to prevent people from making the natural assumption. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pascal was referring to borderline cases. That the vast majority are not difficult to decide or don't take much effort does not imply that the borderline cases are/do not. For your last sentence I can't tell if you were or weren't aware that's already been done or if you were asking for it to be repeated. - Taxman Talk 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's been done in this case, but not in most borderline cases. In the main they are closed without comment, and almost without exception in accordance with the ">75% pass, <75% fail" rule. I'm sure that as you say these decisions involved a lot of thought and were difficult. However, the conclusions you reached are the same conclusions one would derive from a very simple vote-counting heuristic. Without any comments to provide an indication of your thought process, people will naturally assume you are using the simple heuristic. The statement of Pascal's with which you took issue is exactly what any reasonable person would conclude from examining the available facts. If you want to be seen as making these decisions more thoughtfully, your behavior ought to change one way or the other. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taxman, like I said before I believe the admin status of Danny is a good thing for the encyclopedia. However, I also believe that his promotion under controversial circumstances is a great disservice to the Wikipedia community and I would not be taking the time to write my thoughts here if I didn't feel that in the long run preserving the ability of the community to be heard and preserving an equal treatment of each and every editor is much more important than the immediate advantage of having re-sysopped Danny. And I'm sorry if I feel a bit insistent but I know that many who opposed Danny are hesitant to criticize the b'crats decision because they don't want to be perceived as bitter. Pascal.Tesson 01:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

LMAO
"Basically, I don't like the reasons for opposing. Let's promote this member of the establishment anyway". "Agreed! Nobles don't need the support of the commoners anyway." Grace Note 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC) If you want a quote for the concept, this diff by David Gerard would seem to do the trick. He's congratulating the 'crats for helping to "break the culture of 'one moron one vote'". Nice of him to put it all out in the open like that. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you quoting? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 02:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm paraphrasing, dude. Grace Note 03:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You may also enjoy messages like this one from the mailing list. Money quote: "To be quite honest, is there any reason why the community should even have a say in appointing admns? Why not just have candidates be vetted by bureaucrats (or some similar group if preferred)? Would the project be worse off? I find it so annoying that people could even consider voting against Danny." -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This one is also quite good: "It was a courageous decision that flies in the face of the chattering classes. Let the bureaucrats as a group by themselves make and apply a preliminary decision.  A vote would be needed only if the community wants to appeal that decision. Having everybody vote on everything is clulessocracy." -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * David (who is not being quoted in the last quote, by the way--that's somebody else's opinion) has an uncanny knack of saying exactly what has happened. I may not agree with the way he described it, but it's dead. Needless to say, David's statement is not the same as Grace Note's, because Grace Note has this notion of "privileged" users and "commoners" or "little people" which is entirely foreign to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He's saying that consensus doesn't matter, as long as the people trying to make the consensus are just snotty little "morons", instead of people like him. How is that different in any appreciable way than what Grace Note said? I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you suggesting? That there is a cabal? James086 12:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, at this point I have no idea whether there is or is not a cabal. Which flat-out sucks, because if you'd asked me the same question a week ago, I would've told you that you were crazy for even considering it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

David is alluding to the fact that, in making their decision, the bureaucrats distinguished between different reasons for opposing, ruling out whole classes of reasoning that were of poor quality in their estimation. They also ruled out a small number of attempts to cheat, and they took into account the strong differential between the opinions of experienced, committed editors and less experienced editors. Thus "one person one vote", to paraphrase David's uncivil turn of phrase, is dead, and this is evident from the bureaucrats' discussion.

Grace Note's characterization is: "Basically, I don't like the reasons for opposing. Let's promote this member of the establishment anyway" which is a completely different interpretation, and is not supported by a reading of the bureaucrats' discussion. --Tony Sidaway 12:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You may have that interpretation, but I don't share it. The quote by Grace Note is a perfectly sane reading of the decision. Moreover, I don't see any evidence (such as statements of intent by the bureaucrats) that they will begin to decide ordinary RFAs any differently than they have been.


 * This isn't the first time in human history that standards were lowered for someone when the examiner felt he ought to pass, and the stakes here are quite low (it's not a medical school exam), so I'm not going to lose sleep over it. What does trouble me somewhat is what I perceive as a dismissal of the opinions of the oppose voters by some members of the community. If there were an objective way to determine suitability, we wouldn't need the RFA discussion. Until that day, the argument that nobody could reasonably have an opinion that differs from your own is not the way to build consensus. There is no sin in accepting that this was a troubled RFA nomination but the bureaucrats used their own judgement to decide that it should pass. CMummert · talk 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One can associate Grace Note's attempt to paraphrase the bureaucrats' discussion with the discussion itself only by making some rather creative interpolations. David's paraphrase comes directly from the way in which the discussion is organised around examining and grading reasons for opposition. --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, you write "Thus "one person one vote", to paraphrase David's uncivil turn of phrase, is dead, and this is evident from the bureaucrats' discussion". When exactly did the bureaucrats get the right to promote in spite of significant opposition and start to ignore the numbers? Because that is a pretty significant policy change in RFA which was never discussed. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the question. It's not the bureaucrats job to count numbers, but to determine consensus.  They've never been required to count numbers.  They appear to have determined that the opposition to Danny's run for promotion was somewhat porous, riddled with poor reasoning, a little bit of cheating, and subject to a strong gradient according to the user's experience of editing Wikipedia.  I disagree that there has been a "significant policy change"; indeed if we went to requiring (rather than just allowing) bureaucrats to just tot up the numbers as if they were votes, this would be a very significant policy shift.  You're welcome to propose such a policy change, but don't assume that the policy you want has already been established. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The current policy is indistinguishable from vote-counting except in a few cases. If it walks like a duck... CMummert · talk 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony I feel that trying to deny that the numbers have meant something is ridiculous. Let's look at what some of the bureaucrats had to say when they were promoted to bureaucrat about promotion standards.
 * "I have and it has long been held that under 75% support is not generally to be promoted, while over 80% is a shoe in. That of course would vary slightly if massive abuses such as sockpuppeting, etc. have occurred." -Taxman
 * "For now, the generally accepted measure of consensus on adminship requests stands as 80% support as a definate consensus. When a request falls between 70% and 80%, it falls to the bureaucrat to carefully consider the views presented on both sides and make a determination. Where a request has below 70%, promotion should not occur." -Essjay
 * "I'd promote a candidate automatically if he/she received 80%; and not promote if less than 75%. If it falls in the critical range (between 75 to 80), I'd prefer to discuss it with other bureaucrats, evaluating the seriousness of the oppose votes before taking a decision." -Nichalp
 * "The community has decided that 80% is the magic proportion of support votes, and I will abide by this decision, using, as always, a bureaucrat's discretion with regard to sockpuppet or otherwise questionable voters." -Rd4smith
 * "In practice, of the supporting and opposing votes, 80% must be supporting. Sometimes the threshold is lowered to 75%, particularly when the opposition appears to be ill-considered rather than well-reasoned. In doubtful cases, one tries to discount sock puppets." -UninvitedCompany
 * Clearly numbers have played a part, no? Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither I, David, nor any of the bureaucrats have said that the numbers play no part.  CMummert's comment, "The current policy is indistinguishable from vote-counting except in a few cases" is very telling.  Those cases cannot be disappeared. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, so the policy seems to be "adminship is decided by the numbers alone except in re-RfAs of previous admins or people with multiple failed RfAs". Kusma (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not sure where you got that one from. I don't think the bureaucrats, David or I have ever said anything of the sort, or ever behaved as if this were the case. --Tony Sidaway 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any RfA pass with less than 75% support that did not fall into the categories I just mentioned, no matter how weak the opposers' arguments were. That seems to me to be behaving as if numbers are by far the most important factor in these votes, which some people call debates. Kusma (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a little bit of equivocation here, presumably unintentional. In the first comment you describe the position as "adminship is decided by the numbers alone except in re-RfAs of previous admins or people with multiple failed RfAs" and in the second you describe it as "behaving as if numbers are by far the most important factor".  I think it's evident that the numbers are of crucial importance.  But they're not votes.  And that also is of crucial importance.  They can be scrutinied and cast aside if found wanting.  Do I want the bureaucrats to do that more often? Sure I do.  That it is done at all demonstrates David's point. --Tony Sidaway 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're going to promote users at 65-75 percent after a b-crat's decision to rule most of the opposes invalid, then this needs to be applied to all RfA candidates, and not just the highest profile ones. &mdash; Deckiller 14:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's some pretty loose stuff in the above statement, but I agree with the basic sentiment that this kind of bureaucratic discretion is a good thing and should be used more often, and I also think it should be a public discussion by the bureaucrats (applause from me for that bold decision by the bureaucrats). I'd say that the  important points about the decisions in Carnildo and Danny are partly that they were high profile (yes, they were) but also that they had a long record and the bureaucrats (and those users who participated in the requests for adminship) therefore has a lot of material with which to decide whether the candidates would do a good job.  This isn't always the case with new candidates.  That said, I do think there is room for more of this. --Tony Sidaway 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Loose as in poor examples? If so, I agree; I'm halfway out the door, and just looked for random examples. If I felt more passionately about the issue, I'd dig deeper. &mdash; Deckiller 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote the response to your comment before you added the examples. Let's just say that I agree with your sentiment but would not express it in quite those words.  This is not to detract from your comment, which I welcome, but simply to make it plain that I endorse the idea in principle rather than in its form of expression. The differences aren't important in this context. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also be in favor of more discretion and less vote counting, so long as it is done uniformly for all RFA candidates. I have asked a question below to try to determine if the bureaucrats share this opinion. CMummert · talk 14:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I admit it is a little...blunt...but hopefully not the point of insulting. Becuase that wasn't the intent. &mdash; Deckiller 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In reply to CMummert, if as appears to be the case we have an emerging consensus that what the bureaucrats did the other day would be a good think if done more liberally, then we can propose it to the community. If a guideline or policy emerging from this proposal were to gain a wide community-based consensus, the bureaucrats would then act accordingly.  --Tony Sidaway 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything approaching an "emerging consensus" like that here. There appears to be a consensus that this case was handled differently than most, but it looks like the majority of the commentors think that's a bad thing, not a good one. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could be right. But bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of those involved in the request for adminship haven't said anything one way or another.  A number of people have said this kind of treatment would be okay with them if only it were more fairly distributed.  Some of those people think that using it for just this case is a problem. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Using it for just this case is a problem. We shouldn't be turning away candidates simply because of numbers; there's this horrid impression that numbers and only numbers alone matter. This should never be so for any RfA; if hard numbers come in at all, they ought to come in after we've discounted votes that give reasons unrelated to actual qualfications for adminship. Why should "oppose because he's only 13" or "oppose because he helped implement this policy I don't like" be given the same weight as "oppose because he has a history of biting newbies", or any weight at all? It's ridiculous, and the 'crats should be doing what they did with Danny for all the other RfAs. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I could see both of the examples you cite as valid reasons to oppose a candidate's promotion. The former could be seen as a negative in terms of maturity and responsibility, while the latter could be an indication of bad judgement or a preference for unilateral action over consensus. A lot of the time, things that are cited as examples of bad reasons for opposing a candidate could more accurately be described as poorly-articulated applications of solid reasons. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the objection concerns maturity, then there's no need to reference physical age; if people can't draw a distinction between physical and mental age, it's not the 'crats job to attempt to guess whether they are objecting based on physical or mental maturity. I suppose this is where we part ways; I would err on the side of discounting the opinion if it's simply "oppose because he's 13", while you would keep it because you value the votecounting aspect of process more, where any old fellow's opinion counts as long as he states it, even if his opinion is based on patent ludicrosity. (I would think that considering our history WRT things like democracy and polls, policy/guidelines prefer a less objective vote-based approach.) And as for policy-implementation, if it's already policy, there is consensus for it. If I resigned my adminship and ran for it a year later, should "oppose because he deleted article X after AfD got consensus to delete it" be given the same weight as "oppose because he assumes bad faith too often", or any weight at all? These are obviously ludicrous reasons that can and should be discounted - but are kept by the blind "count every vote" school. think this latter school of thought doesn't have much basis in WP precedent, and for good reason &mdash; it emphasises blindly following an objective set of rules over application based on the purpose of these rules. (Contrast the literal approach and purposive approach to the problem of statutory interpretation in law.) Johnleemk | Talk 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the 'crats are screening !votes, then they're already "attempt[ing] to guess" as to the participants' intent and motivations. The only difference between my approach and yours is whether they make a reasonable effort to determine these things fairly or they do not. For instance, in the hypothetical example that you cite, a !voter who objected to your closure of a particular AFD would probably not be objecting because you acted with consensus, but rather because he perceived your interpretation of that consensus to be inaccurate in some way (and sloppy past work is, I am sure you would agree, a perfectly valid reason to oppose someone). Others may or may not share that perception, but it's a judgement call, and if you're asking for a judgement on such things from the community in order to get a representative sample of public opinion, you can't throw out individual judgements of that nature just because they're minority views. Objections which are truly impossible to justify ("oppose because he has too many Ls in his username") are pretty few and far between, and let's not forget that if a !vote ever seems unclear, every single person here has the opportunity to ask for a clarification. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole situation is bizarre. How can someone be promoted when even the crats themselves accept that there is no conssnus and when it is explicitly their remit to determine consensus and not to form it? Having their thought process out in the open rather than in the star chamber style is commendable, but surely they need to express exactly how they are determining votes to discount (apart from socks) and since they themselves discuss the numbers explicitly, we need to see what the final numbers were after votes were discounted. It really does seem to me that they were desperate to discount opposers and did not apply the same rigour to supporters. I have nothing against Danny and I wish him well, but from what I can see a candidate with his issues would not have passed RfA under ordinary circumstances. It strikes me that many if not most of the support votes were based on his standing as derived from his role with the Foundation, whilst many of the opposes were based on legitimate concerns raised about his behaviour outwith WP:OFFICE. I understand that this was a close call, but either the community decides in adminship or crats decide on adminship. I strongly favour the former option, but either way I think the process should be formalised so that everyone knows where they stand. Badgerpatrol 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Things like this are why I quit
You know, since none of the b-crats are bothering to listen at all, I'll sum it up for you.

1. Danny is not trusted. You keep blathering about how he had the highest positions of trust in the WMF, well, guess what? This is the same Foundation that had the highest levels of trust in Essjay, too. We - do - not - trust - that - he - will - act - as - an - admin - should. Period. The WHY is utterly, totally, completely irrelevant. If the users do not trust a user, they should have every right to vote oppose and HAVE IT COUNT.

2. Danny has never shown he understands the proper mindset to BE an admin. He is confrontational, he places more value on his own judgment than he does on consensus, he autocratically assumes, basically, that he is right. With his answer on question #8 by Dragons Flight, I'm astounded and disgusted that more people don't see what's fundamentally wrong with him acting as an admin.

3. Danny has never shown he understands how to work well with others. Just ask Anthere, who I would trust a thousand times over Danny.

I'm not "anti-Danny". I think all the office actions he took were necessary and required.But the critical point here is Danny has never shown us that he is really going to operate as the community thinks an admin should. He's going to act as he thinks he should and if the community doesn't like it the community can take a hike. That's what his answers to the questions state.

And you bureaucrats have backed him up. Good job. You've basically shown the community who disagreed that if you don't go along, you don't matter. I saw this after the Essjay mess, and I see it again here.

Spare us the witty word-twisting rebuttals and empty gestures of "read the argument." I've read Redux's argument. It's the sort of logic-chopping I'd expect from the Bush Administration. I expected better, I didn't get it, and that's why I'm done.

--<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 03:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here will care a whole lot: but I say here and now that I will never edit a Wikipedia article again. I was already 98% of the way there due to other (but similar) incidents, but this completely bogus process regarding Danny, and the contorted logic in the bureaucrat's "discussion", and the praise inexplicably being heaped on them for doing a really good job with it (!), leave me disheartened, saddened, disgusted, and angry. It was pretty obvious all along that the RfA was headed to this conclusion, but somehow I held out hope, hope that Wikipedia couldn't possibly be so corrupt. But no. Elaragirl sums it up incredibly well in the above, far better than I can at this point given my anger. I'm done too. I'm not even going to bother to close down my account or post a user page note on my "retirement": to do even that little would show way more regard for this institution than I'm able to muster anymore. DONE. -- PKtm 06:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Goodbye. -- ReyBrujo 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Before posting
Before posting anything further on this page, please read Requests_for_adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat_chat to be sure you understand how and why the decision was made. Regards, Ben Aveling 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the provided reference, I still have a few questions:
 * For the proponents: A fair amount of scrutiny was placed on the remarks of those who opposed the nomination; was there an equal examination of the remarks of the supporters? --Aarktica 19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the opponents: Do you consider charges of nepotism fair game in this context?
 * Constructive feedback appreciated. --Aarktica 19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In replty to number 1: As already discussed fuurther up the page, the support votes in an RfA are ussually not put under as much scrutiny because they often lack any reasoning. However it is generally assumed they agree with the nomination. Viridae Talk 22:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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