Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2

Danny

Voice your opinion (236/95/8); Scheduled to end 00:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny (talk · contribs)

It is my pleasure to nominate Danny for adminship on the English Wikipedia. For those of you who don't know, allow me to catch you up on some history. Danny was first directly appointed to the role of admin by Jimbo, and then later, in 2003, his adminship was confirmed by RFa election. He recently resigned his adminship upon resigning from official employment at the Foundation (where had been Grants Coordinator since 2005). He resigned his adminship (as well as stewardship) to prevent any perceived conflicts of interest following leaving employment at WMF. He hasn't yet revealed his reasons for resigning his role from the Foundation, but know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of disagreement with anything that Wikipedia itself stands for. He also has extensive experience working on Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, and the Hebrew Wikipedia. His work on Wikipedia more than stands on its own, even ignoring any contributions he made in official capacities.

Danny is not done with his work on Wikipedia, not by a long shot, and it would help him in his continued work for the project to gain adminship rights back. There isn't a single person in the entire world more familiar with Wikipedia than <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">Danny. Whereas Jimbo has been more of an absentee God-king, Danny was in the office every day from 9-5 working on some of the trickiest issues that Wikipedia faces, and then would often log on after work and help write articles. He has an ungodly number of edits for anyone who cares about those kinds of things. He's also handled all sorts of behind-the-scenes stuff that few have ever heard about, but was vital all the same.

Danny has been making huge contributions to Wikipedia since before most current Wikipedians even ever heard about it. For instance, he wrote the original biography infoboxes and put them on all of the articles on US presidents. This was a harder task than it now seems, because neither templates nor wiki table syntax had even been coded yet, so Danny learned HTML and created all of those infoboxes from scratch. Most people with high edit counts have done a lot of counter-vandalism work; in contrast, Danny has done very little. Nearly all of his edits have been significant edits improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Danny's excellent judgment, skills, and unparalleled knowledge of Wikipedia make him the perfect administrator candidate.

Making Danny an administrator again is as obvious a decision as any we're liable to find on Wikipedia. Yes, Danny has been involved in some controversy, but that's utterly unavoidable when you consider how much time he spent working here and how many controversial situations his position required him to get involved in (for instance, almost every WP:OFFICE case). The qualification for adminship is simply "do we trust him?", and I can't think of anyone I would answer that question about more strongly in the affirmative for than someone who has been deeply involved with Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation for five years.

--Cyde Weys 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Danny 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?

A: I don't think there is a valid answer to this question because it limits the role of the sysop. I believe that a sysop is a janitor, a person who helps to clean up the site and keep it functioning. If I were asked, in an interview for a janitorial position, what tasks I anticipate, would I be exempt from any other tasks that needed doing? If I said I would clean up spills, I would still have to fix broken windows. So, I simply anticipate doing what needs to be done and is within the scope of my ability. Surprise me. Danny

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

A: Five years. I am particularly pleased that I stuck it out for five years. I've seen lots of changes, lots of people come and go, I have had exhilirating moments and extremely frustrating moments, but I am still here. Of that I am proud. Danny

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

A: You can't be involved with editing without being involved in conflict. You can't be involved in Wikipedia without seeing your blood pressure rise on occasion. And you can't have one single way to deal with each situation. Danny

Optional question by User:Xiner

4. Would you like to respond to the concerns brought up by AnonEMouse and trialsanderrors?

A: I don't think thet are concerns. I think they are misconceptions. I believe that administrators have a responsibility for the site, i.e., they have to be willing to make decisions, and they have to recognize that sometimes their decisions will be unpopular, because there is no single answer that will please everyone. No matter what is said, the spammer will still complain that spam was removed, the person writing a vanity article about themselves will complain that it was removed, the person posting a copyright violation will complain that it is removed. Not everything has to be discussed ad nauseum, because that only provides greater ammunition to the spammer, the vanity author, and the copyright violator. They come back thinking, "Hey, I convinced some people. If I push a little harder, perhaps I can convince more." In fact, that is what happened with the Israel News Agency, a man who I spoke to, who told me on the phone that I have a responsibility as a Jew to allow him to use Wikipedia for his own SEO purposes and to promote his pet (POV) causes. I believe that Wikipedia has to enforce its own rules, rather than continuously water them down in an attempt to please everyone. With some 10 thousand spam links a day being added to Wikipedia, and people calling regularly to ask about how they can promote themselves or their businesses, it is time to act. I realize that this may be an unpopular view, but it is not something I would compromise on. Decide accordingly. I will not water down my views to win a vote.

B: That said, I do not believe I am infallible. I have made mistakes, and can list much better examples than those brought here. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a product that allows for mistakes, because mistakes are so easy to fix. If other admins or other users disagree with me, that is fine. I will present my opinions, listen to theirs, and if no compromise is attainable, accept the verdict of the majority. I have done so in the past, and I do not see myself acting differently in the future. The beauty is that even if I was wrong, it can be corrected. The good thing is that I can accept if I was wrong, instead of feeling a need to argue the point till the cows come home, which is more and more frequently what is happening on Wikipedia, on the talk pages and on the mailing lists. Do we want to build an encyclopedia or read our opinions on line? If it is the latter, I suggest that the blogosphere is a better place for it.

C: As for edit summaries--I have been around for a very long time, from a time, in fact, where edit summaries were not common practice. It takes some time for an old dog to learn new tricks. At the suggestion of someone below, I have changed my preferences to require me to add edit summaries. That said, I think, and have always thought, that far too much emphasis is being placed on the way an edit is made than on the quality of the contribution. That is unfortunate. On that same note, I think far too much onus is placed on the fluff answers people want to see than on the honest answers people should see. Danny 05:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by trialsanderrors

5. I would actually like to make this more specific: Why do think that the contributions by Ekraam (talk · contribs), who added an (attributed) copy of the Computing Business article on HSBC senior executive Rumi Contractor warrants a month-long block without warning or explanation rather than to point him/her towards out copyright and inclusion policies ?

A: I think my answer above explains my position. To be more specific, this was obviously spam intended to promote someone who would not be included in a normal encycloepdia--a regional CIO? C'mon? Do we have an article about Carolyn Doran (the COO of the WMF), of the CIO of Suntrust Bank (my bank)? As for using a copyrighted text, that is generally done when people do not want us to be able to edit the content. On the phone I have heard numerous times, "That is the official bio, and it shoudl not have to be edited." I do not believe spammers are coming to Wikipedia in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. They are coming to promote a POV agenda, and should be treated as such. Their interests are not our interests, and it behooves us to realize that now, before it is too late. Once again, I realize that this will be an unpopular answer, and I invite you to vote accordingly. Danny 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Geogre

6. What is the value and role of IRC for an administrator to Wikipedia? What is the value and role of an ostensibly private and "admins-only" discussion forum that cannot be examined for violations of decorum or policy? Finally, what is the responsibility of those "in charge" of such fora to be 100% aware of the on-wiki controversies and polemics of the participants in such channels, and especially those with "operator" access? (I wish that I had never needed to ask this.) Geogre 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A: There are several questions here, and I will try to respond to all of them. First, I believe that IRC is a valuable forum, though its importance is over-emphasized. I do believe that communications are vital for the success of everything we do, and that IRC provides one venue for such communication, but it should not be the only venue. I also think that too much time is wasted on IRC in general chats, gossip, and, frankly, pretty stupid discussions at times. This is detrimental to the project, but it is, unfortunately, also inevitable given our size, and given the fact that people want to be doing something, but aren't quite sure what it is they should be doing. Many months ago, I wrote an essay on this very topic. I also think it helps promotes cliques and factions, though not to the extreme that some people would have us think. After all, in a project of this size, with this number of contributors, all with slightly different views, cliques and factions ar inevitable. Finally, I think IRC or some equivalent would inevitably have emerged, whether people want it to or not. On the other hand, you seem to be indicating the admin channel in particular. I was one of the people that advocated the creation of that channels, so that hot-button topics could be dealt with quickly and effectively. I believe that should still be the goal of the admin channel, though that is not always the case. I do not believe it should be limited to admins (I am on the channel, though I am not presently an admin), but at the same time, I do not believe we should not institute a new category of "trusted users." I believe that certain matters need to be discussed in confidence among certain very active users who have proved themselves (for example, vandalism that could have very negative legal or press implications), but I do not believe that this is necessarily the role played by the admin channel today. Finally, I believe that people have to look beyond the status of any of these titles--admin, bureaucrat, steward, office--thinking that by obtaining one they are climbing in stature within Wikipedia. It is not about status, but about improving the encyclopedia, which is what all fora for communication should be about. Danny 12:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by A. B.

7. Would you add your name to the Category:Administrators open to recall?--A. B. ^(talk) 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A: The question of admin recall reminds me of a very old question (early 2003, I believe) of reconfirming admins. I believed in it, and set an example by being the first admin to run for reconfirmation. I passed, and that gave greater justification to my adminship, since before that I was actually appointed (there were no elections once). I gave up my adminship again some months later, while on a wikibreak, and asked to be reelected. I succeeded and was still an admin until last week, when I volutarily relinquished it again because my status in the foundation changed, and I did not want anyone thinking that my adminship was a relic of that status. In fact, I was an admin before there was even a foundation. I think these actions speak louder than any list. I have relinquished my adminship. Danny 17:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification, please: your history certainly speaks louder than membership in a category, but will you also add yourself to that category, if only as a formality, or will you not do so, as a rejection of the idea of that category? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that such a process should fall on all admins, without exception, not just those who are willing to list their names. I would support a poll for regular reconfirmation of admins. I would not link myself to that category. In general, I think categories should be used to classify content, not contributors. Danny 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by Dragons flight

8. In your OFFICE role, you have had the luxury of asserting a greater authority than ordinary admins. For good or ill, the community generally would have had little recourse to challenge your decisions. Obviously there are times when the nature of your OFFICE role required action (including possibly secret action) that would deviate from the normal policies, process, and standards of behavior for ordinary admins on Wikipedia. However, the issue raised by some of the opposers is whether your behavior differed from that normally expected of admins even at times when there wasn't a pressing reason to do so. I would like you address whether or not you feel your actions in the past have been consistent with the normal standards for admin behavior, and whether you are prepared to abide by the expectations laid out in policies such as WP:DEL, WP:CSD, WP:BLOCK, and WP:BITE even if you disagree with aspects of how those policies are currently constructed. Dragons flight 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A. The whole issue of using OFFICE is a red herring. I only used office as Dannyisme, and even then, there were only 28 edits made using that name, 13 to the main namespace, and all of those on the same 4 or 5 articles at the request of Jimmy or Brad. Anything else I did (with the exception of the first time I used OFFICE, which was as Danny), was done under this user name. I feel that, as Danny, I have followed the policies mentioned above, though I did not take them to ridiculous extremes. In fact, it was me who came up with the idea of BLP tagging in the first place, so I am quite comfortable that I behaved accordingly, based on information that I had. The only issue I see as possibly valid is WP:BITE, and as I indicated before, I do not think that spammers and the like should be regarded as "harmless newbies, trying to help build an encyclopedia." They are here with an agenda--to promote their product, cause, self, etc., and frankly, they don't give a damn about our own policies, except as means of self-promotion. When I am told on the phone that Fleshlight is interested in having its article in the main namespace solely as a means of promotion, I have no qualms about deleting it. In cases of spam or obvious bad intent, I will continue to bite. Danny 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Xiner

9. My chief concerns about your candidacy is best laid out in an essay about the vested contributor. Could you address it?

A: I disagree with the assumption of the article. Experience has a role to play in all aspects of life, including editing a wiki. To assume otherwise is patent nonsense. Danny 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:ChazBeckett

10. Why do you believe nearly 25% of particants in this RfA are opposed to granting adminship? If this RfA succeeds, will this relatively high level of opposition affect your behavior as an admin? ChazBeckett 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A: I really cannot speak for all of the people who are opposed. I think their concerns are genuine, though I think that they are overlooking some of the other things i have done. I am not one for tooting my own horn, and I don't intend to list them all here, but I have been a successful mediator, I turned down checkuser because I thought I had too much power as it is, and I was the first to initiate mentoring of vandals. In fact, I advocated strongly for two people who I thought could continue to make significant contributions to Wikipedia despite the fact that they were immediately tagged as vandals (Mike Garcia and Wik). In that I believe I took a more concilliatory approach than many of the people opposing me here. I also think that RfA is not a reflection of the community--it is more a reflection of the RfA patrollers. Too many good, established users avoid it. That is unfortunate. I think that "Assume good faith" has lost its meaning, and is now used as a bludgeon against people--rather than genuinely assuming good faith themselves, people are more apt to point out when someone else did not assume good faith. In that alone, Wikipedia is losing some of its moral highground, and it saddens me. Finally, I am disturbed by some of the advice I am getting--"Tell them what they want to hear." I can only question the efficacy of a process in which people are encouraged to not say what they really think to win a vote. I have been very honest in my answers. I don't believe that there is one pat solution for every problem, or one single way to act. I think each situation should be judged as unique and responded to accordingly. So, in response to your last question, I will not give the pat answer everyone would like to see, and which no one really keeps to anyways. I will act as I have said I will. I will evaluate each situation, make judgments based on experience, and act accordingly. As for conflicts I have been in, that is certainly true. I have been in conflicts in the past. I anticipate being in conflicts in the future, whether I am an admin or not. How can I be involved with seeing Wikipedia grow and flourish, overcome problems, and become the amazing resource it can be if I am not willing to get my hands dirty every now and again? Danny 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny states above that "RfA is not a reflection of the community--it is more a reflection of the RfA patrollers." Worthy of note is the fact that Danny's is an extremely well-attended RFA, and he has received more votes opposing his nomination than most successful candidates ever receive in support of theirs, currently representing almost 30 percent of the total votes cast. Moreover, many of the neutral votes cast (including my own) and votes cast in support of Danny are qualified by concerns about Danny's personal style. While I am not a bureaucrat -- nor do I ever hope to be -- if I were, I would have to conclude that Danny's nomination has failed to obtain a consensus in favor of his nomination, and I will continue to watch with interest to see how this RfA is eventually closed. // Internet Esquire 07:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:ElinorD

11. Recently I have seen discussion about whether or not it is permissable (and whether or not it should be permissable) to link to sites such as Encyclopaedia Dramatica, Daniel Brandt's site, and Wikipedia Review, which either attack individual editors/administrators, or post their personal details (or in some cases do both). There is also the question as to whether posting a nowiki'd URL in the case of a site which has been blacklisted is (or should be) allowed. If you had the power to make (or vote on) such decisions, what position would you take? ElinorD (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A: I do not understand the question: 1. How does linking to these sites enhance the quality of the encyclopedia we are trying to build? 2. How does this impact my performance as an admin? Danny 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Okay, I'll clarify. How does linking to these sites enhance the quality of the encyclopaedia? There is currently an article about Daniel Brandt. Should it or should it not have links to his site? There was an article about Encyclopaedia Dramatica. While I'm not familiar with all the details, I think it was deleted in part because the existence of such an article was inviting the posting of links to it, if not on the article itself, then on the talk page. When that article existed, should links to it have been permitted? With regard to the relevance this has to your performance as an admin, admins have the power to block people who post links to sites that give names and addresses of editors. Admins have the power to delete such links from page histories. They have the power to protect a page where such links are being posted. They also have the power to undo such blocks, deletions, and protections performed by other admins. Some editors feel that allowing such links is condoning and enabling real-life stalking. Other editors feel that forbidding such links is a form of censorship. Since every prospective admin will, if the RfA is successful, be given tools that will enable him to strengthen one or other of those two conflicting positions, it would be useful, before voting, to know which side you would support. ElinorD (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is the policy of the Foundation not to link to those sites, I will enforce it. As an admin, I do not make policy. Danny 18:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Irpen

11. Since the administrators are very much involved in hot issues that include the live users and content creators, be it the conflict resolutions or policies that do not have the clear cut interpretations and require case by case approach, it is very important that the administrators do not loose touch with the editors' concerns through remaining continuously involved in content writing themselves. In view of this, I am concerned with your answer to Q2. Are you able to demonstrate by your relatively recent contributions that you still did not loose interest in the content writing, which is the main purpose of this project?

A Iran-Iraq boundary is the most recent article I am most proud of. I have also done a lot of content adding to Wikisource, linking it to Wikipedia to provide resources for articles. Danny 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Pascal.Tesson

13 I'm not so comfortable with some of your above answers to editor questions. You certainly realize that many are unhappy about your occasional disregard of policy, common practice and the community in general. I'm sure you believed you acted for the greater good of Wikipedia but the community doesn't give someone admin rights because they think that person knows better than anyone what's right for Wikipedia. We give them these rights because we trust that they will follow the rules and practices we have set up and will consult with the community should they choose otherwise or find that these rules need to be changed. Are you confident that your position of authority hasn't made you lose track of that principle? For instance, do you still believe that it's currently ok to issue prolonged blocks without warning to users you believe are spammers? Pascal.Tesson 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A: Actually, I am opposed to the excessive legalism and process that has emerged over the past few years. I think there are way too many rules--too many in fact to get on with the real task in hand, which is creating a font of knowledge. I have no idea how many rules pages there are now, but they number in the thousands. I would prefer a much simpler approach, a single page. Esperanto grammar has sixteen rules. We can model ourselves on that. Or even more simply, I would suggest a greater adherence to the Five Pillars, including the last one. Or do we not really mean that. As for the opposition to me and what I am saying, I tend to look at a glass as being three-quarters full, rather than one-quarter empty. And I am glad that people are actually considering some of the issues I am raising (as you are doing, just by asking this question). Maybe change is possible. Danny 21:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Bastique

14 There have been several remarks about the nature of your office actions. Can you provide further explanation about what an office action is and in what context you were performing them?

A: I find the whole question of office actions moot. To be clear, there were 7 office actions performed--6 under Dannyisme and only one under this user name. In each instance, I did not make the decision, but was instructed to do so by the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation in response to a looming legal threat. I never had the authority to do or undo office actions, despite the misperception, because I was the one who actually put the tag in place. The last time I did so was Nov. 7, i.e., 5 months ago. Because of the high visibility office actions engendered, they were essentially abandoned. Danny 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Cool Cat

15 I was wondering if you could provide some examples of your offline/online office actions you were involved in. What kinds of issues did you deal with? -- Cat ^chi? 22:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A: First and foremost, I dealt with everyday money issues. I worked closely with the bank, helped with the audit, worked on the fundraiser, went in search of grants and donations. I did pretty well at that. I also answered the phone--again and again and again. It was a hiodgepodge of people from senators and congressmen (remember when they were changing Wikipedia?) -- to celebrities when we got the facts wrong -- to people who wanted articles about themselves (I was number 18 on American Idol. How am I supposed to get famous if there is no article about me) -- to publicity hounds (Osama Bin Laden's mistress comes to mind) who want their articles to say what they want -- to spammers ("Hey, I am trying to advertise my company on your website and someone changed what I wrote. Can you lock it? If not I will sue you and your family.") -- to kooks -- to serious legal threats -- to people asking how to get the coyotes out of their backyard. Yesterday I had dinner with someone who was in the office one day. He said that in the two hours he was there I field four calls that impressed him. I don't remember the first, but there was the family of a child actor who was being stalked, Osama's lady friend, and the police in Wisconsin who wanted someone who could read runes (don't ask, but suffice it to say they were written in blood). Then there were schools, lots of schools, calling because rival schools called their football team faggots or their computer club, idiot savants, or some teacher, a pedophile. And I can go on and on ... Get me drunk and will tell you about the Elders of of Mother Earth, calling from Deutschland ... that is Germany ... on Gaia ... which is the planet Earth ... Danny 23:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Murgh

16 Since it seems many take issue with episodes of past interactions, and the form of your answers neglect to butter up what a fundamentally nice person you are, I'd like to ask, do you view it as important to be patient and courteous in communication with your fellow wikipedians? MURGH ^disc. 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A: I think it is important to be patient and courteous to everyone who has the best interests of the project at heart. Danny 15:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not So Optional questions from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Hi Danny! I'm retired now from the project but I hope you don't mind if I pop by to ask you a few questions:

• To help shut down the gossip and second-guessing, would you please explain why you suddenly resigned from all your positions of power and authority last month?

• As I have said before, I will make my positions known during the upcoming board election. For now, suffice it to say that I believe that the board has not completely met the expectations I had of it, both as a Wikipedian and an employee. I believe that at this point in my life, I can be a greater asset to the WMF as a board member than I can as an employee. Danny 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why wait? Why not make it known now? What can you tell us then that you won't now? If your positions on the issues are strong, surely it would only help your case to get out the word early. If they are not so strong, all the better to get them out in the open so they can be adjusted accordingly.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is common knowledge that you recommended Essjay to Ms. Stacey Schiff to interview as a "model" Wikipedian. But what role, if any, did you have in the Foundation's hiring of Ryan Jordan? And what, if any, actions did you take when the extent of his fraud became apparent?

• I recommended several people to Stacy Schiff, among the Essjay. She interviewed several of them, but the Essjay story was certainly intriguing. Hey, I was also interviewed, but the editors decided to cut the piece about me. As for the next question, the Foundation did not hire Ryan Jordan. Wikia did, and as I am not employed by Wikia, I cannot comment on that. I had nothing to do with it. I took no actions when what you call the "fraud" became apparent. I do not agree with what Ryan did, and would not do so myself, but I do not think he should be thrown to the dogs. He made a mistake, as have I on many occassions, as have we all. Let's move on, instead of throwing him to the dogs. Danny 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Opps, my mistake wrong shell. But, as you point out below, we all make them. And indeed mistakes should be forgiven if they are not serious or repeated. What R.J. did was, however. Considering the gravity of the offense he got off rather easy. What you call being thrown to the dogs, many consider being held accountable for ones actions.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Would you please explain This edit and This one? And do you really find consensus building to be "tiresome" and prefer just to delete out of process when in doubt? And if so, how is this approach compatible with the building of an encyclopedia by a community governed by consensus and trust?

• Above I explained that Joel Leyden called the office and expressed that his sole purpose was to spam Wikipedia. I have worked in Israeli media, and I know many prominent people in Israeli news media. None had ever heard of him. It was an obvious attempt at spamming and POV-pushing, and that conclusion was drawn by investigating the matter beyond just looking at the web. I also found that he used sock and meat puppets to influence the vote on his VfD. In effect, I was following policy, and he was trolling. YOu need only read his blog to see the ludicrous degree he has taken this. And no, I do not support al-Qaeda, and the only reason we did not speak Hebrew on the phone was that I spoke too quickly for him to understand.

• No one here is accusing you of being an al Qaeda sympathizer, nor questioning your command of Hebrew. You have explained the second diff from your perspective, but you completely ignored The first one. Deleting a fair comment on a discussion page, because it questions one of your actions seems rather petty, and at odds with what this project is supposed to stand for. It is hard to believe that it was a simple editing mistake.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• How do you respond to board chair Florence "Anthere" Devouard's recent charge that you don't work well with others and you discourage transparancy?

• I disagree with both those statements, and suggest that you ask people who have worked with me if I am really that difficult to work with. Leading up to another question, I worked with Erik over the past few months, and believe that, despite differences in approach, we worked rather well together. In fact, my respect for him grew as a result of that experience. And yes, I still continue to disagree with him on some important issues. Danny 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• So you deny M. Devouard's implication that you deeply resent having to answer to Erik now? What of her charge that you have discouraged transparency on the board (for example why no board minutes whatsoever have been posted to wikimediafoundation.org since 2006?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Due to your seemingly quick temper and trigger-finger to match, you've been dubbed the Living landmine of Wikipedia by some, how do you respond to that?

• I think that my attitude with regard to this RfA would indicate that my temper is not as quick as people would think. Wikitruth also compared Brad Patrick to a pussy cat, when I can assure you that he is a dog owner. Danny 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unless, of course, you are secretly a seething cauldron of rage underneath:) Sometimes it can be really hard to tell in this mode of communication. Small correction, though; WikiTruth compared Brad Patrick to a kitten, clearly stating that the kitten was nowhere near as smart or cute as Brad. A rather favorable comparison considering the kitten:) But there are misperceptions on both sides here. I'd not be too surprised if you and Brad probably think the WikiTruthians engage in Kitten/Puppy/insert favorite baby animal here BBQes:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• With regard to the preceding link, Eric Moeller has done a tremendous amount for this project, so how do you explain why you felt the sudden need last year, to revoke all his privileges and lock him out for 48 hours?

• There were circumstances that I will not go into that led to the blocking of Erik. I believe that Erik and I have made peace over what happened. We both understand the circumstances better. I will decline to say any more than that. Danny 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Since you refuse to reveal the the circumstances here, would you please respond to Flcelloguy's summary of them in question 22 below? Is this, in your view, an accurate account? This aside, I'm glad to see that you and Erik are buddies once more.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and answers,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Now it is my turn to ask you a question. Why did you decide to come out of a lengthy retirement to ask me these questions. Danny 19:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very well, since you indulged me above I owe you:) In part out of curiosity...I honestly wanted to see your response to these issues and give you an opportunity to state YOUR side of the stories for a change. In part because I have this awful disease which compels me to speak truth to power. And yes, I do regard it as a malady, since without it, I'd be far richer and more powerful today (Note to self: As a guiding principle, must replace What Would V do? with What would Darth Vader do?:). While the ability to roll back vandalism and protect articles is no big deal, the ability to block/ban and delete/ignore IS a very big deal indeed. Besides, let's face it Danny, you would not be just another admin, here. Currently Rfa, for all its flaws, is the only process where admins can be held directly accountable to the community. Unfortunately, you have not convinced me that you have the judgement or temperament required to be a good admin. Sorry. But I hope your weekend has proven as enjoyable as mine.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from FlatGenius

18 There is speculation as to the extent of your further political aspirations within the WMF, to which this RfA (as opposed to simply asking to be given your admin bit back, something you could have easily done) would be a first step. Your answer above, I can be a greater asset to the WMF as a board member than I can as an employee seemingly reinforces this idea. I would like to hear your side to this speculation, and your current plans as member of Wikipedia. Do you intend to be just another admin and work in the trenches, or do you indeed hold political plans within WMF in the future?

A: I have made no secret of my intent to run for the Board. I may win. I may not. Whatever happens, I still intend to contribute to Wikipedia and the other projects in any way I can. Danny 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Just H

19: If someone had enough influence in the Wikipedian political process suddenly decided to put falsehoods in articles or harrassed users in a way that could cause real world legal action, what could be done to correct the situation without creating undue bad feelings? Just H 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AI would ban them. Danny 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Ravedave

20 Jon Stewart the other night said something along the lines of "Bush won 50% of the vote but doesn't act like he is president of 100% of the population", do you intend to listen to the dissenters and change your behavior based on the feedback in the "oppose" section? Please start with a yes/no. Thank you! -Ravedave 23:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A: The question is moot. I have 75 percent. Do they intend to change their attitudes seeing that 75 percent support me? Danny 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Expanding.' Are you somehow implying that none of the (so far) 59 opposers have a valid criticism that could help you improve, or that you have no room for improvement, or that you are not interested in listening to the constructive criticism expressed by many of them? Any of these options may be inferred from your answer above. A clarification wouldn't hurt. FlatGenius 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt-in but as a supporter, I'd like to note that the 75% of people who still believe the net effect of you re-adminship would be positive don't necessarily agree with all of your less-likeable habits. I find most of the criticism perfectly valid and taking it into account would not lose you the respect of your supporters. Saying "I get the message" for the sake of getting support is of course ridiculous (as you've pointed out) but saying "take me as I am" is an even worse option. People want you to be more patient, less agressive, more courteous and you can do all of that without diminishing your efficiency as an admin. Pascal.Tesson 02:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As one who remains strongly neutral to Danny's nomination, I echo these sentiments, and Danny's dismissive attitude towards the minority is becoming more and more troubling to me. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a super-majority of 75 percent support does not translate into a mandate. // Internet Esquire 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we're going to have a conversation here, it seems.. I thought I might point out that in my view Danny clarified his position here in the supplemental statement he left below. He's not claiming that he can ignore someone just because they are in the minority, in fact he's already adjusted his behavior based on someone who opposed. What he's claiming is that 25% isn't a mandate.. this doesn't imply that 75% is either. Below in his statement he explains that there is no numerical percentage that overrides doing the right thing. I'm confident that Danny will take to heart all of the points which seems like a good idea after some reflection, no matter which side they come from.--Gmaxwell 02:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As the subject of what may well be the most contentious RfA in Wikipedia's history, I can only say that I thought the question was rather silly. Would Stewart have said "Bush won 75% of the vote but doesn't act like he is president of 100% of the population"? Is the authority of an admin equal to that of a president? Is there no recourse for admin actions if they prove wrong? Deleting an article is hardly the equivalent of strafing a city. As someone once said about Wikipedia, and academic debates in general, "The tensions are so high because the stakes are so low."

Having said that, I want to add that this RfA has been very painful to me. It hurts me to see me portrayed as some arrogant, uncaring monster, and I can only hope that the people who really know me, who have worked with me on a day-to-day basis, do not feel that. I do not think they do, even realizing that I can be passionate about what I believe. Still, the bitterness that this RfA is evoking really does pain me.

I am not someone who likes to talk of his achievements, so I will not do that here. It ill becomes this forum to devolve into "You were mean here!" "Oh, yeah, well I was nice here." I learned long ago that you cannot win a principled argument with words, but only by example. I continue to believe that. Nevertheless, in a break from my usual reticence, I will say that I believe that I have shown good faith, to new users (I find the term newbie condescending) and to veterans alike. I have helped them through difficult times, and have learned from them, just as I hope they have learned from me. I hope to continue in that vein, whether I am an admin or not, and only regret that people cannot see the other side of the coin that is not being shown here. Danny 03:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

<< As the subject of what may well be the most contentious RfA in Wikipedia's history, I can only say that I thought the question was rather silly. >>

This RFA has given rise to serious concerns that many Wikipedians (including myself) have about vested contributors. Similar concerns would arise if an elected official were running for his or her 10th or 11th term in office as a dog catcher, regardless of his or her past performance and/or qualifications. And FWIW, I dont think that you come off as arrogant. Rather, you seem to be genuinely perplexed as to the nature of your opposition's concerns. In the hopes of clearing up that confusion, please allow me to redirect your attention to the legitimate concerns expressed on the Meatball Wiki page about Vested Contributors. // Internet Esquire 08:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hightly pertinent question from Doc

21. What's the capital of Uzbekishtan ? --Doc^g 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A: Tashkent--I know because I made the map. Danny

Question from Flcelloguy

22. Danny, this is going to be a long question, so please bear with me as I give some background on the situation that led to Erik's desysopping and indefinite blocking by yourself. Also recognize that I - and I'm sure all of us - appreciate a lot of the work you have done here; your contributions are valued. However, I would like some additional answers - or at least a clarification of the situation - regarding this incident in April. I note that you've addressed this incident directly above, commenting that "there were circumstances that I will not go into that led to the blocking of Erik," and that you "will decline to say any more than that." While you are free to decline to say any more on this matter, I just wanted to give you this opportunity to elucidate on the situation more or answer some of my questions, if you would like, or otherwise, state that there were circumstances, legal or other, that cannot be discussed in public. So here goes:

The situation began with your stubbing and protection of NewsMax.com and Christopher Ruddy, with you citing "POV qualms" in your edit summary. In your protection, there was no indication at all that the protection and stubbing arose from any communication in the office. You used the standard {{protected}} template, even though I had created {{office}} [1], a specific template, so that it would be more explicit which articles were protected because of legal reasons and which ones were not, and had informed you of its creation, which you acknowledged. Some editors noticed this stubbing and wondered whether or not it should be considered an OFFICE action, and raised a query at Wikipedia talk:Office Actions. Splash, at this point, asked Danny for clarification, and Danny replied, saying that "if I do something like that, please assume it is with office authority." This was pointed out on the thread at Wikipedia talk:Office Actions, and another editor listed both of the pages under the section of protected and stubbed articles. This editor, who was not an administrator, also requested on the talk page that an administrator tag the articles with the appropriate template or at least place them in the category of Office actions. Because I had that page watchlist, I obliged with the request, per Danny's indication that they were Office actions. I was comfortable doing so because Danny had already indicated that they were Office actions in his response, and because he had mistakenly used the generic {{protected}} tag in the past before and had not raised objections to people changing it to the newly-created {{office}} template.

However, my edits were soon reverted and deleted by Kelly Martin. She deleted my edit and changed it back to the {{protected}} tag, and also sent an email to me advising me that she knew what she was doing. It was at this point that I noticed that another administrator had already changed the tag once before, per the discussion and Danny's own response, and had been reverted, using admin rollback, by Danny himself. This admin rollback was not only problematic in that it was not being used to remove vandalism but a good-faith edit, but also was still unclear about whether the article should have been tagged with Office. (Was he removing the tag because they were not office actions? Was he removing them because he didn't want them tagged?) These two edits had also been deleted by Kelly Martin, and because I did not check the deleted history of the page, was unaware of this. Thus, these four edits - two changings of the tags, one by myself, and another by ContiE, each citing Danny's own words and believing that he simply forgot to use the appropriate tag, were deleted. (They are still in the deleted history today.)

Danny also made a comment to the thread on Wikipedia talk:Office Actions, commenting "Undone. Please assume good faith." The entirety of his comment was vague and ambigious, and discussion followed - although Danny himself did not comment any further - about whether or not the action should be construed as being under the OFFICE tag. Other admins later re-added the article to the Office protected category, and the {{Office}} tag was re-added at least once.

During all of this, Erik Moller, another highly respected sysop and now a Board member, noticed the protections and disagreed with them. Believing them to be a standard administrative action, he unprotected the articles, though he did not revert the stubbing, and left a note on the talk page. Erik's post on the mailing list goes into more detail about this: [2], and another post elucidates further [3]. Though his actions may not have been optimal, they were in no way dangerous or explicitly wrong; he saw an administrative action he disagreed with, a protection of an article for "POV qualms", and unprotected it, leaving a note for discussion. However, Danny then proceeded to immediately desysop Erik both here and on Meta, and indefinitely blocked him on Meta as well as here, citing "reckless endangerment - OFFICE" as the entirety of his reason. This block was then reversed (see the block log) by The Epopt, who cited in his unblock log that he was "revers[ing] insane indefinite block". Danny then reblocked again, with no comments at all, again for an indefinite period and placing "recklessness" in his block log. After a large public outcry after Erik's appeal on the mailing list, Danny then proceeded to shorten the block to 48 hours, saying "recklessness--as agreed with erik and counsel--acting in office capacity". Jimbo then stepped in at this point, unblocking Erik from enWiki (Angela unblocked him on Meta), and asking that his sysop rights be restored on both Meta and enWiki, which they were.

Now, this whole situation is summarized in a Signpost article, but I feel that I've given a more complete account of the events. To this day, there has not been an explanation or apology from Danny, though I'm happy to see the two have since reconciled. (See question number four in this interview with Erik I did for the Signpost.) However, to quote Erik, Danny's actions and judgment at this time were a bit of an "overreaction". What I would like to know, Danny, is whether or not you consider this incident one the mistakes you have made. Was it? If not, why were you not more forthcoming in the whole debacle? A lack of communications was a huge problem, but all it would have taken was a short note explaining that there were legal issues that could not be publicly disclosed. Yet throughout this whole incident and afterwards, you did not elucidate, clarify, or in any way comment on what happened - the sudden and uncalled for indefinite blocking and desysopping of one of our longtime contributors - and even refused to talk to Erik when he called you to inquire about what happened. I'm just asking you and giving you, Danny, this opportunity to elucidate on what happened. Of course, you are under no obligation at all to answer the question, given your reticence and reluctance to speak about the topic in the earlier question, but I - and I'm sure many others - would love to hear your point of view and your comments on this.

Thank you very much, Danny, and congratulations if you've (you referring to the reader, not Danny) read through all of this without skimming. :-) (If you did skim, I encourage you to go back and read all of it carefully; it was a very complex situation.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I do want to note that Danny, as well as another independent third party, has since emailed me with regards to this question and the situation in April. There were facts that I had been previously unaware of, being private in nature. While I am still certainly not condoning anyone's actions here, because mistakes were made by all the involved parties, Danny included, (and the fact that some of the information regarding the situation is still disputed), I am comfortable now with his explanation, which I think (combined with the third party's further expoundment of the situation) is sufficient. Certainly, things could have been handled a lot better, but I do feel that he has answered my questions to the best of his ability.

However, he also requested in his email that the details regarding the situation be kept confidential, a request that I will of course honor. It is not my decision whether or not to release these details; it is his, and his alone. Of course, I understand that some of you will still be frustrated by this lack of information - something which I completely empathize with - but I do want to emphasize that it is not up to me now to provide more information. I asked the question (along with the background of events) because I could not, in good conscience, have either supported or opposed without raising the issues and concerns that I had, and with the question being asked, I have now received what I feel is a satisfactory response.

Thank you for your understanding, and thank you both to Danny and the other person for taking the initiative to email me. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions from badlydrawnjeff

23. My first major interaction with you concerned your actions surrounding the article Fleshlight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Do you still feel your actions were warranted in this situation, do you feel the community consensus is proper, and is this an action we'd expect in a similar way from you in the future?

24. 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?

25. Regarding question 20, do you really believe that the 60+ editors who oppose your reconfirmation need to "change their attitudes?" If so, about what? If not, how should we interpret that answer, as a comment at the talk page suggested that the question may have been somewhat of a set up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(Deleted fun questions 26, 27 and 28 that serve only to distract readers from the serious debate going on here. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

Question from Wooyi

29 Danny, you stated that your actions on WP:OFFICE were intended to prevent libel suit against the foundation. While I wholeheartedly believe your statement is true and I appreciate your efforts, I'd like to inquire that, the website Wikitruth has posted those deleted libelous materials that were once on Wikipedia, why hasn't anyone sued Wikitruth for those libelous materials? If Wikitruth would not be sued for those materials, why Wikipedia would be? Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 05:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Danny's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I will appreciate your support, and will understand your hesitation. Danny 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• The January 2004 RfA.
  • I would ask the 'crat closing this to take into account the vast amount of WP:ILIKEIT "votes" in their final decision. Just H 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • ILIKEIT is about people who think articles shouldn't be deleted because they like it or find them interesting. People just voting or something close isn't too odd, nor should their opinion be discredited because of that. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you are mistaken, Just H. RFA/B's are requests for the community to demonstrate whether or not the editor has its (the community's) trust. If "you like him/her" and trust the editor, that is all that matters. This is not AfD, where we are judging an article's merits on the basis of notability, pertinence, or "encyclopædiness". -- Avi 02:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

• If things continue as Í think they will, this may be a good example for others that, once you become respected by the community and showed at least as much respect towards Wikipedia, you really need to mess everything bad, too bad, to lose that respect. No candidate would be able to pass a RfA with those replies but few, very few ones. -- ReyBrujo 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with his replies? Responses to these questions are used to gauge how knowledgeable of and dedicated to Wikipedia someone is. In Danny's case, these questions are totally superfluous. I think his response to question 3, which is forged in bucketfuls of real world experience, is the most refreshingly honest and insightful answer I've ever seen. --Cyde Weys 03:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"How does this help Wikipedia?" That is something, without fail, Danny asks in each and every situation. In the few months I watched him work in the office Danny's first concern wasn't what people were saying, or who did what, or getting his face in the media. Danny's focus is on what helps the project most at that moment.

His ideas are always practical and solid. If Danny sees something that might work for Wikipedia as far as acquiring content or getting official endorsements from respected institutions or landing donations ... he will make it happen. He doesn't waste time generating massive discussion pages or disputing minor issues.

Most people help the project either by being contributors or by performing services (working at the office/networking/hardware/legal issues/donations/etc.). Danny is one of the few people that does both. I once watched him spend 12 hours answering phones, meeting with donors, giving projects to idle volunteers, solving travel problems, and a few other things I can't remember. He then went home and translated four Wikipedia pages into Hebrew.

Danny Wool is one of the project's greatest allies, and it would only suffer without his help administrating it.

Atshields0 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny's supplemental statement

Rather than answer all the remaining questions, I think that I will simply make a statement here. It may lose me votes, and I am fine with that. I asked to go through this process, and I intend to go through this process, even if the result is that I lose.

I've worn many different hats on the English Wikipedia. I have been a long-time contributor, an admin when adminship was still an appointed position, a bureaucrat, a steward, and even a member of the office staff—the only person entrusted with the dreaded WP:OFFICE. I have worked behind the scenes in ways that most people can't imagine, and handled complaints from irate people, famous and non-famous and infamous, in a respectful and courteous manner. In most cases, I have even been able to calm them down, though inevitably there were some who did not get what they want. Such is life.

I have dealt with the community on a professional and courteous level. No, I did not. I went beyond that. Just last night, I had the police in my house because there was a concern about a user's safety. It was not the first time I dealt with an issue like that, and for those who have been around long enough, it will probably not be the last. Suffice it to say that I had no idea who that user was—or is, but still I was ready to help—without making any value judgments.

I have risen just about as high as you can get in the Wikipedia hierarchy, and have been involved in some of the most contentious issues, whether visible to the community or not. I believe in openness. In fact, I would like to see even greater openness in many of our processes. On the other hand, that does not mean that I think everything should be an open book. We all agree that we should protect the right to privacy of our users, even if it means that sometimes people take advantage of our goodwill. Well, there are some other things that require privacy too, whether for personal reasons or for the well-being of the Foundation. In some way, I was charged with protecting that, and I will continue to do so, even now that I no longer work for the Foundation.

As for this RfA, I may have done something unprecedented here. I may have actually told the truth in all of my answers. As a writer, I could have come up with just the right answers. As a long time theology student, I could have painted myself as a penitent or martyr. I could have said all the "right things," but I chose not to. I chose to say it as I see it. As someone who has risen quite nearly to the pinnacle, I believe I have a fairly comprehensive view of the project, its aims, and the means of achieving them. And I believe that honesty, even if it is not always comfortable in the short term, is always the best policy.

So let me say it as I see it.

1. I believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: This is first and foremost. The question we should ask ourselves is how does this benefit an encyclopedia. When I spoke to the owner of a laundromat, who wanted a page about his business on Wikipedia, I asked him what other encyclopedias he was approaching? Britannica? World Book? Columbia? I asked the same thing of Fleshlight, and was told that they thought of Wikipedia not as an encyclopedia but as a marketing tool. They did not understand.
2. I believe that Wikipedia is revolutionary: We are reconfiguring how knowledge is transmitted, and many people don't like that. It is in their interest to show how this new model will fail, even if it means telling students to vandalize Wikipedia to show how bad it is.
3. I believe that Wikipedia is of enormous commercial and advertising value: A page on Wikipedia is worth enormous amounts of money, and a positive review of a product or company or person is too. Of course, we do not do reviews—that is POV-pushing. But maybe, people think to themselves, we can do it subtly, so that no one will notice. Maybe we can convince people to support us. The fact is, they have, and that is unfortunate. It not only rips at the heart of the community by dividing it into factions. It also calls our credibility into question. People already ask, "So how do I know someone didn’t put that in just to promote themselves?"
4. I believe that Wikipedia is anarchic: People can do what they want. People are encouraged to do what they want, and yet we have found out that in such a large community that does not always work. That is why there are so many rules, even though when I joined Wikipedia there were only three, and we say that all our rules can be boiled down to the Five Pillars. And yet, people have found ways of gaming the rules, and making new rules to avoid that only makes the existing rule system about as convoluted as this sentence. That is why I believe that the most pertinent rule of all is Common Sense.
5. I believe that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Certain goals and principles are not up for negotiations and votes. If 50 percent of the community were to decide that we no longer insist on free content or that unsourced libel about living people is acceptable, we would not change our values. If the Foundation, as represented by the Board and General Counsel, determines that something endangers the very being of the project, it is not negotiable either.
6. I believe that Wikipedia is vulnerable: Yes, and Seigenthaler and Porchesia and countless other examples have shown that. I believe in the principle of Assume Good Faith. In fact, I believe in it so much that I refuse to write it out as WP:AGF and declare it a policy. It is not a policy. It is a lofty sentiment and something we should all strive for. Of course, it does not mean that when someone does us harm, we should at once assume good faith. If someone gropes you in a bar and you turn around and smack them, they have no recourse to WP:AGF. If someone makes an effort to work against our goals, they should have no recourse to it either.
7. I believe that Wikipedia can be the best informational resource in all of human history: And that, and that alone, is what we should be striving for.

That is what I believe, and will continue to believe. I have made mistakes, but have been corrected. I challenge anyone to show me someone who hasn't made mistakes. I realize that this very statement during a contentious RfA may be a mistake, and that I may lose votes because of it, but I am willing to make it anyways. That is because I am not willing to compromise my beliefs, which include an essential belief in the importance of Wikipedia and the basic goodness of its community. Danny 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Oppose - Candidate's failure to sign acceptance displays insufficient experience with Wikipedia :) - David Oberst 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Is this vote under the wrong section? // Internet Esquire 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   No. --Deskana (ya rly) 20:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Support of course. Jkelly 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Jkelly kinda took the words out of my mouth. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support fabulous guy. Fabulous admin. Mak (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
5. WP:300 Support Viridae^Talk 01:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. "No reason not to" does not to Danny justice. "The most qualified candidate ever" might. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
7. But of course. Picaroon 01:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Support-Usually I'd give a reason but none is needed for Danny. :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - Danny cares, he really gives a crap, and he knows what he is doing. While some of us admins back off from certain controversial situations, Danny with his berserker helmet and his battle axe charged onto the battlefield of issues and stabbed them in the crotch. As Wikimedia Officer he had to be on the phone with people (some acting rather naughty) and Danny dealt with them. Even while having a Foundation job, he fought spam (by setting it on fire), and, get this, IMPROVED ARTICLES. He also donated cash-money towards the cause of improving Wikipedia through his contests and, after three billion years of being a Wikipedian, he still cares. If you have a problem, he will be able to deal with it, battle axe in right hand, giant shield in left, and he will proceed to stab it in the crotch. He will definitely be a competant admin. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. RfA is about trust and Danny is certainly trustworthy. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Support for a second I wondered: "is this the Danny?" - Anas ^talk? 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. Yes, I know it's surprising. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    As I stated in the talk page, I would consider this unnecessary. However, if you plan on breaking Phaedriel's record, be my guest :-) Always remembering that adminship is not a prize, Danny has been very respectful in his position at the office, and unless someone is able to point to a serious abuse, I must support him. -- ReyBrujo 01:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Changing to Neutral. -- ReyBrujo 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

13. Support - Well, it is Danny. What's not to trust. User has shown sufficient knowledge, and prior excellent use of his tools. --theblueflamingo^Squawk 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Support.--ragesoss 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Quite simply, Danny is an integral part of Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Very much. — Dan | talk 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Support - It is good to see someone who sets a continual example of the right way to approach WikiPedia!--Lmcelhiney 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Switch to Neutral--Lmcelhiney 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

17. Support. Most qualified candidate ever.--§hanel 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
18. (edit conflicted twice) Support - Completely without question. This is one of Wikipedia's most dedicated editors, and we will benefit greatly from him being a sysop (again) --Michael Billington (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Edit-conflicted support, obviously. My one very small gripe is I didn't like the way you jumped in and closed this debacle after not previously being that involved in RfA, if I remember correctly. But it's really not too big of a deal, especially now... Grandmasterka 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
20. Support, a proven track record demonstrating some of the best qualities in a Wikipedian. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Lkinkade 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. Danny's enthusiasm for the work we do here is endless, contagious, and inspiring. --Robth^Talk 02:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
23. Belated April Fools' oppose. Because you deserve it. – Chacor 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (Yes, this is meant to be a support.)
24. Support. When I saw this go up I knew I'd have to get my support in quick before the pile-on made additional supports look silly. I wanted to throw out a little fun trivial, as all know.. Danny is a high edit count user... we have quite a few people with high counts, but for most of them a substantial portion of their edits are semi-automated vandalism reverts. Not Danny, only 1.5% of his edits are obvious reverts. For comparison, User:SimonP is 6.7% obvious reverts... and many of the users with 20K plus edits are in the 50% range. --Gmaxwell 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
26. Support See discussion above. ~~ Atshields0
27. Support per all the comments everyone else has made. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
28. Support per above. bibliomaniac15 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
29. Of course. John Reaves (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
30. Cleared for Adminship This one's a no-brainer. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
31. Known sockpuppet (ab)user ;) quod erat supportum. — Feezo (Talk) 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
32. Support as PilotGuy said, a no brainer.↔NMajdan•talk 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Michael 03:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
34. חג שמח. El_C 03:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. It is hard to find people who are more qualified. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
36. Support - if we can't trust Danny after all that he's done in the past few years, then it'd be hard to trust anyone. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
37. I'm tempted to oppose, because Danny could just have asked any bureaucrat to get his bits back, but meh. There isn't much to say here, as your outstanding contributions speak for themselves. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
38. Strong Support. I haven't interacted directly with Danny, but I've seen his work, and seen how much good he has done for this project. I have absolutely no doubt he will use the tools wisely (as in the past) and will be a great benefit again as an admin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Support Danny is not the most communicative person in the world, and wasn't the best person to implement WP:OFFICE in its early days. However, despite my disagreements with his methods in the past, trusting him with adminship really is a "no-brainer." Xoloz 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (changed to oppose.)

39. I don't think there was any reason for him to need to step down to do this in the first place. Support, of course. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
40. Support per Mindspillage. Quite possibly the ultimate candidate given his previous work for the Foundation and on Wikipedia. --Coredesat 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
41. Obvious Support Good fellow who was sorely missed with his not being a sysop for the past week or so, hehe gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. I have worked with Danny on a lot of issues related to Wikipedia and copyright, I found his insight and guidance to be the best I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I value his judgement, I would love for him to have adminship. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. Seems dedicated to the project and trustworthy. --Mus Musculus 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. I've historically only voted for candidates with at least 60 months of expirience and 35,000 edits. Danny gives me a chance to WP:IAR, as I'll vote support, even though his edit count is still a couple thousand short of my standards. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    As the tone of this RFA has changed from triumphant to suspicious, I feel I should give a more serious reason. I've found Danny's approach to WP to be mature and encouraging. I wouldn't expect immaculate history and innocent/naive answers from someone with so much experience, and who had dealt with so much. Rather, I see some of the noted diffs and his answer to 20 as positives. Danny acts as if WP policy isn't set in stone, and WP admins aren't policy robots. I trust him to follow policy, to be an able representative of WP to new editors, and to continue to be Danny, all good reasons to support him. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

45. Support. Obvious, experienced choice. - Denny 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. Absolutely. Khoikhoi 06:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
47. Support per nom. Lakers 06:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
48. Well, as he voluntarily relinquished sysop powers, couldn't he just ask a bureaucrat or the arbcom nicely? There is significant precedent, and there is no need to go through all of this (aside from the obvious ego-boost, popularity contest, reaffirmation thing for the candidate). In lieu, perfunctory support, but it would really save the community a fair amount of trouble to just bypass this whole process. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Support per Cyde's nom. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Changing to abstention from voting. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Changing to oppose. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

49. Support — this nomination is unnecessary. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 09:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. I am especially pleased with the answer to Q3. It is one of the most realistic answers I have seen to the question. I would have preferred to see something a little more substantial in answer to Q2, though I understand the response. Vassyana 09:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
51. Support, Apple•_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 10:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
52. Support, and appreciate what is more than just a gesture - submitting to review and asking for opinions. Shenme 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    dannyisme. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Changing to oppose. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

53. Support One of the most experienced editors on here, who has helped shape Wikipedia to what it has become. As well as being an article writer – check his user page – his experience as an admin, and bureaucrat clearly shows he is more than capable of handling the admin tools. I trust him totally. In other words, I don't think Wikipedia is right without Danny as an admin. Best of luck! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
54. Strong Support. As a former employee he definitely knows what he is doing. -Mschel 11:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
55. Support- Yeah, I don't see why not. Retiono Virginian 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
56. Support - Of course! Fantastic user on all fronts. I don't really understand why he has to go through all this, but full marks to him for being willing to do so. Deb 11:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
57. Support thought he already was one... ;) Mangojuice^talk 11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
58. Support, the very willingness to voluntarily stand for community approval shows he deserves to get it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
59. As if there were any sensible option other than support. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    I'd support him twice if I could. >Radiant< 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Struck. There is more to this than I thought, and I need to think on this. >Radiant< 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

60. Support as self. Bastique 12:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
61. Support. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
62. Support, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
63. Support Proved himself countless times. Katalaveno^T_C 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
64. Support Good edior, got nomintated, must be good. Twenty Years 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
65. Support Arfan 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
66. Support This person has been an admin for a long while without issues, this sort of reconfirmation seems unnecessary. We should not be making long standing admins take an RfA regardless of how they got their bit. This user may have made a few mistakes, but find one admin who has been at it for over a year who hasn't. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
67. Support; I've had nothing but positive interaction with Danny, both here and on other projects. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. Good contributor. utcursch | talk 14:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
69. Support - eminently qualified. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
70. Support - Excellent editor. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
71. Support and urge speedy promote I asked Danny's advice on a BLP issue last weak and was kinda horrified he couldn't read deleted edits. Absurd that we have to do this, but nevermind.--Doc^g 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Hell yes. (changed to oppose)I have to agree with the opposers/neutral-er below, Danny, when I say that your answers to the questions are quite weak. However, you've done a great job in the past, and I know you'll do a great job in the future. -- Kicking222 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

72. Support and a nice cup of tea. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
73. Support I see no reason to oppose this user. Wooyi 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
74. Duh. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Especially so in light of his response to a suicide threat made by a user yesterday. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

75. Support duh.-- danntm ^T _C 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
76. Support --lightdarkness ^(talk) 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
77. Support --A. B. ^(talk) 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
78. Support, definitely. --JoanneB 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Switched to Oppose per opposers' motivation. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Though I am left mystified as to what Danny will actually do with his re-new-found adminship, I trust him enough not to screw up and he may as well have it since, when he does elect to use it, he could at least clear a few backlogs. :-) --Iamunknown 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Support, although I'm not entirely sure why he has to go through RFA again. Oh well. PTO 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Switched to oppose 00:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Support per everyone else. Acalamari 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral. Acalamari 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

79. Enough of this silliness, someone promote now please (come on, its the most obvious rfa in ages) -- Tawker 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    To be fair, there are some reasonable opposition and neutral comments that Danny should bear in mind for the future. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

80. Support per above. feydey 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
81. D. Recorder 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
82. Support Dina 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
83. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
84. Support Davewild 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
85. Support, of course. --Rory096 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
86. Support, and on to WP:100! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
87. Support -- Nick ^t 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
88. Support. Rarely have I ever met anyone who better understands the core mission of our project, and always has its best interests in mind. Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
89. Edit conflict Pile-on support reconfirming admin status here. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
90. Good chap. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
91. Issues at the office should not have any bearing on his status as an admin, and I'd ask a bureaucrat, or have Danny ask a bureaucrat, to close this and instead promote him given the precedent of former, non-controversial admins being allowed to re-admin without community vote. Despite the opposition below, I believe that my comment still holds merit; the opposition has nothing to do with his de-adminship, it has to do with not liking unrelated actions. Ral315 » 22:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
92. Support <Scratches head> I could've sworn this user is already an admin. ;) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps I should say further that i find this reaffirmation a cleansing and useful thing, hopefully engendering thought and contemplation in both Danny, other admins and those who have been his most vocal detractors and defenders. Speaking out can be refreshing, if conducted in good faith. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    To emphasize teh above... I most definitely think it would speak to the further health of our project, if at least one or more folks who are opposing Danny would rethink their premises and find a way to assess Danny as a human being, with some opinions that are wrong, but do not detract from his essential human goodness. Even if Danny defends some of his wrong actions as per not agreeing them to be wrong, that is something that in the ultimo the arbcom can cure Danny from. As it is, on the balance, Danny is most unlikely to go off his rocker to harm wikipedia, or even troll to get the goat of others. I find it very curious that people would not count his long record of *not* losing the plot against him. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    I have no opinion on Danny as a human being. That's not under discussion here. What's under discussion here is that Danny asks for the sysop bit under the program, expressly repeated, that first time offenders should be blocked for six months. I find that uncondonable and hence I oppose his candidacy. ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    To be clear, I find both Dannys firm position and some other users firm opposition to same largely principled. I can totally get behind Bishonens reasoning in the totality of her oppose vote. My stance though is informed by the fact that we have the safety valve of the arbcom, who will *not*, I assure you, be intimidated by Dannys seniority, and can be expected to chop Danny down to size, should he get off the reservation with respect to our guidelines and best practises without sufficient justification. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 21:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    As soon as I have a strong suspicion that a candidate for admin will end up at ArbCom for his admin actions I cannot but oppose. It is my principle to not do anything as admin that would warrant a (non-frivolous) ArbCom case against me, and I think that's a standard that should hold for all admins. It is in fact very easy as long as you accept that adminship is not a tool to enhance your editorial opinions. ~ trialsanderrors 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

93. Support - A prime asset to the project.Bakaman 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
94. Support answers to questions are a little perfunctory for the average RfA candidate, but seeing as this isn't the average RfA candidate... pretty obvious support, if we've trusted him at OFFICE there's no reason why we can't trust him with 'delete', 'protect', 'block' and 'rollback'... – Riana ^ऋ 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
95. Support--MONGO 02:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
96. Drag him back kicking and screaming if need be. DS 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
97. Support. I disagree with some of his deletions, but the other arguments are empty. Also, I think we need more people with Danny's sort of honesty. — CharlotteWebb 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
98. Support - No reason not to. --WinHunter ^(talk) 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
99. Support I trust him.--cj | talk 05:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
100. Well, This makes this process a formailty. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
101. Full support In response to the rapid blocking of new users, Spammmer have an MO just like vandals. If we can block vandals for one or two edits (I know a lot of admins do this) if it fits a known vandalism pattern. Those involved anti-spam do the same thing. we see a lot of CIO and just pain spammers that wont listen to us or policy. Knowing these patterns we tend to act differntly if the case follows that of a spammer and not of a good user. (we also see countless companies promoting themselves on wikipedia also). Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
102. Support, obviously... Yonatan ^talk 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
103. Support. Danny is already familiar with the tools, and has already demonstrated considerable aplomb at using them. Give him his mop back! - jredmond 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
104. Support per nom. Despite all the words on the page, the nomination statement sums up most of what needs to be said. I find several of the oppose rationales to be frivolous; others, however, have more substance, and I trust the candidate to recognize that his new status will be that of "one of 1000 administrators" and that certain peremptory actions that might have been appropriate in his former role would no longer be in order today. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
105. Support I don't understand people who think that Danny can't be trusted unless he explains why he resigned in full detail. That was his personal choice and there is no reason to believe that he did so under circumstances that should have us questioning his commitment or indicating a potentially malevolent admin. Like most, I'm curious about it and would love to hear full disclosure on the issue but asking him in this context seems like using unfair leverage. As for edit summaries, well he says he'll use the force edit summary option and that's fine with me. Why waste the opportunity to give admin status to someone with such experience of Wikipedia? Pascal.Tesson 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
106. Support. Hemmingsen 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
107. Support Regardless of oppose number 10, where it is stated He also has a history of reverting another admin without explanation [4]. He deleted the article after I forgot to come back and delete it based on the correct policy. What he did was not "reverting another admin". I think that danny can be trusted. We should remember that adminship is not a big deal.. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
108. Support. I find most (not all) of the Oppose arguments ridiculous. Boils down to: can he be trusted with admin tools? Unequivocally, yes. -- LeCour^T:C 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
109. Already throught he was an admin Support - Yes, I know the story.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
110. Support - a very good editor, an experienced one, a dedicated one. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
111. Support. My pleasure. Danny's an experienced editor and admin who knows the project inside out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
112. Support. Obvious, in my opinion. Bucketsofg 20:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
113. Support. Definitely an obvious candidate. -- ChrisO 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
114. Proud to Support! ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
115. Support, and before this RfA is over, they will know that even a god-king can bleed. Will 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
116. support a good wikipedian in good standing. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
117. Support. We are behind you our leader!--yidi 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
118. Support. Immense experience and dedication to this project, negatives are minor. - Merzbow 03:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
119. Support per nom. We need you back, Danny!  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
120. Support - I considered a protest oppose per Amarkov. Really, this process is unnecessary - according to the nomination, Danny was confirmed by an RFA four years ago and he voluntarily resigned under non-controversial circumstances, so his admin bit should be able to be restored on request. There's no reason for this process. --BigDT 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
121. Support - (of course!), and I agree it's unnecessary, but if this is the way we're playing it, give it back to him. Georgewilliamherbert 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
122. Support per answers to questions 4 - 7. Rockpocket 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
123. Support. Pcb21 Pete 09:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
124. Support - After initially seeming likely to set new records for overwhelming support this nom is now trending fail. In reference to the oppose reasons; I find Danny's standing for RFA despite not having to a very good thing, his answers to the questions were short but direct - and it isn't like I can't tell who Danny is without more info, I'm curious about his reasons for stepping down but see no reason I must have that information, and while I strongly agree that clear edit summaries are important to explain actions I understand a failure to adapt to them and accept his intent to do so going forward. I have a bigger problem with the severity of many actions Danny has taken in the past (e.g. a month long block with little/no warning) but in most cases not the 'general premise' behind them. For instance, spam is bad, most spammers won't stop just because we ask them to, but we should try to just talk them down first - because the extra effort required is more than offset by the benefits of the very few who DO 'get it' after discussion. I'd like to see Danny do some things differently, but he has been a great contributor and I don't see any reason to assume that he won't be willing to take these issues into account. --CBD 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
125. coming-out-of-retirement-from-process-matters-support. Danny has dealt with a very high number of remarkably difficult situations on behalf of the project. Anyone with the extent of his contributions will have many failings, real or apparent, exposed. We should not expect admins to be perfect, nor should we expect them to be more perfect the more committed they are. Regards, The Land 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
126. Support. Easy one. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
127. Support - employee or non-employee, Danny's wealth of experience is invaluable to us. He discreetly dealt with more tricky situations in a week than most other admins are faced with during their entire adminship. - Mark 13:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
128. Support His past history has demonstrated to me that he excercises good judgement and is worthy of a renewal of the trust wikipedia places in its admins. -- Avi 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
129. Support. Someone who's been around the project as long as Danny has, and who has the track record that he has, definitely has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. This is "requests for adminship", not "nominations for sainthood". --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
130. Support. Thatcher131 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
131. Support. I like the reasoning behind the answers. MURGH ^disc. 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
132. Support. seems a no-brainer to me. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
133. Support - is there really a question? I'm all for it. Danny will definitely not explode Wikipedia with administrator tools. The only reason Danny lost admin/crat priveleges in the first place was a voluntary resignation - not a scandal, not some kind of awful antitrust revelation, but a voluntary "I quit the Foundation, so I'll avoid a conflict of interest and resign adminship." Jimbo thought he was good enough once, and Danny hasn't done anything to damage his reputation since. I trust Jimbo's judgement, and the ethical integrity of this candidate. Give him back the big red buttons. ♠PMC♠ 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
134. support. I can't think of a better candidate. -- Cat ^chi? 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
135. Of course Danny is perfectly competent and qualified to work as an administrator. Some of the objections below are just incomprehensible and have no bearing on the matter being discussed; I hope people have the sense to weight them as such. Shimgray | talk | 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
136. Per the immediately preceeding support. – Steel 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
137. Support - if this one fails, it's proof that RFA is so broken it will need to be abolished immmediately - David Gerard 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

     I'd support that. Based on the activity thus far I suspect I'd support it without the conditional. --Gmaxwell

138. Support. We know Danny, he errs on the side of caution. Easy call. The oppose !votes? Well-meaning but misguided, in my view. Danny's first instinct is reliably and repeaably to protect the project. In the Olden Days peopel were unwilling to challenge him. Why? He seems like a reaosnable guy, his responses to me have always been fair. The All-Highest clearly trusts him, most of the people I know and trust, trust Danny. Let's not get bogged down in past issues tied to Foundation and office actions, take the man at face value. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
139. Support The whole of Wikimedias legal liability was placed in his hands, and we were fine, a mop isn't that much harder. -M^ask? -00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
140. Without any hesitation. Danny has done an enormous ammount of good for Wikipedia, not to mention me personally, and I regret that the community and myself are not willing and able to reward him and encourage future good work to the degree necessary. I will, however, support this nomination wholeheartedly to do as much as I can. Thanks, Danny (this is Sean Black, by the way, heh).--KR | T 00:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
141. Support. I was hesitant at first, but answers to the additional questions have convinced me. Dorange 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
142. Support, boundless experience combined with a willingness to do what needs doing. --Stormie 01:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
143. Support. I do not see a reason why not. Despite the oppose voters' comments, I do not see Danny misuing the admin tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
144. Support. A no-brainer. older ≠ wiser 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
145. Support Is the project better off with him or without him? Duh. Also, because he shows no respect for the RfA process - definitely a clueful candidate. Stevage 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
146. Support — because adminship is no big deal and there is no reason not to; but primarily because I am rendered fanatically convinced by all the "oppose" comments below ➥the Epopt 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
147. Full Support Danny has been here long before most administrators, oversights, bureucrats, checkusers, and arbitrators have even heard of Wikipedia. He built the place. And, being a Steward, he could make himself a sysop here.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

     Actually, he's not a Steward, according to the link you provided. -- PKtm 03:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

148. Support. His answers, particularly to the question by User:Xiner, show a realism and pragmatism that is no longer very common in the community. On multiple projects (particularly here and on the English Wikisource, where he is still an elected administrator) he has performed admirably as an administrator and as a member of the community. He has never abused his access, and has always been willing to resolve the situations that nobody else wanted to touch because of the unpopularity of any decision.

     I don't see what else we could seriously want in an administrator. I'm sure he could improve in some areas—such as edit summary usage—but those are improvements as an editor, not an administrator. Support wholeheartedly. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:33:04, 06 April 2007 (UTC)

149. Support a productive, mature, and trustworthy long-term contributor whose answers reflect a degree of realism and flexibility not found among much of the opposition. Opabinia regalis 05:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
150. Support Good stuff --CableModem^_^ 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
151. Support Danny has demonstrated that he can handle the tools. I really don't see this being such a huge big deal. alphachimp 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
152. Support Knows what he's doing, extensive experience. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
153. Support Everything worked pretty well when he was an admin. Committed, experienced user. Oppose voters unconvincing and many show a startling lack of understanding of WP:OFFICE, WP:OTRS, and WP:BLP. —Centrx→talk • 05:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
154. Support, absolutely. --Golbez 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
155. Kusma (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
156. Support Artaxiad 07:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
157. Support, for something that was once no big deal. Whether I trust Danny to know when an article needs to be deleted or a user blocked has nothing to do with policy; rather, I trust Danny's experience, which spans more facets of Wikipedia than most contributors even realize exist, and more time than most of us can claim. The question is whether he's trustworthy to help clean up and maintain the encyclopedia; the answer seems self-evident. -- phoebe/(talk) 07:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
158. Support, the answer to question 10, which I think is spot on, 10 convinced me Danny should be an admin (again) .FelisLeo^Talk! 08:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
159. Support. We can ill-afford to lose his experience as an admin. Strong support. --Bduke 08:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
160. Support. Danny is a vital member of the community and a longtime overall great contributor to the project. --Merovingian ※ Talk 09:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
161. Support Trusted, valuable member of the community. --rogerd 10:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
162. Support , naturally. Secretlondon 11:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
163. Support per Newyorkbrad, and per fuller answer to my optional question posted today on my talk page. ElinorD (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

     Support. I can't say I am up to speed with the drama being played out below, but I don't see any huge red flags, especially for someone who has demonstrated they won't run amok with the tools. Sandstein 12:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

     Changing to neutral. Sandstein 06:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

164. Support - don't see a real good reason to oppose, and I trust him with the mop and bucket. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
165. Support. I fully understand his reasons for resignation first and seeking an explicit re-support from the community and completely support his approach. --AlisonW 13:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
166. Support despite evidence of biting and other flaws. Danny = WP. WP = Danny. There's nothing more to say. Give him the old timer's latitude he's earned. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
167. Support Excellent person to work with, both on and off wiki. Danny knows what he's doing, and that's what really counts. Shadow1 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
168. Support per, well, everyone. Coemgenus 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
169. SupportI've no doubt Danny has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and the wisdom to use these tools to that end. --InkSplotch 15:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
170. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
171. Support - I appreciate his honesty in answering the questions posed here, and trust he has the judgment to use the tools wisely. --Versageek 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
172. Support - Hasn't run screaming despite the nutjobs attacking him continuously, shows fortitude beyond the endurance of most humans. Stan 15:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
173. Support per above. —Moondyne 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
174. Support, trust has long been well established. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
175. Support Definitely. --Mbimmler 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
176. Support --- WAS 4.250 17:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
177. support --dario vet (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
178. Support It completely escapes me why so many people don't trust Danny with the tools. He is as measured and experienced as any of us. YechielMan 17:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
179. Support Voice-of-All 17:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
180. Support --Fabexplosive 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

     this user has all of 7 edits on the en site, he has more than a few on the italian wiki, but this is an en vote --Michael Lynn 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

181. Support Trust: Yes. Period. MECU≈talk 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
182. Support. Benefits of adminship outweigh the risks. And adminship is NO BIG DEAL, remember?--Wizardman 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
183. Support per above Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
184. Support one of the most trusted members of the community must be permitted to get on with improving the project. Andreww 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
185. Strong Support Best ever. Known him for sometime now. Trust worthy. Done too much and knows too much. Can't afford not to have him as an admin. --Tarawneh 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
186. Strong support - Do I trust him with the powers that he will get as an admin? Yes. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
187. Support. In the oppose section, I see a lot of foolishness and one legitimate point: that Danny's zero-tolerance spam policy amounts to newbie-biting. That may be, but I think Danny is right that corporate manipulation of Wikipedia policy is becoming enough of a problem that we should no longer consider those who participate good-faith newcomers. Chick Bowen 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
188. As nominator. --Cyde Weys 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
189. Support and there's nothing else to say really. If we keep getting rid of the so-called "newbie biters" then wikipedia will end as we know it. We can't give in to spammers, vandals, trolls and special interest groups. Call it newbie biting if you want, I call it keeping the encyclopedia credible. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

     Ay, there's the rub, and it goes far beyond Danny. In my mind the encyclopedia will hardly be less credible if we generally AGF, and revert and warn clueless newbies a couple of times before we conclude they're worthless trolls, but it will erode in quality if the attitude of "my way or the highway" continues to grow. The diehard spammer or special interest group will find a way around having their account unceremoniously blocked for a month; the newbie testing the waters with a slightly inappropriate edit will not, and the impact on the atmosphere of having too many admins who feel entitled (with the best possible intentions) to behave in this way will increase burn-out rate amongst worthwhile contributors as that attitude makes its way into broader community interactions. Martinp 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

     Recalcitrant spammers need to stopped, there is no question, but if Danny blocks StringsMan (talk · contribs) for six months without warning or notification why we discourage autobiographies (Stringsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) this is far outside the bounds of the approach we take with first-time editors who add unwanted content. I get the impression that most supporters didn't bother to look at Danny's block log in detail. There is a pretty strong disconnect between long-time contributors who have internalized the policies and the general public who pretty much has no inkling how Wikipedia operates, and Danny's approach personifies this disconnect. ~ trialsanderrors 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

     He has been an admin before and wikipedia is still here, so I have no doubt that having him as an admin will greatly help the project. I just don't subscribe to the "you need to assume good faith until your being overly politically correct" mantra. There's assuming good faith, then there's treating every "tester" like they'll be the next FA writer. Could they be? Maybe, but if they are then I bet that they'd stop after a friendly warning (test1/2). If they don't, then chances are they either a) go away away and stop vandalizing or b) continue onto test4/AIV. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

     I don't see how this supports a six month block in lieu of a test1/2, or even a strongly worded "Don't spam Wikipedia" warning. You still seem to be unaware that there was no communication from Danny to any of the one-time offenders before or after he blocked them. Here is the whole extent of the exchange:

     • 16:08, November 23, 2006 StringsMan creates "Stringsman"
     • 16:08, November 23, 2006 Danny deletes "Stringsman"
     • 16:11, November 23, 2006 StringsMan creates "Stringsman"
     • 16:12, November 23, 2006 Danny deletes "Stringsman" (spamming)
     • 16:12, November 23, 2006 Danny blocks "StringsMan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (spammer)

     And that's not an isolated case. That's Danny's modus operandi. And I'm sad to see that this kind of Fuck off out of here attitude is condoned by the community. ~ trialsanderrors 04:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

     Sad is one word for it. I have another word for my feelings about it: out-and-out disgusted. It's clearly all about power here. We have supporters stating that he has demonstrated he can handle the tools, that they trust Danny not to misuse the tools, yet it's clear (from the above and from many other provided examples) that he already has misused them, and has (from his statements) absolutely no qualms about doing so again. Despite the glaring presence of more than 50 comments in opposition, I suspect that the talk page pundits here are right: he's just gonna get approved (it's all about power), and to hell with us, to hell with WP precepts, etc. I hope I'm proved wrong, but it doesn't look like it's headed that way from where I sit. And frankly, it's why I don't edit here much anymore. -- PKtm 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

     You know what's sad? The fact that most admins who have to step down/get desysoped have almost no chance of getting the bit through RFA again. Why? Because when your an admin you're guaranteed to piss off someone enough that they'll come back to your next RFA and yell about that one thing and enough sympathizers will come that you fail the RFA. I trust Danny. That is why I'm under the support column. And unless he's laundered money or stolen from the WMF in any way (which I very highly doubt), I don't think there's anything you can say that would get me to change my position. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

     Generally speaking, if an administrator isn't overly abusive, they don't struggle much at a reconfirmation. Danny's not unique - he was overly abusive and is being held accountable for it, although it appears that the massive opposition won't be enough for anything to be halted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

190. Support; I have no doubts regarding Danny's competence or devotion to the project. Kirill Lokshin 21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
191. Support. The idea that someone who has been around here for years and worked as the lawyer to the foundation with access to the most sensitive data cannot be trusted with admin tools is one I simply can't credit, with due respect to those who hold this view. Sam Blacketer 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

     Correction, I was never the lawyer for the Foundation. I worked in the Foundation office in St. Pete. Danny 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

192. Support I understand the concerns expressed by some oppose voters, bur surely the question is whether this editor understands policy, and can and will implement it. And the answers are yes, yes and yes.--Anthony.bradbury 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
193. Strong Support. Danny has more experience in the inner and outer workings of wikipedia and wikimedia then we could ever hope or want to know. He merits the admin tools once again. --Valley2city^₪‽ 01:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
194. Support Experienced Fred Bauder 01:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
195. Support Of course he should be admin. The fact that there is this much contention is just silly. Witty lama 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
196. Support Experienced and willing to work. While I disagree with some of Danny's decisions, his clear and straightforward answers make me confident that we can work any disagreement out. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
197. Support WP:200? —freak(talk) 03:10, Apr. 7, 2007 (UTC)
198. Danny stands for very similar ideals as I do regarding our treatement and processes when dealing with BLPs, and has shown in the past that he has more backbone than 90% of the current administrators when dealing with controversial issues. A splendid candidate who has shown loyalty beyond the call of duty in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Daniel Bryant 03:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
199. Strong Support for a lengthy and wide range of accomplishments. Modernist 03:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
200. Support Do I trust this user not to misuse or abuse the tools? Yes. Therefore support. James086^{Talk | Email} 04:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
201. Hell yeah! MaxSem 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
202. Support, per James086. --Oldak Quill 06:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
203. Support. Hasn't broken Wikipedia yet, and he's had five years to do it. Remarkably patient and reasonable, given the crap he must have had to put up with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
204. Support I found some of Danny's actions contraversial but it is a fact that he had much more sensitive powers and the overall balance of his actions was positive. It seems ridiculous to deny him his mop and bucket. Alex Bakharev 07:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
205. Support A newbie mensch who's been here one day less than I. He deserves the support just for allowing himself to be put through this fucked-up process. Eclecticology 09:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
206. Support without hesitation. One of our most experienced, best-intentioned and competent users, let alone admins. Batmanand | Talk 13:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
207. Support I'm sure everyone screws up occasionally but the overall balance is the key. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
208. Support - A very good user, I have difficulties understanding some of the oppose votes.--Aldux 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
209. Yea, also per Aldux, I don't get why oppoing for making some bad b-crat decisions, this is RFA not RFB Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
210. I've had dinner with danny in person, and I think he's a decent fellow. Like anyone deeply involved with Wikipedia, he has made some controversial decisions, many likely due to the exasperation one encounters in dealing day-in-day-out with vandals, spammers, POV-pushers, and idiots. If there is anyone well qualified enough to quote and enforce wikipedia policy unapologetically, it's Danny. Give him the tools.—Perceval 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
211. Support. Clearly. The opposers and obsessive question-askers seem really bitter to me. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
212. Strong Support. I don't really see a reason to oppose Danny, and I think his prior record shows that he knows the tools backwards and forwards. Nishkid64 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
213. Support --Paloma Walker 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
214. Support - as someone said "I always thought he already was one :)" -- Arwel (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
215. Support John254 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
216. Support, but if support is bellow 70%, count my vote as an oppose because I don't want to see another contentious elevation. Cool Hand Luke 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

     This is the most ridiculously phrased comment I've seen on any RFA anywhere. For the benefit of everyone involved, please decide whether you or not Danny will do a good job if re-elected admin, and support or oppose on that basis, not based on the numerical threshholds of others around you. —freak(talk) 00:54, Apr. 8, 2007 (UTC)

     There, there, some people like to be always on the winning side ;-) -- ReyBrujo 04:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

     I think he will. Easily. He always was before. Though the oppose votes express a legitimate concern, I think some actions are necessary to defend the integrity of this encyclopedia. Blocking is a matter of protection, not of some imagined natural right. It so happens Danny has a good crap detector. However, I was opposed to the 'crats action during a previous request with many votes. I would rather he not be given the mop at this time than be elevated with a false consensus. Cool Hand Luke 05:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

217. Strong Support, after a bit of flip/flopping around and reading Danny's supplemental statement. We need more admins like Danny. // PTO 01:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
218. Support - looking over the candidate's contributions and log, I can't really spot any action so dastardly and unfair as to warrant the accusations posted by some oppose voters. I don't know much about the wiki-politics surrounding this nomination, but the assumption that someone formerly involved in an official position with the Wikimedia Foundation is incapable of making basic administrative decisions doesn't make much sense ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
219. Support As someone who's not familiar with Danny's edits (I've been under a rock, I suppose), I wasn't thrilled with the answers to Q 1-3. But the answers to the other questions tell me that, while I might disagree with some actions Danny might take, he's a thoughtful person who has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, so I'll support. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
220. Support, esp. per El_C, and congratulations on the RfA with the most questions ever. Tomer^talk 07:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
221. Support. This is not a normal RfA, but rather the roundabout confirmation of a longtime admin. Being an admin can mean dealing with hundreds of users, articles, and thousands of edits. We can't expect 100% perfection, and we don't need to. While I certainly don't agree with every decision that Danny has made and am concerned about some issues, on the whole he's made a positive contribution to the project. I expect that if re-elected he'll be at least as helpful as the average admin. If I owned a restaurant I'd fire a chef who didn't show up in clean clothes at the start of his shift, and I'd also fire him if his clothes were still clean five hours later. -Will Beback · † · 10:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
222. Support. He has faithfully served Wikipedia for a long time already, and has demonstrated that he is trustworthy and can use the tools as well as any other admin. In his previous role, he has probably done more than any other contributor to keep Wikipedia running, by removing the threat of lawsuits and takedown notices by taking care of BLP vios. Thanks Danny - Martinp23 13:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
223. Support I've watched this periodically for over a day and am very impressed by Danny's answers to the flood of questions, I had never heard of Danny but came here following another trail. I am particularly impressed by his 7 points at the "Danny's supplemental statement" section. I am unimpressed by so many of the detractors who are criticizing him for not giving the PC answers and roasting him over the smoldering embers of their unrequited wiki-love. --Kevin Murray 15:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

     With full respect to your right to !vote in any sense you prefer, I find your statement regarding detractors roasting him over the smoldering embers of their unrequited wiki-love to be most disrespectful to users who have expressed valid concerns below, and not over his adherence to the codes of some unrequited wiki-love but worrysome transgressions of WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL among others. I've seen many of the above supporters oppose other users' candidacies for less. FlatGenius 15:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

     We have too little bite and too much civility which tends to border on naiveté. Unfortunately kindness and weakness are frequently confused to the extent that the former is practically becoming an attribute of the latter in many cases. This is a volunteer organization, but we have a job to do and efficiency has to be considered along with etiquette. At this point I’m more concerned about the end than the means, because we are so bogged down in trivial nonsense that little gets accomplished other than bloat. --Kevin Murray 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

     How ironic that you, a single issue sockpuppet account used solely to attack Danny by someone too chicken to voice opposition under their real name, is accusing others of abusing Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

224. Support An RFA is about whenether a user will misuse tools. Through his office work Danny has proven he won't.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
225. Support Danny has used the tools fine in the past and I see no reason why that will change. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
226. I raised several questions regarding Danny's involvement in the April incident above, and have made another comment there, relating that Danny has now sufficiently answered my questions. With that being said, there are, of course, legitimate concerns being raised by others (and those opposing are certainly entitled to their own opinion and doubts, and should be treated with the greatest of respect), and Danny - like all of us - certainly isn't perfect. However, with the April incident now clarified, I am comfortable supporting Danny. His contributions as an editor and administrator have been astounding, and although his role with the Foundation has been controversial, I do believe he has always acted with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I have no problem at all trusting him, and do not envision any problems with him having his admistrative rights restored. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
227. After this answer: "The question is moot. I have 75 percent. Do they intend to change their attitudes seeing that 75 percent support me?", I was not sure what I should vote here. And why so short answers in the initial three questions? You were bored?! When the questions got tougher, you answered with sincerity, something I really appreciate. And after all, you are a person who has done a lot for Wikipedia. And although I still do not know if I do the correct thing, I do know that I had no other choice than to support you.--Yannismarou 19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
228. Support, I don't think any of the issues brought up below are particularly serious, and the large majority are idiotic even by the low standards of RfA. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
229. Support. [Re-]adminship is no big deal. Admins are not meant to be perfect, or anything close. There have been issues raised here about actions over his long past tenure as an admin - I too have fought with him over deletions - but this happens in our admin community all the time without special censure. Danny has been a good admin, certainly not our most controversial, and would continue to be. +sj + 00:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

     I generally agree with the other Sj on most things, but here not. Adminship is no big deal. It cetainly doesn't need to be an elaborate personality test -- or oine with an ever-increasing barrier to entry. It seems to me that much of the talk around this nom misses the point, trying to address larger-scale issues of how to be a welcoming and productive community, or how to handle disputes, within the context of an RFA (not terribly productive, as discussion rather than editing a page describing issues for the future, since this format is only vaguely collaborative). We all partake in this -- edit wars, mediation, greeting or biting newcomers -- these are not activities done specially by admins. We shouldn't cultivate the image that admins are somehow the 'best' arbiters of what Wikipedia should be about or what it should contain, or holding them to a higher moral standard than other editors -- admins implement a tiny fraction of policies that it was once troublesome to let everyone carry out... they do not set policy or wield other arcane power, and are as varied and as quirky as the broader pool of well-meaning editors. +sj + 00:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

     We certainly should "hold them to a higher moral standard than other editors" they are the public face of wikipedia and to the general public represent the appropriate manner in which to conduct themselves. Anyone who feels that admins arent the public face of wikipedia is just deluding themselves ... the Essjay controversy certainly showed that the public DOES pay attention to what the administrators of this site do, and how they present themselves to the world.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

230. Support I trust Danny. I'm satisfied with his answers to the questions, and was not swayed by the oppose arguments. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
231. Support His tendency to ruffle some feathers aside (I do hope he takes some of the more constructive critisism to heart) I strongly believe giving him back the admin tools would be a solid net benefit for the project. If he makes any earth-shatteringly controversial calls they can always be appealed, meanwhile someone with his experience and dedication to the core project goals will hopefully be a great help at preventing the ever growing flood of undesierable content from swamping the newtral free content ensyclopedia. --Sherool (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
232. When I was a newbie admin, a spammer rang Danny to complain about me deleting her vanity articles. Danny was a legend. I think giving Danny the tools back is in the interests of the project and us. Sarah 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
233. Reluctant Support Although a dedicated user, I do have some concerns over WP:BITE. --S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
234. Support. --Carnildo 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
235. Support —dgies^t_c 07:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
236. Support. --SakotGrimshine 07:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
237. Support. When judging one for adminship, his past actions as bureaucrat or steward or an office employee might be misleading. Danny is trustworthy, experienced, and dedicated to the project. This is what really matters for adminship. Noon 11:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. I am very well aware of the immense amount of good work Danny has done for the project, both as an editor and in his position at WP:OFFICE. I did not agree with some of his promotions as a bureaucrat, but those were not big things and not relevant now. I regretfully have to oppose however per Danny's low usage of edit summaries, currently at 25% for major edits and 49% for minor edits. Yes I know that more edit summaries don't make a better admin, and I am fully aware that Danny has been a very busy guy at WP:OFFICE. However, the fact stands that edit summaries help others understand what you changed. Edit summaries are way of showing curtsey to other editors and a sign that you care about their time no less than about your own time. Danny will pass with or without my vote, and he fully deserves that. However, hereby I would like to ask Danny to use more edit summaries when he contributes. I will gladly remove my vote should Danny mention that he will try that, and/or if he changes his preferences so that he is warned when an edit is submitted without a summary. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

When I started editing, very few people ever filled in edit summaries, and I admit, I never got into the habit. I should have. I try to, but I often forget. On the other hand, I was just told that there is a box I can check in the preferences that will make me fill in the summaries. I will check that to help me remember. Danny 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I switched to support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to jump in down here, but doesn't 25% of 26000 equal six thousand five hundred summarized edits? Atshields0 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The tool only check the last 150 major and minor edits, not all. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Protest oppose. This is a waste of time, and you show that you knew that with your non sequitur answers. You could at least pretend that there is any chance this will fail... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkov (talk • contribs)

   Could you please be a bit more specific about your reasons for opposing? - Mark 04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. -Amarkov moo! 04:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   It is not a waste of time. Danny had a lot of clout as the right hand of Jimbo and bureaucrat. And as mentioned in the nomination, such a hard job was not without controversies. Danny resigned, for his own reasons, and then wanted to see if he still had the community trust to be an admin. I believe Danny did the right thing to resign his adminship and bureaucratship together with his job at WP:OFFICE. You don't want some people to later offend you by saying that your current powers are leftover from better times or other unfair and obnoxious comments people are quite good at coming up with. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Then he should come up with better answers. The first answer is the only one that even fully addresses the question. Respect is the only reason this isn't a real oppose. -Amarkov moo! 05:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   You have an extraordinarily large corpus of work to draw from. I don't think Danny needs to spell out that he's a good editor (question 2) or that he's been in thousands of disputes (question 3), considering the fact that engaging in disputes was pretty much his job at WMF. YMMV, of course. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Years of work, moving 2000 miles, 26000 main page edits, and you're voting against him for adminship because you thought his response to nomination was "non sequitur"? Your criteria for admin are tough. I hope you're able to meet them yourself some day when you're old enough to drive. Atshields0 10:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   PLease keep this civil and respect the right of other editors to express their opinions on an RfA. Viridae^Talk 10:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   I am starting to get worried... Atshields0 comment here, Deskana's comment in the talk page... seems as, suddenly, high edit count is all that matters to justify "editing capabilities," when most are really picky with "common" candidates... -- ReyBrujo 12:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Eh, what I took away from Atshields0 was that Danny has done so *much* (as evidenced by the main namespace edits, among other things) that something more than a hand-waving claim of "non sequitur" responses should be provided for the oppose. I thought Danny's replies were pretty good. --Gmaxwell 13:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Okay, apparently I need to clarify what my problem is. It is not that I can't properly evaluate his contributions; that would be incredibly stupid. The problem is the attitude, percieved or otherwise, of "I don't really need to do this". He doesn't, true. But how am I going to trust now that he won't do the same to other processes, which he does need to do? -Amarkov moo! 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I will agree with that with Danny's work at WP:OFFICE some controversy is unavoidable. However I feel that there are a number of situations where Danny plunged right into controversial and unilateral actions, and where the controversy was not related to OFFICE and were perfectly avoidable. His actions over Israel News Agency, where he made a second unilateral deletion after it had been legitimately undeleted following a full, and long DRV discussion constitutes wheel-warring in my opinion (and the deletion summary "this is tiresome" is just useless). In related matters, although that is a bureaucrat decision, he promoted Sean Black's adminship with considerably less than normal support, ignoring the opposers and substituting his own judgment for the consensus requirement. He supported Essjay for bureaucratship and decided to promote himself when the consensus was in the "discretion" range. I see that this RFA is passing anyway, but I feel that there are enough questionable actions, and ignorance of consensus and discussion, made with the admin tools which cannot be excused with OFFICE duties. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Regarding the Israel News Agency: there was significant offline wrangling over that that you were not privy to. If you knew what actually happened, you wouldn't be faulting Danny over this one. Coming from someone who knows a bit more about that situation, I'd say that he did an extremely good job of it. --Cyde Weys 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   An important part of adminship is communication, and if there was significant offline wrangling over it, there should have been some information to the community as to why the results of two DRVs and two AFDs were set aside with apparently no discussion. Saying, "I am deleting this, I have reasons for this which you don't know of, please trust me" just does not cut it for me. It raises the level confusion, being done by a person in the position Danny had, even more so (what is going on here? Why is this suddenly deleted?). That an eventual third AFD did result in the article being deleted in an open and transparent manner illustrates that there was no need for short-circuiting the discussion here. It could have simply been nominated with a reason ("No sources" is pretty compelling), and it would probably be gone in a week without the confusion. For the record, I am not opposing because I want to be mean, or because I think Danny is a bad person (he is clearly a very dedicated contributor), it is because of my concerns over apparent lack of respect for consensus, unilateralism, and lack of communication when doing so. Danny was perfectly within his rights to not relenquish his adminship, and it would clearly have been justified for him to simply request return of sysop tools by simply asking a bureaucrat. When he did choose to ask for input at RFA, a very admirable decision, then he did accept the possibility of some opposition, right? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Dude, your ignorance is hanging out the back of your pants. "I am deleting this, I have reasons for this which you don't know of, please trust me" is the whole point of WP:OFFICE and if you haven't grasped that, you need to read it again, carefully. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   I must apologise for causing such a ruckus, I never meant to be insulting (as insults go, it would have been kind of lame, not so?). I thought I was merely pointing out the obvious: if one of your friends had his fly open, wouldn't you mention it? —Phil | Talk 22:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

   Except even before the first deletion OFFICE indicated that Danny would use his alternate Dannyisme account for office actions, but he neither used that account nor (please correct me if I'm wrong) indicated anywhere that the deletions were office actions. If any other regular sysop did this, it would be a big issue. But if Danny isn't clear about when he's acting in an OFFICE capacity, then he's acting as a regular (rash) sysop or he isn't communicating.--Chaser - T 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Sjakkalle, there is a policy on the English Wikipedia, one of our oldest and most important ones, which you have completely forgotten. It's the "assume good faith" policy. That policy says that if Danny tells you that an article has to be deleted for reasons that he cannot share with you, you are to assume that Danny is acting in good faith. Please reacquaint yourself with this highly important policy, and its unstated corollary: "You should not expect to be consulted on every decision." Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   AGF is not meant to quash administrative oversight. Danny, assuming good faith himself, should also have replied more often to questions regarding his actions. An "Oops, sorry that I used the wrong account... this is an OFFICE issue, should have used Dannyisme" would have been sufficient. I think your point, Ms. Martin, is not well-thought out. Xoloz 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Again, I am not opposing due to actions made due to WP:OFFICE. I realize that actions there occasionally need to be done without too much attention being given, privacy issues for instance. But the points I am concerned about are unrelated to OFFICE. Actions where OFFICE was not an issue have still been carried out rashly, and I think better communication is a key before I can entrust Danny with sysop tools. Regarding AGF, I have no doubt that Danny had the best of intentions when he did what he did, but the actions still concern me. Good faith or not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think it's as easy to tell which of his actions had to do with his work for the office and which didn't as you seem to think. Mak (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Dude, how much easier it would have been if he'd felt it was worth bothering to tell the little people. Grace Note 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   No, it was easy to determine which of his actions were office actions and which were not. He explained on User:Dannyisme that User:Dannyisme was his office action account and User:Danny was his regular account. Danny never invoked WP:OFFICE with regard to Israel News Agency, so it wasn't an office action to delete it. This was gone over during the various DRV's and AFD's for that page. [5] Claiming that Danny had reasons for deleting Israel News Agency that he couldn't tell us about is not a valid argument, because if he had had such reasons he would have invoked WP:OFFICE at some time during the discussions, and he didn't. --Metropolitan90 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose, I can't help thinking that someone who resigned his adminship last month when he didn't need to does not have the best interest of the project at heart. I say wait a few months and try again. EnsRedShirt 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but I believe he resigned because he had never actually gone through an RfA before and had received his position as an artifact of working for the Wikimedia Foundation. Upon resigning from there, I believe he felt that it would be improper to keep the bit without requesting community input, hence this RfA. It seems to show a respect for the community and an effort to avoid any appearance of impropriety. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   From the above nomination:"Danny was first directly appointed to the role of admin by Jimbo, and then later, in 2003, his adminship was confirmed by RFa election. " He Has been through an RfA in the past, and should know better than most that to resign then come back a few weeks later should question his commitment to the project. EnsRedShirt 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Question his commitment to the project? How many jobs have you left for Wikipedia Ens? How many people did you convince to donate? How many years did you get yelled at on the phone? How many death threats did you have to deal with? How many contracts did you have to push for? "Question his commitment to the project". Amazing. I need to stop reading this page.

   FYI Danny decided to run for the board and wanted to climb the ladder from scratch just like everyone else, just as it said in his resignation letter. Try reading up on what's happening before voting against someone. Atshields0 11:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Exceptionally Weak Oppose, While Your a very dedicated Wikipedian and your almost 5 years of excellant contributions and work for the foundation make me a tad bit rather reluctant to oppose, Your leniency With Mike Garcia (banned again) a.k.a Johnny the Vandal and the role you played in getting him unbanned back in August 2004 and his subsequent years of deception and abusive sockpuppetry turns me away into disappointment. --Tom Riddle 19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   This user's third edit, the other two being in 15th June 2006. Read into that what you will. --Deskana (ya rly) 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Let's leave at this: he's in a position to know. Mackensen (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose appears to brush off criticism, I tended to disagree with his decision processes on WP:OFFICE, his answers to the first few questions above reads to me sorta like "I'm danny I dont really need to go through this process". Sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Changed to Oppose Extensive record of blocking newcomers for a month without so much of a warning for fairly innocuous additions (Creating an article on the CIO Europe of HSBC and linking to it from the HSBC article doesn't strike me as a bad faith effort, even if the article turned out to be a copyvio), various unacceptable edit summaries and general a WP:BITE attitude. ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   No change after response to Q5. We're all shaped by the environment we work in, and if Danny's previous job leads to a "Circle the wagons we're surrounded by enemies" mindset as he plainly admits that can only work to the detriment of the project. Maybe two or three months working in the trenches might be beneficial. ~ trialsanderrors 07:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Working in the trenches? Yes, while you were slaving away in your underwear generating terabytes of text on discussion pages, Danny was busy sipping champagne and cavorting about with European royalty at the St. Pete office. He could never possibly understand the horror of having a page he wrote on the plight of the blue power ranger deleted. "Trenches". Excellent choice of words, Oh noble soldier of Wikipedia. Atshields0 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   This is inappropriate sarcasm and is not helpful. Regardless of what we think of Danny's nomination let's keep the discussion civil, please. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   Civility isn't telling a man that devoted the last few years of his personal and professional life that he needs to "spend some time in the trenches". Ridiculous statements require ridiculous responses. Atshields0 05:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Strong oppose per above reasons. Naming Danny as an admin is anything but a supposedly "obvious decision" in my view. If it weren't for lamentable internal WP politics (i.e., people not wanting to speak up because of reprisals), this candidate would be seeing tons of opposition due to his behavior and demeanor in the past. -- PKtm 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Excuse me if I'm being naive but I can't imagine any wikipeda-related reprisals that anyone would actually fear. After all, what's the worst that's going to happen to anyone opposing Danny or anyone else for that matter? I swear this is an honest question. Pascal.Tesson 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   The Cabal will call in the Rouge Admin Death Squad on you, of course. That is to say, there is no Cabal, and there certainly is no Rouge Admin Death Squad that might be called in to quash dissenters. Nothing to see here, move along. ♠PMC♠ 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose Relinquished positions of trust along with his resignation from WMF. This is in itself a good thing. But he does not explain his reasons for departure. I would be happy to support if this was explained. Danny linked his departure with those positions of trust, including the admin position. Of course he did not need to explain why he resigned, but once the linkage is forged I can't evaluate his fitness without understanding the full reasons for his giving them up. Edivorce 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose, switched from support - I've looked at Danny's actions in a way that ignores his service with the WMF, and I've found stuff that I would normally oppose a user for (newbie biting, exemption from rules, etc.). Not something that I would like in an admin, foundation guy or not. PTO 00:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Here is groupthink at its finest. I don't want in this discussion anymore. {PTO} {speak} 21:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose per trialsanderrors. I am very surprised to find myself opposing but agree that his block log shows very harsh treatment of what look like fairly innocuous mistakes. I am also uncomfortable with supporting the request while his reasons for resigning remain unknown. WjBscribe 01:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   I am unconvinced by Danny's response to the questions. They only justify his conduct if one accepts that someone who adds spam to Wikipedia intends only to use it as a publicity vehicle rather than simply having misunderstood our policies (which the ordinary user of Wikipedia as an information source does not read). Given the unfortunate state of some articles it is an easy mistake to make. Were those contributors dealt with kindly they have the potential to become valuable members of the Community. I agree that a harsh line should be taken where warnings are not headed, but pre-emptive blocks that assume bad faith should not be what we are about. The fact that Danny sees nothing wrong with these types of blocks worries me and he would no doubt continue to use the block button in the same way. In don't think that's the sort of admin that will benefit the project- Danny skills and experience seem to me to come at too high a price. WjBscribe 07:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   The resignation letter that Wired magazine published was perfectly clear. Perhaps you should read it. Atshields0 05:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

9. Strong Oppose, after review of his deletion history he seems to be fond of the speedy delete rather than openning the deletion up for discussion. I think that even in the cases where he had good reason to delete he was not right to take this upon himself to do without discussion. Of course there will always be some articles that are obvious canidates for speedy delete, but if you look at his deletion logs you will find a number of actions that are reverted by other admins. [6] [7] [8] [9] He also has a history of reverting another admin without explanation. [10] No-one, not even an admin is an expert on every topic, thats why the usual process is to nominate an article for deletion, so the community can come to an informed concensus. That community involvement is what the project is all about, if we wanted an encyclipedia where a small set of editors had 100% say over what was relevant and what wasnt we'd all be reading britanica still. Despite his other notable qualities I'd like to see him have to wait a while and demonstrate to the community that he cares about our input. Another complaint I have is that he is very poor at putting adequate comments in edit summaries[11][12], that further goes to the point of lack of respect for others in the community. --Michael Lynn 02:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   per Eagle101 I'm glad to hear that was the situation, but I'm still concerned about the other issues that show a preference for unilateral action over community concensus. I'm also concerned about his actions and retoric concerning new comers that is overly jaded at best, and outright xenophobic at worst --Michael Lynn 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Let's see what some of them were: #7 was: #7 was "In the Joshtafarian dictionary, Josh translates as 'Purebred legend' which if you ask me is pretty Wack, when josh in hebrew means God... i sense something divine is going on here..." I have commented on Fleshlight above--the creator admitted on the phone that he made teh article solely to advertise his website, and the company agreed because it was good advertising. YOu might want to read some of the deletion discussions there. I still contend that there is no need to include every contestant on every reality show on Wikipedia. In fact, there should be far stricter standards for BLP, which are the cause of most of our recurring legal issues. Danny 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   You were right to delete #7, you were even right to speedy delete it, the problem i have is your lack of documentation, you clearly had reasons to delete it, you just gave them to me, but none of those reasons were "blah blah" as your edit summary indicated. Edit summaries, especially for deleting a page, are not important for you, they are important to everyone that can't read your mind and doesn't have access to deleted content. regarding the fleshlight issue, yes it was an ad, yes they shouldnt have done it, but that doesnt mean the topic was not worthy of mention on the Wiki. The proper course of action would have been to remove all the advert content, leaving it a stub if need be, and if you were really unhappy about the article then you should have put it to an AfD vote. This was not a case of vandalism, and the topic itself was not nonsense. This was a clear case of you deleting something unilaterally because you didn't think it was worth talking about. I get that sort of editing from my father's copy of britanica thank you, I don't find it all that useful. Remember one of the biggest things that makes this project great is that the community gets to deside what is worthy of discussing. A good example was again in the Musa Cooper case. I agree it probably isnt notable enough to be there. If i were voting on it, i would vote to delete it. but as you can see from the AfD log after it was restored then put to a vote, i (and you) would have been overruled by the community. That is how the system is supposed to work. And I can't vote for someone that I don't think will respect the community concensus even when its contrary to their own opinion. --Michael Lynn 20:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose (Switched from support)→ Michael Lynn and the other opposers have made a good point. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per deletion history and other issues which have been cited above. RFerreira 07:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose due to his admin actions, particularly deletions. --SPUI (T - C) 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose; has used power irresponsibly too often to be trusted with it again. Everyking 08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Sjakalle, and I want to register my protest against the execrable rudeness and condescension voiced by some commentators against that highly respectable editor. I hope Phil is ashamed of himself. (No, I realize those comments weren't Danny's fault and they haven't affected my !vote. Registering an objection to them wouldn't have killed him, though.) Bishonen | talk 08:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
15. Oppose Sorry - unsatisfactory answers to questions.--Runcorn 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose I knew Danny could be gruff, and I knew he was a terrible b'crat (at least twice closing requests -- Sean Black RfA No. 2 and Essjay's RfB -- in which he voiced previous support, about the stupidest thing a b'crat could do.) I was unaware, however, that he was also unkind to newbies. Per Bishonen, it certainly doesn't help that many among his supporters have exhibited obnoxious behavior here. Answer to Question 5 also shows candidate's own hubris -- every newbie should be treated as a rational being who might be won over to the noble goals of the project with a little kindness. I'm not the most active editor in the world, and even I can think of three "spammers" that I have helped to "redeem". I cannot support this in good conscience any longer, and I urge Danny to take the opposers much more seriously than some of his supporters appear to. Xoloz 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose. I'm not really sure what to make of this. Yeah, Danny seems to have done some good work at the office, and I mostly like his tough stance on crap, but I get the feeling he's on some sort of mission. I'd really just like to know what his motivations are, why he left the Foundation, etc. Trust is a two-way street. If he doesn't trust us enough to reveal any possible conflicts of interest, I can't see how we can trust him to be an administrator (and more, since I assume that is the direction you are heading). This is a unique situation, and it needs to be treated with a much higher level of scrutiny. --- RockMFR 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose. Even before Danny resigned, I was hearing a number of complaints about Danny's bruqueness, his tendency to just unilaterally do things and then refuse to discuss them afterwards etc. I don't doubt that Danny is a good contributor to Wikipedia, but I think he has got to used to getting his own way and that has made him out of touch. So, I would really like Danny to experience Wikipedia as a normal editor for three or four months before I would vote support, to ensure he knows what it's like for most of us. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose I have vacillated many times on this candidacy. First, I admire his position against using Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Second, he has done more at Wikipedia than 99% of us. Third and most importantly, I don't believe Danny had to resign his adminship (then again, I don't know the whole story). How could I vote against such a candidate? Well, I am reminded, after reading Danny's answers to my questions (thank you, btw, for taking the time and effort), of a user talk page I recently visited, a page periodically punctuated by the muted cries of helpless newbies. And unfortunately, that seals the deal for me. Xiner (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose - (1) Lack of edit summaries is not a reason to oppose, but Danny's answer Q4.C. "far too much emphasis is being placed on the way an edit is made than on the quality of the contribution" shows a lack of respect for the consensus that brought us the important edit summary guidelines and a lack of understanding of the importance of using edit summaries as part of being civil. (2) A second, independent reason to oppose is trust. It is acceptable that you relinquished positions of trust along with resigning from WMF with out explaining. However, without knowing why you relinquished and resigned your positions, there is not enough information to judge whether you are a trusted user. Relinquished positions of trust along with resigning from WMF are very significant Wikipedia events for which full disclosure is required to put you back into a position of trust. You can be an editor with secret resignation reasons, but RfA's trust requirement does not permit you to have it both ways. (3) Failure to provide sufficient answers to the questions is reason enough to oppose all on its own. This tells me that when newcomers come to you for answers for an administrative action you took against them, it is unlikely that you will provide them the answers they need to understand your decision so that they will continue on their bad behavior to the disruption of Wikipedia. It shows a lack of respect for this RfA process and those who went through it. Alkivar's observation of the attitude "I'm Danny. I don't really need to go through this process" does come across in this very RfA and is not a basis to support a request for adminship. If you are tired, worn-out, and fed-up, consider taking a wikibreak. (4) Admins are "trusted users who understand policy." It appears that you use your well-developed reputation as a justification to yourself to avoid complying with policy and other process. You have used significant authority over others for so long that it appears that your skill in cultivating trust in others without that authority has diminished. Even if you understand policy, I am not convinced that you will comply with it or defer your judgment to the judgment of the consensus to the level that other admins do. Your significant Wikipedia experiences seem to work against you, as you seem to have become too jaded to become an administrator. Accordingly, I oppose this RfA. -- Jreferee 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Further on my comments: In this post that Denny made in another RfA on 5 April 2007 while Denny's RfA is pending, Denny threw gasoline on a fire that already was burning rather that to address the matter as an administrator would in posting, " I believe he posted it 4 times, but one was deleted? I think he violated 3rr on his own RfA." Compare SlimVirgin's post and Crum375's reasonable posts to Denny's post on that very thread. This tells me that as of this present RfA, Denny's is not ready to be an administrator. -- Jreferee 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Per Antandrus' comment below, my apology to Danny over my confusion of the Denny post as a Danny post. And thank you, Antandrus, for your kind nudge. -- Jreferee 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    Are you sure you don't mean Denny, not Danny? Antandrus (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

20. Oppose For someone with such vast experience, there is a strange lack of knowledge of, or at least respect for, our rules and conventions.--Brownlee 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
21. Neutral. I decided to pretend that this was not a foregone conclusion and actually research the candidate's contributions a bit. Unfortunately, what I found is ambiguous. 98% of his work is just great, adding entries to wikisource, free images, and the like, and there is a lot of that good work. Unfortunately, among that good work, there are a number of nitpicks, that don't disqualify, but are hardly model editor level either. Edit summary usage: 26% for major edits and 50% for minor edits. That's not very good. Here he removes a {{wikify}} tag without really wikifying the article - he wiki-linked one word, but didn't fix the (sole) section heading, and frankly, left the article a rather pitiful stub with bad references and WP:BLP concerns (uncited clearly controversial statements). Here he removes an unformatted external link from an article, leaving the article with no references whatsoever. The link should probably have read http://www.edakkunnitemple.org/html/wariam.html#ikkandawarrier but rather than spend a few minutes looking for that, and making the article a noticeably better stub, he just deleted. Why? Don't know, no edit summary in either case. Here he blocks a new user for a month for adding two external links to an article, without warnings. Now, sure, probably it wasn't a productive contributor. But was it really a hardened spammer that kept vandalizing after multiple warnings? What happened to blocks being preventative and not punitive? Heck, what happened to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? On the other hand, as everyone writes above, he has been through the fires of hell with WP:OFFICE, no doubt that has made him a bit rough around the edges. Anyway, maybe this will help someone else decide. It didn't help me enough. Now I'll go and clean up the issues I found. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Changing to Oppose, and I'm very sorry, because Danny has been admirably honest in stating his views. "In cases of spam or obvious bad intent, I will continue to bite." Yes, Fleshlight wanted their article to be an ad - that didn't mean we shouldn't have had an article, it just shouldn't have been an ad. It should have been stubbed down from an ad, and eventually made NPOV, which is what happened. We shouldn't delete articles "in revenge" for the bad intentions or behaviour of the article subject, those should be irrelevant (or we'd hardly have an article on Charles Manson, would we?). Arch Coal is another example that started as spam: an ad, explicitly written for pay by MyWikiBiz, but clearly notable. It was stubbed down, then improved to NPOV. Just a few sections below is the RfA of someone who started here with "obvious bad intent", far worse than adding two inappropriate links; had she been blocked for a month without warning after that first vandalism edit, would she be standing for RfA now? I am very sorry, since Danny has done more good for the encyclopedia than almost everyone, certainly more than I have. He is honest, forthright and honorable. Unfortunately, what he is honest about is just not what I want in an admin. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

22. Oppose per the answer to question 8. Danny has been high handed and even rude on a few occaisions in the past. If he feels that this is acceptable behavior in an admin, I cannot support. Eluchil404 20:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
23. Reluctant oppose. User has reatly contributed to the quality of the encyclopedia. However, there are many examples of where this user has failed to abide by WP:BLOCK, WP:BITE, and WP:CIVIL, all of which concern me. It seems likely this nomination will pass, but I cannot in good conscience support. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
24. Strongly oppose. I will not re-support rogue admins. Grace Note 23:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose per unsatisfactory answers to RFA questions, misuse of administrative tools and out of process actions, as well as apparent conflicts of interest when entrusted with elevating others to administrator status. Silensor 01:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose for answers to optional questions. PaddyM 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose per nom. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    You might want to expand on that. I'm pretty sure that as the nominatort Cyde (talk · contribs) supports Danny's RfA... Pascal.Tesson 04:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Exactly. Allowing yourself to be nominated by Cyde shows a frightening lack of judgment. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    So...the friend of my enemy is my enemy? Have we sunk that far into blind factionalism? Bunch, you've always struck me before as a thoughtful commentator, and if you're actually making your decision on this basis, that gives me great concern about more than just this one RfA. I hope you can clarify or reconsider. --Robth^Talk 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    This objection is meaningless and incomprehensible. I'd have happily nominated him if the matter arose; so would a dozen other people. Would that make him somehow a different, better, candidate? Shimgray | talk | 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    If I am not allowed to take my opinion of the nominator's character into account when evaluating candidates, why do we have nominators at all? Happy-fun window-dressing only? If Willy on Wheels nominated me for admin, would you be required to ignore that? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

28. Oppose for newbie-biting. I personally know a couple of people whose only contributions have been spam. They're smart, good-hearted people, and they could be possibly be turned into wonderful contributors if encouraged to write about topics other than their own companies. Kla'quot 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Wow. This comment really blew me away. I honestly expected to view your contribs and see an empty page, ... but thats not the case, so I can't imagine how you've formed this position. Lets pretend for a moment that some person called you on the phone, screaming that they are going to sue Wikimedia because some users removed their advertisement and after you politely explain that how the foundation doesn't control the users and how we're not a free advertising service they are still screaming. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't go find their account, revert any of the missed spamming, then block them? ... Obviously that isn't what happened in all of Danny's spammer blocks, but it's what happened in more than a few of them. You can see from his contribs that he isn't an RC partoler, ... a lot of stuff came to his attention because people called the office. I've seen in first hand.

    If Danny hadn't blocked people like that, then I'd be opposing him. So whats a man to do? You'll oppose for doing something, I'd oppose for not doing something. At the end of the day he has to follow his heart and his judgment and do the best he can. It's funny that you think he was causing so much harm, but you never showed up to ask him about these 'bad blocks' when he was an admin. --Gmaxwell 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Considering Danny's reputation for retaliation and perceived/actual authority, are you really that surprised people didn't oppose him when he made actions as a foundation employee? -- nae'blis 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Danny's rationale for his block of user:Ekraam did not indicate that Ekraam had contacted the office. For contributions like these, the appropriate response is usually Template:Welcomespam. There are obviously people who stubbornly and aggressively try to exploit Wikipedia for commercial purposes. We can't make that our stereotype of everyone who adds an advert article or spam link once or twice. Your third sentence indicates you're applying a stereotype even to people who have friends who've done that. Kla'quot 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

29. Oppose, per everyone above-K@ngie^meep! 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose , per egregiously excessive blocks, poor deletion summaries, etc., etc. What they said. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Change to strongest possible oppose: I could never, ever, support someone who did this. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    Read on a few more edits, where it is shown that Danny gives an explanation. – Chacor 07:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

31. Oppose, per Dev920 above.AKAF 08:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose per trialsanderrors and AnonEMouse. I've thought about this quite a lot.-gadfium 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose per trialsanderrors and AnonEMouse. Stating that he'd "support a poll for regular reconfirmation of admins" is an empty promise, since there have been several failed attempts to establish that, and Danny knows it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
34. Oppose due to answers for both mandatory and optional questions. I'm sorry, but I definitely do not hold the same opinions as you. - ζpLoT // 10:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
35. Reluctant oppose. There is no question that Danny has done a lot of outstanding work for the encyclopedia. Also, I think he has earned the trust to have have noncontroversially remained a janitor after resigning his Foundation positions had he chosen to do so, becoming "one of a thousand". But his answers to the nom questions above make it increasingly clear that in choosing to go through RFA, he is saying "take me as I am or vote accordingly". That involves all the issues raised by others above. So this becomes a WP philosophical issue, with Danny's RFA representing the position that Wikipedia is under seige from vandals and spammers and we should just "cut our losses" and chase away whoever appears to be being nonconstructive. While I don't dispute vandalism and spamming is an issue, I think the gradual erosion of civility, AGF, and collaborative effort are longer term a bigger threat to the health of the project. Thus my regretful and reluctant oppose, with a plea to Danny to recognize that if he does get promoted, the fact that his support level is currently running in the 70s rather than the 90s he deserves is a statement about the discomfort a significant part of the community feels as to his stated approach. If he does not get promoted, I would encourage him to apply again at RFA soon if he feels he can reshape his approach to be different, and continue to be a respected and productive Wikipedian in any way he wishes. Martinp 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
36. Regretfully oppose. If you had continued to retain your sysop bit, there would have been some minor grousing (perhaps) about power cabals, but as it is you stood to take the community's opinion to heart with respect to your additional tools. Unfortunately, your answers to both the standard and additional questions display a willingness to violate Wikipedia principles such as Assume Good Faith, equality of editors, and transparency of actions, that I find too troubling to support you. Furthermore, your controversial promotions as 'crat stirred up more crap than I can reasonably count on this project, and you still do not seem to see how that is your responsibility. "From the ground up" may mean re-examining some of your long-held beliefs. If someone with tens of thosands of edits and thousands of hours of service is not able to avoid biting new contributors, I have to worry about the viability of the project as a whole. You should have been an easy confirmation, and yet... -- nae'blis 15:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose Your blocking record, as others have mentioned, is not a good sign. -- tariqabjotu 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
38. Not at this time. Seems to have lost view of the idea that administrators are servants of the community. —Cryptic 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
39. I recongize the good work you have done at WP:OFFICE. However, adminship is a privilege not an entitlement. Furthermore, I have lost a great deal of trust for your actions as a crat', and cannot support you at this time. - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose per WP policy. Given the multiple examples of questionable behavior and the user's own statements, I do not trust this user to follow or enforce WP policy as understood by the community. User displays a pattern of behavior: he is not interested in communicating and not interested in fostering consensus. Danny is beyond superlative as an editor. I thank him for his past contributions, and I cannot support adminship at this time. Concur with Jreferee's and Brownlee's responses. (commenent continues in the next paragraphs)- Meersan 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    • WP:BLOCK - Multiple instances of inappropriately lengthy, punitive blocks. Per trialsanderrors and AnonEMouse - HSBC as one example (there are many more). Behavior is likely to continue per user's response to Question 5.
    • WP:CONSENSUS - Multiple instances in which user ignored well-established procedures intended to foster the consensus of the community. Multiple instances in which user repeatedly failed to explain his decisions. Blank edit summaries frequently associated with high profile, controversial actions that deserved the chance to reach a consensus. User's responses to the initial "questions for the candidate" were spectacularly uninformative. (Why give this user the mop when he can't be bothered to explain what he'll do with it?) Per Sjakkalle - example Israel News Agency among others.
    • WP:CIVIL - Curt and dismissive responses to newbies, experienced editors and others that form a pattern of behavior. "blah blah" is not an informative or helpful edit summary when speedy deleting an article. Per Michael Lynn. Behavior is likely to continue per user's response to Question 4 and 8.
    • WP:SD - Excessive use of speedy delete without giving the community a chance to reach a consensus, causing his actions to be reverted by other admins on multiple occasions. Normally I would overlook this as a normal difference of opinion, but given the overall pattern of behavior it merits attention. Per Michael Lynn - example Musa Cooper (there are many more). Behavior is likely to continue per user's responses to Question 4 and 8.
    • WP:BITE - Multiple instances of aggressive, punitive behavior toward new users. Per AnonEMouse's example. Behavior is likely to continue per user's responses to Question 5 and 8.
    • WP:AGF - Multiple instances of failing to assume good faith. Per trialsanderrors - HSBC as one example (there are many more). Behavior is likely to continue per user's responses to Question 5 and 8.

    Danny's responses to the questions could be summed as "take me as I am and vote accordingly", and I have done so. His actions appear to be the result of him implementing his own policies, not Wikipedia's. I can't see why this should be encouraged in an admin. - Meersan 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

41. Oppose per Meersan. Responses to questions suggest a certain entitlement attitude, heavy-handed WP:OFFICE actions, seemingly excessive blocking. Xihr 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
42. OpposeStrong oppose. History of poor judgment regarding article deletions. Aggressive approach makes him unsuited for the role of admin. --JJay 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    The sad egotism, swaggering sense of entitlement and contempt for the minority displayed in the response to question 20 is the purest possible expression of this candidate’s inaptitude for a position that requires serving 100% of wikipedia contributors. Although this sort of attitude is unfortunately all too common among admins, it nevertheless justifies changing to Strong Oppose. --JJay 19:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

43. Oppose Sorry, Danny. The well-supported testimonies of many trustworthy users above is too damning for me to be able to support you. -- Kicking222 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
44. Firm oppose As Xoloz, I was not particularly pleased with certain of Danny's uses of the admin tools (to say, of course, nothing of his uses of the 'crat tools), and I am not at all sure that I could conclude with any degree of certainty that the net effect on the project of his being (re)sysopped should be positive. Such concern is exacerbated by the tenor of the answers to several questions, which appear, as Xihr suggests, to evidence an attitude of entitlement the existence of which in a prospective admin is quite inauspicious. I can surely understand that Danny should feel irked about his being opposed so vociferously by some here, especially because it wasn't as though there was some grand clamor for him to be desysopped whilst he was in the employ of the Foundation (or even, for that matter, any consistent criticism); some of us, though, were not great fans of the fashion in which he used the tools on en.wiki, and I, for one, whilst awed by the breadth of Danny's mainspace and project-space contributions and whilst fond of Danny qua person, found his leaving the WMF—and his ostensibly returning to the project (exclusively) as an editor—to be a positive (at least relative en.wiki). I trust him generally and think him (of course) to be well-meaning, but I don't imagine that he should be resysopped prior to his being once more involved with the community as only an editor. Joe 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
45. Oppose per Nae'blis and AnonEMouse. Great guy, great commitment to project, didn't need to run for RfA, but some of the stuff that has come out above make support impossible at this time. Sorry. --Guinnog 08:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
46. Oppose Jreferee and Xoloz summed up my concerns quite well. I also think WP:BITE is more important than is commonly realized. Frise 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
47. Oppose per User:trialsand errors and many other comments above.ER^Talk 14:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
48. 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. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
49. Strong oppose per many of the above and that the answers of many the supporters appear to have shown no thought whatsoever. WP:OFFICE is the antithesis of consensus building, which is the heart of Wikipedia. Danny was the tool that implimented this policy. While I would like to, I have little hope that the 'crats will respect the decisions here and just rubber stamp Danny in regardless of of percentages or opinions since there is no real oversight over their powers, and they would more than likely be secretly forced to by the foundation.Just H 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    I am just curious. WP:OFFICE was implemented to eliminate extreme cases of "defamation, privacy violations or copyright infringement" as determined by the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation or by Jimmy Wales. Do you honestly consider that "vicious and unfeeling"? Danny 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    I consider anything done arbitrarily and unilaterally on Wikipedia to be "vicious and unfeeling". Ends do not justify means. Just H 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Then you are in the wrong project. The vast majority of all actions on Wikipedia are unilateral. Only rarely do we find it necessary to hold lengthy ebates first, and when someone is on the telephone actively threatening to sue the project into oblivion is not one of the better times to respond "oh, het, we'll just chat about this among ourselves for a couple of weeks and then get back to you". And even that misses the point: Danny was doing as he was required to do by Jimbo, so your beef is actually with Jimbo, who was the originator of the office action and performed several himself. I suggest you go to ArbCom and ask to have Jimbo's sysop rights removed, rather than opposing the RfA of one of the very few Wikipedians who can demonstrate unequivocally that he has Jimbo's absolute trust. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Classic case of "Don't shoot the messenger". "He's made his decisions" - surely you've read that these OFFICE actions weren't Danny's own personal decisions, but those made by Danny, Brad and the Foundation as one entity, acting in the best interests of the project, even if they've pissed people off, the only reason your able to complain about them now is because they worked and stopped the site from being shut down, especially earlier on. I also have to agree with Guy. Even on Wikipedia, there's a point where the discussion stops and the unilateral action starts. -- Nick ^t 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Wow. I hate to be brusque, but how do you propose the Foundation handle legal threats and complaints? Tell the person to go take a flying leap? --Slowking Man 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Quite. I think this is the single most fantasistic oppose vote I've ever seen. The Land 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Very well then, I ask everyone above to join me in nominating WP:CON for deletion if that is the consensus. Just because we can do whatever we like when we push the edit button doesn't mean we should always do so, because if we did, Wikipedia would be little more than an endless Mexican standoff, which often it seems like. I have no problem with changing my vote to Neutral if Danny apologizes for the poor example he and his superiors have set in the past: the leaders of Wikipedia, especially those who work for Wikipedia should be role models and follow policy more than everyone else, not less, because if the leaders of this project show that there are no rules here, that will give all the more reason for those in the "real world" to look down upon the project as little more than an experiment in chaos. Just H 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Before you list WP:CON on AFD, you might wish to examine the exceptions towards the bottom of the page. If you don't think there's an overwhelming consensus to have those items there, you may try removing it. Realistically? I think you may find no strong consensus than to keep them in place. If eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, then the Foundation and OFFICE are our vigilants. --InkSplotch 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, it'd be MFD, but that's beside the point. I can't agree with that exceptions section since it's basically a slippery slope, and I can't believe that i'd be able to remove them now due to basically little more than fear, whether it be from external threats or internal ones. If we act the way we should towards all people as Wikipedians, both to users and non-uers, there isn't any need for WP:OFFICE, we as the users will be able to withstand any threats to the project. Also, i'd like to add(Chairboy pointed this out), that my comment was not intended to be hostile towards Danny, but rather his actions. Wikipedians should not be hostile towards each other, and I apologize if my comments were construed that way. Just H 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    I think you may not quite understand WP:OFFICE. We 'as users' aren't going to withstand legal action by being civil to each other. And as Danny pointed out in the questions above, he has only made a grand total of seven OFFICE actions, and I don't see how you can think that protecting the foundation from being sued is anything but a good thing for the project. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    Speaking of slippery slopes, your argument could do away with admins, bureaucrats and half the policies of this project if you could just act the way we "should." I'm sorry, but I don't find your argument realistic. --InkSplotch 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    You're not getting it. #1, even if we act towards someone who wants to sue the project, we shouldn't act with malice. #2. I'm beginning to think getting rid of half of the policies would be just fine if nobody cares to follow them, it seems that the main rule is just whoever can intimidate others the best while pretending to be civil wins the argument. This is getting cluttered, I suggest any further discussion go on the talk page. Just H 04:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    So your saying by removing potentially libelous material from Wikipedia when someone contacts the Foundation, we're being malicious. I would have said leaving bullshit like "OMG this guy killed Kennedy and is a communist" on a biography while we discuss it endlessly would be pretty damn malicious, but perhaps that's just me. -- Nick ^t 13:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

50. Oppose, pretty much per JustH, who put it better then I put it before the edit conflict. Abeg92contribs 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    You oppose on the basis that Danny served to enforce an official policy? Frankly a bureaucrat (unless he is a pure beancounter) has little choice but to disregard your comment. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    There are many ways to skin a cat. Even if one agrees that the cat should be skinned, one doesn't necessarily agree with the method of skinning. And I don't think suggesting that "comments" should be disregarded by the bureaucrat who closes the RfA should be in any way encouraged. Grace Note 07:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

51. Oppose, per above. Yankee Rajput 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
52. Oppose apart some of the comments above, in at least two particular cases he acted against consensus when he was supposed to follow it: the promotion of Essjay as bureocrat and the re-promotion of Sean Black to adminiship. I agree these are 'crat actions, but some admin actions are still expected to follow consensus. Tizio 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
53. Oppose. Needlessly rude. Dr Zak 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Uh, you might want to cite some specific examples, for your !vote to have any merit. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 19:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

54. Oppose until we get an explanation for your resignation. You've blamed it on other people doing something wrong, but haven't said what they did wrong, so it is pretty much impossible for them to defend their reputation. Additionally, it appears your reason for resigning has something to do with your judgement differing from your colleagues' judgement, until I know the details, I'm unsure if I trust your judgement, and that's one of the most important things for adminship. --Tango 21:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    I assume that none of the editors demanding to know why Danny resigned have seen The Prisoner? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

55. Oppose. Thank you for your contributions to the project, but your responses to the questions really aren't satisfactory. In fact, if I could put it that way, they're indecorous. -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 13:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
56. Oppose. Per na'eblis, AnonEMouse, and trialsanderrors. Aditionally, Danny has a sockpuppet, User:Dannyisme who is an admin. While Dannyisme is a perfectly legitimate sock, used for official actions, two administrator accounts really are not necessary.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 16:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    Dannyisme was desysoped at about the same time as Danny's main account. --Tango 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    See meta rights log Shimgray | talk | 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    Okay, I struck that part. However, I still oppose per my above vote as it now stands and his very poor answers to questions and use of a blanket statement instead of answering each question thoughtfully and individually.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 14:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

57. Oppose. Clearly does not believe in Wikipedia:Assume good faith and appears to be unwilling to listen to feedback (per comments above, and my own personal experience). New users are not the enemy and anyone who jumps to the conclusion a new user is an evil spammer based on one or two arguably innocuous edits should not be an admin. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    So you're opposing Danny because he made the same edit that you did... but because he used rollback and you wrote "see talk"? --Gmaxwell 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    No, I'm opposing because he bites new users and apparently isn't going to stop, no matter what anybody says. Assuming good faith means the opposite of how Danny acts. It means assuming a new user who adds an advert doesn't know our policies, not that they're a paid shill. We only get to treat them like a paid shill after we've first treated them like someone who doesn't know our policies. It's sometimes a pain in the ass, and it takes more effort, and some of them really are paid shills, but most of them are not. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

58. Oppose Too much rediness to ignore policy for my taste, too little understanding of the dangers of WP:BITE, too little willing to consider a change in his attitudes based on the significant opposition and multiple seerious concerns raised here. many of the blocks are way out of line with either policy or general practice for new or realativcely new editors. Too litte willing to WP:AGF with percieved spammers and PoV pushers, ignoring that he may be wrong in some cases. DES ^(talk) 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    It would be helpful to the b'crat for clarity if you could provide an example of a blocked spammer that you felt he was wrong about. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

59. Oppose. Has a record of disproportional and harsh reactions. The best example is his treatment of Erik Möller. Haukur 17:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
60. Support. I've not always seen eye to eye with Danny. He once even called me a vandal in a copyright dispute (before later apologizing and admitting I was right). I am among the small minority of people who is somewhat glad to see him step down from the right hand of God, and relinquish his OFFICE role. But despite any qualms I might have had about his performance in that role, I certainly believe he means well, and fully endorse giving him back the admin bit. He is a value to the project and this is no big deal. Dragons flight 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    I'm withdrawing my support while I take more time to consider the issues raised in opposition. Dragons flight 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    After fence sitting for several days, I've decided this is where my feelings really lie. I'm really not happy about the biting and aggressive blocks/deletions. I also find his answer to #20 to be ridiculous. Danny is asking us to take him as he is with apparently little interest in considering whether there are ways he could better satisify the community as a whole. Even if 75% of the community is will to accept him, that is not a statement that he is without flaws. Adminship should be about promoting people who are prepared to fulfill the community's needs. I fear that Danny is too convinced of the correctness of his own personal approach to really be the servant to the community that an admin ought to be. Dragons flight 18:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

61. Neutralleaning towards oppose. Oppose, I recognize all that Danny has done for Wikipedia and I'm absolutely certain he won't abuse admin tools. However, I've seen numerous examples of misuse, including newbie biting. There also seems to be an attitude that rules don't apply to him. ChazBeckett 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    I was planning on remaining neutral until I saw his answer to #20. His unwillingness to change his approach leads to me to conclude that misuse (not abuse) of admin tools is likely. ChazBeckett 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

62. Opppose per concerns about misuse of power. - Peregrine Fisher 22:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
63. Oppose Difficult to oppose because he's dedicated and a great contributor, but I have great reservations about unilateral and heavy handed, even seemingly abusive, actions at times. I could put these down to a previous role, where there may be allowance for unknown factors, but the approach to this RFA doesn't reassure me that is the full explanation. I think there needs to be a period of readjustment to a new position within the community. Tyrenius 00:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
64. Slight Oppose The Opposers made a good point. Flubeca 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
65. Oppose Because the question is not moot. Jerkcity 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
66. Strong Oppose per responses, and several concerns regarding attitude and communication. I find it disturbing that so many of the "Support" votes seem to fall under "Because it's Danny!" reasoning. For a newer Wikipedian such as myself, this holds no meaning - especially in an RfA. The contributions are outstanding and impressive - I appreciate the viewpoint stated towards those who would fill the Wiki with spam and POV and agree that this should not be tolerated - but the responses to concerns posed by other editors are not. Statements (that I personally view as bordering on arrogant; this is not a personal attack at the nominee, simply a reminder that members of this community that did not automatically know who Danny was may not share the same reverence when reading these responses) that are excused as "refreshing truth" don't work in an open community when concerns are not addressed. As the user above said: "The question is not moot". Changed to Strong after further consideration*Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
67. Oppose Flcelloguy's excellent summary in Q22 makes it pretty clear. The only question that really matters at RFA is if the editor is likely to abuse the admin tools. In this case, the editor has already abused the tools by wheel warring, making rash indef blocks to long term editors in good standing and performing a baseless de-sysoping. No editor is irreplaceable, just as no admin is irreplaceable. Danny may have done a lot of good work, but admin-ship is not an award and as I said no one is irreplaceable...I don't feel very good about this but there it is. There's probaby more to say but I'm too disgusted by the partisan sniping his supporters are doing on the talk page, here in the question section and elsewhere on Wikipedia. RxS 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
68. Oppose I'm concerned about WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Alex 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
69. Oppose. Most of the users above summed it up for me, but I also found his unwillingness to talk about why he left the WMF rather upsetting (and yes, I know he said he'll tell us later, but I'm not going to support without some answers) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    What does that have to do with his trustworthiness not to abuse admin tools? Picaroon 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    And what does having a 1FA criteria, or at least 3000 edits have to do with it either? Absolutely nothing, but my reasoning is my own, and I'm sticking to it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

70. Oppose. Obviously a very experienced individual, but very recent developments have made me question how trustworthy I may have perceived him to be. I don't want an argument on this vote; just suffice it to say that it will not change in the foreseeable future. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
71. Strong Oppose. As expansion to answer to question 20, and for deletion history. Tordek 06:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
72. Oppose. Ignoring any an' all recent events, the Eloquence incident alone demonstrates a decided lack of common sense and more importantly, a sense of proportion (which I sort of like to see in administrators). Specifically, Danny is one of those editors who can better help Wikipedia without admin powers, I believe. --Gwern (contribs) 06:45 8 April 2007 (GMT)
73. Oppose Mostly concerned with his tendency to BITE. I'd strongly support after a few months of civil behavior with out the tools. --Samuel Wantman 08:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
74. Oppose at this stage. Why? Because what's the rush - you say above in terms of your resignation I will make my positions known during the upcoming board election - I will be happy to see your new nomination after then so we get the whole picture first. Until then why not just edit? --VS ^talk 08:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    This !vote should be disgarded as irrelevent - that Danny won't share his reasons for leaving his employment wit you might be frustrating, but it has nothing to do with whether he'll make good use of a mop.--Doc^g 11:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    No votes should be discarded. People are entitled to an opinion, and the final decision will emerge by consensus. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    Consensus is not a number it is the strength of the case based on relevant considerations. Of course, irrelevant contributions to the debate should be discarded. We thank the contributor, but point out why this isn't pertinant.--Doc^g 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    Following the logic behind Doc's statement, I'd also suggest that the several dozens of "ILIKEHIM" support !votes are disregarded as well, since they also have nothing to do with whether he'll make good use of a mop. FlatGenius 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC) edited comment after Doc's reply. FlatGenius 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    I totally agree with that; all irrelevant contributions should be disgarded. The closer should look only at the strength of arguments relevant to whether Danny with a mop would help or endanger Wikipedia - remembering that adminship is 'no big deal', and this is not a vote. Everything else, whether supporting or opposing, shoud be ignored.--Doc^g 16:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    I think this comment presents a valid reason and shouldn't be disregarded as irrelevant, because of Danny's particular job in the Foundation -- he dealt with controversies that often involved content on Wikipedia. That's relevant to being an administrator, and it would be relevant if he left because of a conflict in that area of his work. It perhaps wouldn't be as relevant if he had another role in the organization. -- phoebe/(talk) 21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you phoebe exactly my point - and then why should my oppose vote be disregarded doc? I'm not saying never, I'm not suggesting I don't like Danny, I'm saying I distrust a adminship request that appears to be rushed when we know in this case of other material forthcoming that is very likely to influence many of our votes. Indeed I'd go so far as to say that given the "politics" of Danny's situation the more honourable thing for now would be for him to withdraw or put on hold his request until after we all know the full story--VS ^talk 21:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

75. Oppose People with a strong tendency towards self-styled autocracy don't make good admins. Hell, it's one of the reasons I wouldn't want myself as an admin. I don't find the "you don't know certain details, so shut up an trust us"-arguments appeasing in the least. Peter ^Isotalo 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
76. Oppose pending an explanation of the Erik incident (see question 22). Bramlet Abercrombie 11:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    This !vote should be disgarded as irrelevent - what Danny did as a foundation employee is a matter for his employer - and has little to do with whether we should give him a volunteers mop.--Doc^g 11:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    Except that as Flcelloguy's summary seems to indicate, he used his admin (and higher) tools under the Office authority recklessly and abusively. I think that incident very relevent to this RFA. )( RxS 14:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC) RxS 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC) note: As Danny indicated on my talk page he's never initiated an Office action on his own, but the point is that the tools were used (in whatever context the action was undertaken). It's how they were used what's at issue here, and that makes the Erik thing relevent to this discussion. RxS 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

77. Per trialsanderrors, AnonEMouse. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    You have struck your support vote, but not removed it yet.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 17:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    I think the usual practice is to indent it so that it doesn't go into the auto-count. Haukur 17:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

78. Oppose. If Danny refuses to address question #22 above, I'm afraid it is impossible for me to considering supporting this request for adminship.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
79. Oppose per above. Saravask 18:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
80. Oppose. I'm especially concerned by Danny's confrontational answer to question #20 and his non-answer to question #22. We already have far too many administrators who believe in "my way or the highway"; we don't need more. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
81. Oppose per AnonEMouse. My concerns are about WP:AGF and WP:BITE amongst other things listed above.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
82. Oppose for now. Maybe once he moves out of the OFFICE, he won't bite so much. I'd like to give him a chance as an ordinary editor/user to demonstrate civility and adherence to policy, then come back with another RfA. It appears to be his intention to use edit summaries more; a wait will give us a chance to see that actually happen. Matchups 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
83. Oppose. Following the candidate's answers, or lack thereof, to the above questions I cannot vote otherwise. Because it's Danny and Jimbo says so are not good enough arguements to convince me this candidate has the judgement or temperment to be trusted with the tools. Also the bullying, mocking attitude of certain of the supporters is not helping their cause either.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
84. Oppose This was by far the most difficult oppose vote I've ever cast on wikipedia. Danny has undoubtedly benefitted wikipedia hugely in the past, but he has also shown a lot of disrespect towards his fellow contributors. He complains about the excessive legalism in wikipedia, and uses that as an explanation for his skirting of consensus and doing things without discussion. Well, it's not really about the legalism, it's about respect. I think humility and deference are two hugely important qualities for an admin to have. I believe that if he was re-instated, the negative effect on wikipedia caused by all the strife his decisions create would be larger than the positive effect of having him as an admin. It's utilitarian, but that's the way I feel. Besides, you don't need to be an admin to be a good wikipedian. I suggest he goes back to the basics and start writing articles and help forming consensus again. --Oskar 22:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
85. Oppose as above. Communication issues concern me, as does an apparent dismissal of minority viewpoints. Communicating with others and forging compromises with disagreeing minorities are cornerstones of consensus building. Further, lack of communication coupled with a disregard for process (or 'legalism') mixed with admin tools has resulted in a lot of inadvertent disruption of the community. We need fewer people who are prone to that kind of thing with the buttons, not more. - Ehheh 23:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    Can you point to the last case of "inadvertent disruption of the community" that I have caused? Danny 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    I don't know if it's the 'last' case as I don't follow your edits, but when a speedy deletion such as Fleshlight generates more than 100 emails over the mailing list, It was either extremely thought provoking or it was somewhat disruptive. I believe that case was the second one, even if the action itself was prompted by nothing but good faith intentions. And I apologize if I gave the impression that you were personally responsible for 'a lot' of such incidents - there have been several such touched off by a variety of people that have been on my mind lately. - Ehheh 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

86. WP:OFFICE actions? No problem. Resigning his adminship? I don't care. An unconventional, honest take on the RFA process? Sure, whatever works. And some of the questions and oppose votes are so utterly irrelevant and meaningless, I thought them absolutely ludicrous when I first read them. But the answer to Ravedave's question (#20) is really, really off-putting. JJay's comment, Oppose #42, puts it pretty well. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
87. Oppose per several of the question answers. Too unfeeling. Centurion 5 02:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
88. Oppose, abysmal answers to questions; being paid to deal with foundation level bilge and being a sysop are too different for any sort of "automatic" trust IMO. Milto LOL pia 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
89. Support Oppose bites newcomers. Also has been aloof and evasive in his question answers. Re his 7 points: 5 - He acts like the foundation is a dictatorship and is not beholden to the users. This is not true, they are elected and if they ignore the will of the community they will be replaced at the next election... Hs answer to #6 is the exact reason why I am opposing him - he belives new users are guilty until proven innocent. -Ravedave 04:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
90. Oppose, I’m sorry, I’m just really turned off by that answer to question #20. It is a fairly ridiculous question, but to unaequivocally pass it off as "moot" and not realize that, oh, listening to dissenter’s opinions is a good thing and possibly one of the best things that can happen to Wikipedia is something to be concerned about. I also don’t like the fact that you don’t bother to even give warnings to newbies and, as that is a direct administrative action, see it as an example of what you might do in the future. --Iamunknown 04:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
91. Strong oppose. Danny should be held to the same standards as any other admin candidate. And frankly, any other candidate who came to the table with: (a) low usage of edit summaries;[13] (b) a history of biting new users;[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] [24][25] (c) repeated examples of ignoring consensus standards of behavior;[26][27][28][29][30][31] (d) stating that he had no intention of abiding by consensus standards in the future;[32][33] and (e) open disdain for his opposers in the RfA process,[34] would have been an obvious pile-on oppose by now. When I look at Danny's editing history in the same way that I would look at any other candidate's history, the only possible action is to oppose. As for considering Danny's history in context of his personal circumstances, well, I said it during the Essjay controversy, and I'll say it again here: Leaders set the tone in a culture. Danny is still a leader here, from his quantity of work, from his tenure at the Wikimedia office, and by sheer "time in service" at Wikipedia. But let's ask ourselves this: Do we think that Danny sets a good example? Would we want other editors to emulate him? I say no, the tone that Danny wants to set, isn't the one that I want for Wikipedia. For example, if we look at the discussions that have gone into WP:BLOCK and WP:BITE, the community consensus is clear that we are supposed to be patient with new users: Warn first, block if that doesn't work. If Danny doesn't agree with that, then the proper way he should deal with the situation is to propose a change at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy, not to simply go vigilante. In other words, I support or oppose an admin based not just on whether or not they'd be "good with the mop," but by whether they can set an example of how a good Wikipedian should act. Sure, some people say, "Adminship is no big deal," but it is a big deal. As soon as someone is identified as an admin in any discussion, they are perceived as an authority figure. Junior editors often closely observe how an admin acts, to learn how they should act. Now, I do agree that Danny has done a lot of good things for Wikipedia, and that he has used admin tools with wisdom in the past. But just because someone has been an admin before, doesn't mean that they should be immediately re-sysopped. When someone has provably used admin tools in an irresponsible way, it is not time to give the tools back to them, unless they can first prove that they can behave in a responsible "Good Wikipedian" way. Danny just resigned from the Office a few weeks ago, so, I say, give him a few months as a normal editor, to adapt. Let him prove that he still understands the core Wikipedia policies and guidelines (especially WP:BLOCK and WP:BITE), that he's willing to abide by consensus even if he disagrees with it, that he can treat new editors with civility and patience, and that he's ready to work on building consensus, rather than simply insisting on his own view. Disclaimer: I am one of the editors who Danny has referred to as a spammer[35][36] (a characterization I strongly protest). But, if over the next few months Danny can show that he's willing to work in a constructive manner as part of the team, I'll support him myself. --Elonka 05:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
92. Oppose per the all-too-public airing of dirty laundry from the Foundation Board's chair. Whether it would actually impact Danny's ability to be a respectable admin or not, there is no getting around the tremendous potential for conflicts of interest; that is, to use the admin bit as a run-up to running for Trustee. We don't need this now.--SpamWatcher 05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
93. Oppose Cannon that fires before it is appropriate. --Romanpoet 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
94. I do not support this Request for adminship Been watching and reading carefully before I vote. I agree particularly with the encompassing statement made by Romanpoet above - we do not need this otherwise good editor to return to admin duties.Bec-Thorn-Berry 08:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
95. Oppose I find some of the answers troubling (20, 22, etc.) as well as my other reading. Quatloo 10:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral I agree with Jeffrey O. Gustafson that this is really an unnecessary exercise and the gladhanding politico answers make me unwilling to participate in it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed to oppose after reviewing block log. ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral. I'd prefer Danny to wait a little bit before being an admin again. SYSS Mouse 03:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Strongly neutral I was prepared to support Danny until I read his response to the valid concerns expressed by User:Xiner about vested contributors. Given Danny's enormous contributions to Wikipedia, I cannot, in good conscience, oppose his nomination for adminship, but neither can I endorse his views on vested contributors with a vote of support. // Internet Esquire 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral due to the issues brought up. Acalamari 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
4. While I still think Danny did a great job as an office staff, the issues presented here force me to withdraw my support for now. -- ReyBrujo 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I like the answers to quite a lot of the questions, so I'm not going to oppose. --- RockMFR 23:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral --I voted Support at first glance and then have read all of the pros and cons proffered and feel that I cannot support nor oppose at this time.--Lmcelhiney 01:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Conflicted neutral. Danny has done a tremendous amount of good for Wikipedia, and I would generally argue that his merits (a keen focus on the encyclopedia's mission, an excellent history of service to Wikipedia) outweigh his demerits (the tendency to block and bite without warning, the occasional lack of respect for consensus, etc.). But the thing which prevents me from voting "support" is his stubborn refusal to acknowledge that those who criticize his style as detrimental to his stated aims have a legitimate point. If I saw a hint that if resysopped, Danny would try to be more patient with newbies, or would take more care to explain his decisions when possible, it would be enough to sway me towards support. But there is an obstinacy in Danny's answers which troubles me deeply. Danny acknowledges that he has made mistakes, but he shows no evidence of changing the elements of his style which led to those mistakes. Without that evidence, I can't support his readminship. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral, changed from support, generally per Josiah above. Sandstein 07:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment

• As far as I am concerned, Danny's reasons for resigning have absolutely nothing to do with his suitability to be an admin on the projects. I'm tired of seeing the swirls of speculation about this and whether there was some sinister backstory; whether he chooses to share his motivation at some point or another really has no bearing on whether he would (continue to) be an asset to the project by having the admin tools. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, as I mentioned above the demands for an explanation sound a bit like Number 2 in The Prisoner: "Why did you resign?" Danny is not a number, he is a free man! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)