Denni has been here since January 3, with 1960+ edits to his name. He has proven an excellent contributor on a variety of subjects, and has contributed some beautiful photographs (take a look at Weather lore). He has the right temperament for admin work -- when I asked him for permission to nominate, his remarks struck me as quite wise. He is open to the possibilities as an admin, and yet wants to be sure it doesn't keep him from contributing: I think he'll find an excellent balance, and urge you to support him. Jwrosenzweig 15:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Jwrosenzweig, moink, and Woggly. It's a big responsibility with low pay and no respect, but I have done a 24-hour marathon for Wikipedia and I hope that shows how dear I hold it. I am bold when appropriate, cautious when necessary, and always ready to discuss things rationally. Mr. Baas and I are currently in mediation, and I trust the outcome will be satisfactory to both of us. (BTW, yes, I am a "he", but I believe I am properly in touch with my feminine side.) Denni

☯ 03:38, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

Support:

1. Jwrosenzweig
2. She was nominated by Jwrosenzweig, she does great work, and she uses my email signature. How can this go wrong? [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 16:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   Nothing i hope, except that (i believe) Denni is a he :) Muriel G 16:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   Doh! [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 17:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

3. ✏ Sverdrup 16:17, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
4. Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
5. Tεx τ urε 16:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
6. Fredrik | talk 16:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
7. William M. Connolley 16:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
8. Charles Matthews 16:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
9. Muriel G 16:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
10. —No-One  Jones 17:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
11. moink 20:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
12. Cecropia | Talk 20:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
13. Support, pending links from Kevin Baas. Well spoken recently on foundation-l (even though I disagreed). Taking part in mediation shows that Denni is willing to compromise and build consensus. -- "DICK" CHENEY 21:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
14. Merovingian✍ Talk 23:20, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
15. James F. (talk) 03:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
16. Decumanus 20:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
17. Lst 27 02:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
18. David Cannon 04:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) I have had the privilege of working with Denni on the Wikipedia:Multilingual Statistics page. The quality of his work is excellent, and I know him to be one who is quick to encourage others. I very strongly support his nomination.
19. Snowspinner 22:15, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
20. Sorry for the delay, I was away from my computer for several days! Me too, of course. Woggly 08:13, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
21. - JCarriker 08:45, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
22. Kevin Baas' arguments and links below thoroughly convinced me. Support. - David Gerard 23:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
23. I concur with David Gerard older≠ wiser 23:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
24. -- Palapala 08:24, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
25. BCorr| Брайен 19:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
26. Secretlondon 02:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Does not work well with others. Violates policy. Obstructs transparency. See his talk page history - he deletes user feedback on his talk page, so that noone else can see it. He is currently undergoing a user dispute mediation for making personal attacks. (see the mediation page) Kevin Baas 16:50, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
   • Please provide links. -- "DICK" CHENEY 18:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
     • [1], [2]

Comments: I think Kevin is of course well within his rights to object to Denni's nomination, but I want to point out for information's sake that Denni is undergoing mediation with Kevin himself. As someone who's been in arbitration, I know that two parties in a dispute often have exaggerated views of each other's conduct. Furthermore, I hope Kevin will refrain from turning this nomination into an attack on Denni (although of course he should respond to Hcheney's question), especially as mediation is still occurring, and I think it against the spirit of said mediation to publically air grievances in this forum. That's just my perspective. Jwrosenzweig 19:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm a party to the same mediation process; it was requested by Kevin. I think it would be a dreadful precedent to take any notice of this; could only lead to more people refusing mediation when asked to agree to it. Charles Matthews 20:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am in general agreement. This should definitely not be an area for extensions of character attacks/ad hominen attacks. However, I feel that people should be able to express positive views as much as negative views; criticism as much as praise, and have the right, nay the duty, to provide others with access to information which may benefit their decision. Ofcourse, one shouldn't be coercive about it. A one liner is good, so long as its not mere rhetoric - which is never good. As for Charles' comment about people refusing mediation when asked to agree to it - I highly doubt that it will have a significant effect of this sort on reasonable users. And even if it were too have this effect on unreasonable users, this would be no counterargument, as whatever helps to ensure just and responsive governance is ipso facto justified - and this is the question; what things must be weighted in respect to. Kevin Baas 01:36, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

I feel that Kevin shows little understanding here: of mediation and its aims; of the propriety of citing it in terms such as 'undergoing', as if it were a judicial investigation; of the function and etiquette of user talk pages; of the likely effect of his remarks; of the likely behaviour of others on reading them. The matter he brings up would properly be dealt with by a simple link to the relevant subpage of the mediation page. Charles Matthews 07:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hence the simple link to the relevant subpage of the mediation page. Also useful to make a brief statement as to the subject of the mediation, and some objective facts never hurt. This all does not exclude the right to make independant criticisms. Charles, chill out, okay? I didn't post a harangue here. You've already generated more dialogue, primarily of a negative nature, than my relevant, appropriate, and brief criticism. Remember, as we all seem to be in agreement on, this is not a forum for personal attacks. "Kevin shows little understanding." is, by sentence structure, irrefutably a personal attack. Notice the subject of the sentence is me, and "little understanding" is pejorative. Let's just have a vote here, okay? Peace. Kevin Baas 16:12, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

Conveniently Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 6 also answers for me on 'personal attacks'. Charles Matthews 16:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am uncertain when personal attacks got defined as "Voting against inclusion of vanity pages," but, if this is the new definition of personal attacks, I support them wholeheartedly. Snowspinner 22:15, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner, a personal attack is when a user makes a pejorative remark about another user. A typical format is "x person has x undesirable trait", but it may use different verbs like "shows" or "demonstrates", or it might refer to their faculties such as "x person's thoughts" or "x person's statements", indirectly but indisputably refering to the person (in contrast to arguments or article content). there are many variations of the form, but it's nonetheless pretty simple and easy to pick out. I hope this helps to clarify the meaning of a "personal attack". Kevin Baas 16:39, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

I was being facetious. I looked at the VfD you cited as an example of Denni's personal attacks, and there were no personal attacks on it whatsoever - only a vote to delete the page, which I believe was entirely justified. In case I missed something, I went and looked at the other two pages just now. The rest were comments on your behavior - accurate ones at that. In fact, Denni's interactions with you convinced me that he has the temperment and determination to handal vandals and other problem users. Snowspinner 17:45, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, the Vfd page was listed as a primary source under mediation for Charles, not Denni. Denni had made only one comment on that page, which was ad hominem cicumstantial, and a vote for deletion, as you pointed out. I informed him on his talk page that it is not in the best interests of his reputation to make ad hominem circumstial arguments, and he was... well... unreceptive and inhospitable. Perhaps this is the cause of confusion. This thread orignates from the subject of Charles, not Denni. Secondly, I don't appreciate your accusations. Nor do I appreciate your self-righteous interpretations. Trying to talk out problems with someone is not vandalism. Violating wikipedia policies and guidelines constitutes a problem. Refusing to communicate to someone who is trying to point out an injustice constitutes a problem. Attacks on people's character, like you just did in the above paragraph, constitutes a problem. (just after we've discussed the vices of such dialogue here, too!) And finally, I don't appreciate your hostility. Kevin Baas 19:03, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

That's blatantly untrue. You listed the VfD as a place where Denni made personal attacks. As for my accusations, I don't expect you to appreciate them. Regardless, this is pretty cut and dry as far as I'm concerned. You made a vanity page. Denni voted to delete it. You made vaguely threatening comments about how something wasn't in his best interest, and he got mad. If you expect me to shed a tear for you here, you're quite mistaken. Your vote against his admin nomination, while within your rights, is petty, childish, and misrepresentative. Snowspinner 20:46, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

I never said that I did not list VfD as a place where Denni made personal attacks. I said that i did not say that it was a primary source. Nor did I say plural. On that page, Denni made an ad hominem circumstantial argument, which, by definition, is an attack on the person. I am certainly within my rights to point out logical fallacies. If someone is irritated by it, that does not reflect poorly on me. I didn't want to bring this onto the page, because i consider it unethical and none of anyone else's business, but you are forcing me to defend myself, as you apparently consider it their business. On Denni's talk page, in the cited history, mind you, as he attempted to repress my criticism and hide his own remarks, he called me delusional, a five-year-old, irrational, and said that i have a "social quotient of australopithecus africanus". Personally, i found these comments offensive and in blatent violation of wikipedia policy. I'm sorry if you do not see this. I don't know how i can make it anymore clear. I voted against him because i felt that this kind of behavior from an administrator would be counter-productive to the goals of wikipedia. Kevin Baas 21:15, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Well, Kevin, your doesn't work well with others is hogwash; and your circumstantial ad hominem, to translate from semi-Latin to semi-Latin, is suggests you had an agenda. But keep up the good work. Charles Matthews 19:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well denni certainly didn't work well with me, so i don't know where the deprecatory and unsubstantiated comment "hogwash" is coming from. As for "ad hominem circumstantial" (you flipped the order around), i refer you to the article ad hominem, and assure you that i understand and acknowledge everything on that page, including the fact that, by making an ad hominem circumstantial attack, denni was suggesting that i had an agenda. But thanks anyways, and thanks for the encouragement. Kevin Baas 20:55, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Let me be picky then: 'others' implies you know of someone else, not yourself, who has had difficulties 'working' with Denni; even at the level of your pursuing a VfD discussion onto his user talk page. By the way, the page on ad hominem does employ the 'circumstantial ad hominem' phrase, as you can see. As it is, you have 'flipped' the statement. You appear to mean that if anyone suggests you have an agenda, this is CAH; which is therefore AH; which is therefore a personal attack; which is therefore a violation of WP policy. You state your 'interests' on your user page; are you really suggesting that even to bring these up in discussion is a policy violation? Charles Matthews 21:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, bringing up my interests in a discussion is not a violation of wikipedia policy. It is trivial conversation; "chit-chat". regarding suggseting someone has an agenda - i consider this psychologically manipulative and am always turned off to the person who does it, wherever i see it. to be considered CAH, however, it should be in point of making an argument; the part "x is false because..." is missing from your stated criteria. But if it is missing this part, and is left, instead, in the infinitive form, everything remains but the focal point; it becomes a general attack, and i would say still an attack on the person: it attempts to make what the person says less credible. I see that the page on ad homimem employs both orderings. "ad hominem circumstantial" is used twice, once in the subheading and once in the para underneath the subheading, while "circumstantial ad hominem" is used once in the para underneath the subheading. If the usage on that page is considered authorative, we are both correct in the ordering we employ, and both wrong in accusing the other of having flipped the order. I stand corrected, and am sorry for the mistake. Kevin Baas 22:41, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding "pursuing a vfd onto his talk page" This is factually incorrect. At no point did i solicit him to change his vote. Nor was the topic pursued. For the most part, it was Denni flinging insults and sarcasm at me, and me telling him that such behavior is inappropriate. Kevin Baas 22:46, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

You really like splitting hairs, don't you? Snowspinner 19:06, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)