 | This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
- This is of couse not your normal nomination. Danny has served in a position that required the utmost of trust and that has led to substantial support and recognition of his service from many in opposition. There is a significant amount of opposition. Some comments in both the support and opposition sections are certainly not helpful. So far as I see it discounting those positions still leads to a nomination below the traditional promotion threshhold. However, I haven't had time to analyze thoroughly for sockpuppets of which I am confident there are some. Failing finding a substantially greater number of sockpuppets among the opposition I believe the correct decision would be to declare no consensus to promote for this nomination. Analyzing will take some time and I request that everyone be patient and polite. I can't stress enough that writing an encyclopedia is the most important thing. I'd prefer if some other bureaucrats offered their opinions on the closing, but if no one has after I've finished my analysis, I'll make the call. Thanks everyone. - Taxman Talk 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've voted so ethically I shouldn't have any part to play in this. However I don't see how we can count opposition to WP:OFFICE and other employee related activity as valid opposition. Secretlondon 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about this one. The stated purpose of RFA is to identify trustworthy people and, given his former employment by the foundation, I don't think even Danny's worst critic would allege he is not trustworthy (I didn't see any of that in the RFA). He's done an incredible amount of good work in the time he's contributed to Wikipedia - so much so that many of the newer users are ignorant because much of it was done before they got here. At the same time, a number of people have found other things to criticize about his behavior. Yes, Danny has a (raw) 68% support, but that 32% opposition is over 120 oppose votes. I find it difficult to call this consensus. So like I said - I'm on the fence about this one. Raul654 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's the tough part. Good point that no one is alleging he's untrustworthy. Also note the support percentage declined nearly monotonically. - Taxman Talk 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
PS - people were still supporting and opposing at Danny's RFA, so with my red-tapey bureaucratic powers I've protected that page pending a decision here. Raul654 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly, I can't see this as a possibility for promotion. For me, the number of opposes isn't that important - sure, 120-ish is a lot, but if it were weighed against 500 supports, I wouldn't see any question but that he should be given adminship. However, there is a raw 32% opposition, and over the week, the proportion of those in opposition who have given Danny's office actions as their primary reason for objecting has decreased to a small proportion - definitely less than 10%. Whether we personally think that he has contributed a lot and would make a good admin (and I do) isn't the question; it's determining whether there is consensus to make him an admin - and I don't see one. Warofdreams talk 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I am strongly inclined to promote Danny. I wrote up the following comment to accompany the promotion:
I would have left this decision to Taxman, but that he seems to have disappeared following his above request for comments. A timely resolution of this issue is clearly in the interest of the project.
This RFA is numerically in the questionable zone; at this point a bureaucrat is expected to exercise his discretion. I have read the entire dialogue, with a slight prejudice against promoting because the percentage is on the low end. I have, however, not given undue attention to this fact; Dmcdevit and others have drawn attention to possible sockpuppetry, so the numbers may not be quite as they seem.
His supporters cite a particular few qualities in his favor, but my concern has been primarily with the objections, as there is no risk to the project in not promoting him. The opposers give more various justifications. Those most frequently mentioned are his brusque attitude to questions, history of newbie-biting, and aggressive deletion habits, but other editors have objected on the grounds that: the resignation of adminship last month shows a lack of devotion; he has not explained his reasons for resigning from his Foundation positions; Cyde nominated him; his actions as a bureaucrat have been questionable; many trustworthy users have opposed him; WP:OFFICE is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and Danny's role in its implementation reflects a similar attitude. These latter few rationales (after the colon) I find irrelevant to the matter at hand: whether he should be trusted with the powers of an administrator.
The nearness of the count coupled with the slight bias in Danny's favor discovered by sockpuppet checks leave the matter numerically indeterminate. On consideration of the rationales for supporting and opposing, I believe it is in the project's interest to promote Danny. I have not exceeded the role which the community has defined for a bureaucrat: I have done no more than my job. I trust even those who disagree with my decision will respect that fact.
I further hope it is quite clear that I am not myself judging the candidate (my own experience with him is miniscule; I have seen neither his great successes nor his great failures, as presented by supporters and opposers) but rather making sense of the community's judgment of the candidate. I have read all arguments presented, regardless of the source. My decision was informed by the numbers only insofar as the numbers have told me that the community has no clear opinion on this issue. (here ends proposed comment)
Comments? — Dan | talk 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would support promotion on the basis of Dan's reasoning. Raul654 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dan, what was the raw count of sockpuppets for and against you'd throw out based on what you saw? - Taxman Talk 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I made no raw count -- as I said, I am not interested in making a perfectly numerical judgment. —
Dan |
talk 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just looking for a data point. I've since had a chance to read the talk page. It's got interesting data. More experienced people supported at a much higher rate. That added to the confirmed sockpuppetry makes it an easy to defend promotion. That doesn't mean there won't be controversy due to it. My gut feeling is there will be more controversy on a promotion and much less on a non promotion. Half of that is due to the personalities involved, and that much should not be taken into account. But I believe even not considering that, the indication of that gut feeling is correct. I wouldn't promote, but would support the choice to if that's what was decided. I guess that leaves us split. Danny's a fantastic editor and the encyclopedia might even be better off if he doesn't get promoted at this time. If he adjusts to the legitimate criticism he'll pass very easily the next time. His life experience is more that most of the participants in this RfA combined. - Taxman Talk 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I made no raw count -- as I said, I am not interested in making a perfectly numerical judgment. —
Dan |
talk 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I get what you are saying. But we can't make a decision not to promote based on the fact that this wouldn't tick off certain people. Not even partially — meaning, it's a close call, obviously, so that cannot be a defining factor.
Redux 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's going to be people upset no matter what we decide, so there's no sense in worrying that you are going to upset someone. Raul654 03:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I get what you are saying. But we can't make a decision not to promote based on the fact that this wouldn't tick off certain people. Not even partially — meaning, it's a close call, obviously, so that cannot be a defining factor.
Redux 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading everything on that RfA since yesterday. I've taken the time to look into pretty much everyone whose name I had never seen anywhere else. By this I mean I looked over their contribs, talk page, user page, the usual places. I believe that the sockpuppetry has already been identified, and that we are not going to uncover anything else substantial in that aspect. I also agree with what Raul has said about the ratio of support. If we were to look at it exclusively, which we won't, it could be said that, given Danny's history with the project, and given existing precedents, it would be possible to at least consider promotion at a somewhat lower ratio of support. But in this RfA there's the unusual aspect that the c. 30% opposition are represented by +100 people — although it also brings up the fact that if 120 users are ammounting to "just" 30% of the participants, then the support is also extraordinary.
This brings me to what I would consider the key to making a call on this one: the rationales and the people who gave them (or failed to give one). First, I'm finding that there's a considerable amount of people who opposed for reasons that are less than convincing, and it is not limited to those who opposed based on Danny's work related to WP:OFFICE — an example: at least two people cited his decision as Bureaucrat to promote Essjay to Bureaucratship as indication of his alleged "lack of judgement". First, that'd be judging him for exercising discretion in a position completely different then the one he is nominated to; Second, while that decision was difficult, it is inevitable to conclude that Danny's judgment in promoting Essjay in a close-call RfB (which it was) is being questioned only in retrospective to Essjay having lost all his privileges almost a year later. However Essjay was not removed for abusing Bureaucrat tools, or any other restricted tool. Consensus in Essjay's RfB was at 89,9% with 16 opposers. Danny made a call that was within his mandate as a Bureaucrat, even if it was debatable (which it was, and I personally would not have promoted Essjay in that RfB). But to question his trustworthyness or competence to perform as an Administrator citing his decision as a Bureaucrat to promote Essjay in those circumstances is a non sequitur —. I'm not about to disregard anyone's input because I don't agree with them, but it is also our job not to allow unrelated grudges, personal dislikes and the like to interfere with what is really the purpose of a RfA. And those cases are there, and it's not just one or two of them — Dan has just exposed them. Of course, there's also a lot of supporters who didn't give a reason for their support, some only signed their names. While this is less than ideal in any RfA, we are, it must be noted, dealing with a very unusual circumstance: Danny is about as visible and well-known as it gets. I find it only natural that some people didn't see a need to expand on what they thought that Danny should be made an admin again.
Second, I've identified several users amid the opposers that had not edited for a long time, sometimes months, and came back solely to oppose Danny. They didn't have a problematic history for the most part, but this attitude goes to motivation. I find it problematic to see people who were not active and suddenly came back just to oppose Danny. Canvassing is highly likely in such situations. How were they not active but knew when Danny had been put up for adminship. There are about 5 people in that situation.
All that said, I must say that despite what the bots are showing, the actual support ratio, taking everything I mentioned into account, is probably closer to somewhere between 74% and 76%. That doesn't mean we should necessarily promote though. There is substantial valid opposition, and the sheer number of opposers is remarkable. However at the moment I'm also inclined to promote.
Redux 02:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok lets see where we are at. Raul, Redux and Dan leaning to promote. Me against, but I'd support either. Warofdreams against. Anyone feel differently based on re-reading the above? - Taxman Talk 02:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I stand by my reasoning above. I can see that I am in a minority on this, and those bureaucrats leaning to promote are clearly acting in good faith(!) so while I would close this as a no consensus, if whoever closes determines that there is consensus, I will support their actions. Anyhow, I'm now off to bed, as it is very late here, so I'll be checking out what happens first thing in the morning :) Warofdreams talk 03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a decision to me. - Taxman Talk 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Although that's not how Bureaucrat decisions get made, I think for this one we do need to reach a clear consensus. I don't think we are quite there yet. I must note that Dan and Secretlondon, who also made a small comment, have participated in the RfA itself. That considered, we are pretty much split at the moment. And for my part, I should make it clear that I've not made any kind of final decision that we should promote. I've said that I'm inclined to promote because (i) the support ratio is, in my analysis, higher than what a simple count would show; and given that (ii) there may well be extenuating circumstances to promote Danny at this ratio that I've arrived at.
Redux 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fear it's a bit too late; I took assurance from the above in the disinterestedness of my assessment of the situation and have promoted Danny. I will be glad to weather criticism of my decision if necessary, and you would be entirely within your right to state on the record that you do not endorse it. — Dan | talk 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully support a decision to promote Danny. Danny was originally promoted to admin sometime around 450 B.C. 450 B.C.E. well, never mind, shortly after the dawn of time, by Wikipedia standards. Strictly speaking, he could have his adminship back for the asking without having listed himself at RFA, based on this. I believe that Danny, to an even greater degree than the regular
WP:OTRS workers, has incurred the wrath of the many for mere discharge of his office duties. Votes of people who are upset with his summary handling of OTRS and office matters should, frankly, be discounted, because he was doing his job the way he had been instructed to do it.
The Uninvited Co.,
Inc. 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with Dan having been the one to actually push the button, since it happened following this discussion. I was just now wondering if it would even be possible for us to actually get a more clear consensus — and I didn't mean that Dan's or Secretlondon's remarks should not be heard because they had participated; they were not making a unilateral decision, just commenting. But since Taxman had made a "head count", in order to see who was in favor and who was against, I noted that. In actuality, however, the more Bureaucrats commenting here, the better in terms of presenting a concerted decision to the community.
I don't think I would have changed my mind and decided that failing this RfA was actually correct. As I had mentioned and Steve further stated, there were extenuating circumstances. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose for us to seek reversal of Dan's action only to beat around the bush for a day or two longer and then [probably] arrive at the same conclusion. In light of that, and in the interest of adhering to complete transparency, I will go ahead and fully endorse Danny's promotion. Redux 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)- My head count was just to see where we stand. After Warofdreams last comments, what it left us at was the only people that wouldn't have called it a promotion ourselves stated that we would support the decision to promote. That's as close as you can get to full consensus in my book. Not everyone has to state they would have made the same decision, but if everyone can support the outcome, that's as good as it gets. - Taxman Talk 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. After I said we were not quite there yet, I started thinking that there might well not be anywhere else for us to get to. I think that the level of agreement reached is the possible one, and it is more than enough to present the conserted decision on that RfA that the community asked of us. Consensus here was in the sense that, although it was a close call, promotion was correct and, even if not all of us would have necessarily done it if they had closed the RfA ordinarily, it is an outcome that we can support. Redux 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Good decision by everyone. I fully endorse the promotion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
| This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
- This is of couse not your normal nomination. Danny has served in a position that required the utmost of trust and that has led to substantial support and recognition of his service from many in opposition. There is a significant amount of opposition. Some comments in both the support and opposition sections are certainly not helpful. So far as I see it discounting those positions still leads to a nomination below the traditional promotion threshhold. However, I haven't had time to analyze thoroughly for sockpuppets of which I am confident there are some. Failing finding a substantially greater number of sockpuppets among the opposition I believe the correct decision would be to declare no consensus to promote for this nomination. Analyzing will take some time and I request that everyone be patient and polite. I can't stress enough that writing an encyclopedia is the most important thing. I'd prefer if some other bureaucrats offered their opinions on the closing, but if no one has after I've finished my analysis, I'll make the call. Thanks everyone. - Taxman Talk 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've voted so ethically I shouldn't have any part to play in this. However I don't see how we can count opposition to WP:OFFICE and other employee related activity as valid opposition. Secretlondon 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about this one. The stated purpose of RFA is to identify trustworthy people and, given his former employment by the foundation, I don't think even Danny's worst critic would allege he is not trustworthy (I didn't see any of that in the RFA). He's done an incredible amount of good work in the time he's contributed to Wikipedia - so much so that many of the newer users are ignorant because much of it was done before they got here. At the same time, a number of people have found other things to criticize about his behavior. Yes, Danny has a (raw) 68% support, but that 32% opposition is over 120 oppose votes. I find it difficult to call this consensus. So like I said - I'm on the fence about this one. Raul654 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's the tough part. Good point that no one is alleging he's untrustworthy. Also note the support percentage declined nearly monotonically. - Taxman Talk 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
PS - people were still supporting and opposing at Danny's RFA, so with my red-tapey bureaucratic powers I've protected that page pending a decision here. Raul654 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly, I can't see this as a possibility for promotion. For me, the number of opposes isn't that important - sure, 120-ish is a lot, but if it were weighed against 500 supports, I wouldn't see any question but that he should be given adminship. However, there is a raw 32% opposition, and over the week, the proportion of those in opposition who have given Danny's office actions as their primary reason for objecting has decreased to a small proportion - definitely less than 10%. Whether we personally think that he has contributed a lot and would make a good admin (and I do) isn't the question; it's determining whether there is consensus to make him an admin - and I don't see one. Warofdreams talk 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I am strongly inclined to promote Danny. I wrote up the following comment to accompany the promotion:
I would have left this decision to Taxman, but that he seems to have disappeared following his above request for comments. A timely resolution of this issue is clearly in the interest of the project.
This RFA is numerically in the questionable zone; at this point a bureaucrat is expected to exercise his discretion. I have read the entire dialogue, with a slight prejudice against promoting because the percentage is on the low end. I have, however, not given undue attention to this fact; Dmcdevit and others have drawn attention to possible sockpuppetry, so the numbers may not be quite as they seem.
His supporters cite a particular few qualities in his favor, but my concern has been primarily with the objections, as there is no risk to the project in not promoting him. The opposers give more various justifications. Those most frequently mentioned are his brusque attitude to questions, history of newbie-biting, and aggressive deletion habits, but other editors have objected on the grounds that: the resignation of adminship last month shows a lack of devotion; he has not explained his reasons for resigning from his Foundation positions; Cyde nominated him; his actions as a bureaucrat have been questionable; many trustworthy users have opposed him; WP:OFFICE is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and Danny's role in its implementation reflects a similar attitude. These latter few rationales (after the colon) I find irrelevant to the matter at hand: whether he should be trusted with the powers of an administrator.
The nearness of the count coupled with the slight bias in Danny's favor discovered by sockpuppet checks leave the matter numerically indeterminate. On consideration of the rationales for supporting and opposing, I believe it is in the project's interest to promote Danny. I have not exceeded the role which the community has defined for a bureaucrat: I have done no more than my job. I trust even those who disagree with my decision will respect that fact.
I further hope it is quite clear that I am not myself judging the candidate (my own experience with him is miniscule; I have seen neither his great successes nor his great failures, as presented by supporters and opposers) but rather making sense of the community's judgment of the candidate. I have read all arguments presented, regardless of the source. My decision was informed by the numbers only insofar as the numbers have told me that the community has no clear opinion on this issue. (here ends proposed comment)
Comments? — Dan | talk 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would support promotion on the basis of Dan's reasoning. Raul654 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dan, what was the raw count of sockpuppets for and against you'd throw out based on what you saw? - Taxman Talk 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I made no raw count -- as I said, I am not interested in making a perfectly numerical judgment. —
Dan |
talk 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just looking for a data point. I've since had a chance to read the talk page. It's got interesting data. More experienced people supported at a much higher rate. That added to the confirmed sockpuppetry makes it an easy to defend promotion. That doesn't mean there won't be controversy due to it. My gut feeling is there will be more controversy on a promotion and much less on a non promotion. Half of that is due to the personalities involved, and that much should not be taken into account. But I believe even not considering that, the indication of that gut feeling is correct. I wouldn't promote, but would support the choice to if that's what was decided. I guess that leaves us split. Danny's a fantastic editor and the encyclopedia might even be better off if he doesn't get promoted at this time. If he adjusts to the legitimate criticism he'll pass very easily the next time. His life experience is more that most of the participants in this RfA combined. - Taxman Talk 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I made no raw count -- as I said, I am not interested in making a perfectly numerical judgment. —
Dan |
talk 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I get what you are saying. But we can't make a decision not to promote based on the fact that this wouldn't tick off certain people. Not even partially — meaning, it's a close call, obviously, so that cannot be a defining factor.
Redux 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's going to be people upset no matter what we decide, so there's no sense in worrying that you are going to upset someone. Raul654 03:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I get what you are saying. But we can't make a decision not to promote based on the fact that this wouldn't tick off certain people. Not even partially — meaning, it's a close call, obviously, so that cannot be a defining factor.
Redux 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading everything on that RfA since yesterday. I've taken the time to look into pretty much everyone whose name I had never seen anywhere else. By this I mean I looked over their contribs, talk page, user page, the usual places. I believe that the sockpuppetry has already been identified, and that we are not going to uncover anything else substantial in that aspect. I also agree with what Raul has said about the ratio of support. If we were to look at it exclusively, which we won't, it could be said that, given Danny's history with the project, and given existing precedents, it would be possible to at least consider promotion at a somewhat lower ratio of support. But in this RfA there's the unusual aspect that the c. 30% opposition are represented by +100 people — although it also brings up the fact that if 120 users are ammounting to "just" 30% of the participants, then the support is also extraordinary.
This brings me to what I would consider the key to making a call on this one: the rationales and the people who gave them (or failed to give one). First, I'm finding that there's a considerable amount of people who opposed for reasons that are less than convincing, and it is not limited to those who opposed based on Danny's work related to WP:OFFICE — an example: at least two people cited his decision as Bureaucrat to promote Essjay to Bureaucratship as indication of his alleged "lack of judgement". First, that'd be judging him for exercising discretion in a position completely different then the one he is nominated to; Second, while that decision was difficult, it is inevitable to conclude that Danny's judgment in promoting Essjay in a close-call RfB (which it was) is being questioned only in retrospective to Essjay having lost all his privileges almost a year later. However Essjay was not removed for abusing Bureaucrat tools, or any other restricted tool. Consensus in Essjay's RfB was at 89,9% with 16 opposers. Danny made a call that was within his mandate as a Bureaucrat, even if it was debatable (which it was, and I personally would not have promoted Essjay in that RfB). But to question his trustworthyness or competence to perform as an Administrator citing his decision as a Bureaucrat to promote Essjay in those circumstances is a non sequitur —. I'm not about to disregard anyone's input because I don't agree with them, but it is also our job not to allow unrelated grudges, personal dislikes and the like to interfere with what is really the purpose of a RfA. And those cases are there, and it's not just one or two of them — Dan has just exposed them. Of course, there's also a lot of supporters who didn't give a reason for their support, some only signed their names. While this is less than ideal in any RfA, we are, it must be noted, dealing with a very unusual circumstance: Danny is about as visible and well-known as it gets. I find it only natural that some people didn't see a need to expand on what they thought that Danny should be made an admin again.
Second, I've identified several users amid the opposers that had not edited for a long time, sometimes months, and came back solely to oppose Danny. They didn't have a problematic history for the most part, but this attitude goes to motivation. I find it problematic to see people who were not active and suddenly came back just to oppose Danny. Canvassing is highly likely in such situations. How were they not active but knew when Danny had been put up for adminship. There are about 5 people in that situation.
All that said, I must say that despite what the bots are showing, the actual support ratio, taking everything I mentioned into account, is probably closer to somewhere between 74% and 76%. That doesn't mean we should necessarily promote though. There is substantial valid opposition, and the sheer number of opposers is remarkable. However at the moment I'm also inclined to promote.
Redux 02:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok lets see where we are at. Raul, Redux and Dan leaning to promote. Me against, but I'd support either. Warofdreams against. Anyone feel differently based on re-reading the above? - Taxman Talk 02:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I stand by my reasoning above. I can see that I am in a minority on this, and those bureaucrats leaning to promote are clearly acting in good faith(!) so while I would close this as a no consensus, if whoever closes determines that there is consensus, I will support their actions. Anyhow, I'm now off to bed, as it is very late here, so I'll be checking out what happens first thing in the morning :) Warofdreams talk 03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a decision to me. - Taxman Talk 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Although that's not how Bureaucrat decisions get made, I think for this one we do need to reach a clear consensus. I don't think we are quite there yet. I must note that Dan and Secretlondon, who also made a small comment, have participated in the RfA itself. That considered, we are pretty much split at the moment. And for my part, I should make it clear that I've not made any kind of final decision that we should promote. I've said that I'm inclined to promote because (i) the support ratio is, in my analysis, higher than what a simple count would show; and given that (ii) there may well be extenuating circumstances to promote Danny at this ratio that I've arrived at.
Redux 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fear it's a bit too late; I took assurance from the above in the disinterestedness of my assessment of the situation and have promoted Danny. I will be glad to weather criticism of my decision if necessary, and you would be entirely within your right to state on the record that you do not endorse it. — Dan | talk 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully support a decision to promote Danny. Danny was originally promoted to admin sometime around 450 B.C. 450 B.C.E. well, never mind, shortly after the dawn of time, by Wikipedia standards. Strictly speaking, he could have his adminship back for the asking without having listed himself at RFA, based on this. I believe that Danny, to an even greater degree than the regular
WP:OTRS workers, has incurred the wrath of the many for mere discharge of his office duties. Votes of people who are upset with his summary handling of OTRS and office matters should, frankly, be discounted, because he was doing his job the way he had been instructed to do it.
The Uninvited Co.,
Inc. 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with Dan having been the one to actually push the button, since it happened following this discussion. I was just now wondering if it would even be possible for us to actually get a more clear consensus — and I didn't mean that Dan's or Secretlondon's remarks should not be heard because they had participated; they were not making a unilateral decision, just commenting. But since Taxman had made a "head count", in order to see who was in favor and who was against, I noted that. In actuality, however, the more Bureaucrats commenting here, the better in terms of presenting a concerted decision to the community.
I don't think I would have changed my mind and decided that failing this RfA was actually correct. As I had mentioned and Steve further stated, there were extenuating circumstances. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose for us to seek reversal of Dan's action only to beat around the bush for a day or two longer and then [probably] arrive at the same conclusion. In light of that, and in the interest of adhering to complete transparency, I will go ahead and fully endorse Danny's promotion. Redux 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)- My head count was just to see where we stand. After Warofdreams last comments, what it left us at was the only people that wouldn't have called it a promotion ourselves stated that we would support the decision to promote. That's as close as you can get to full consensus in my book. Not everyone has to state they would have made the same decision, but if everyone can support the outcome, that's as good as it gets. - Taxman Talk 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. After I said we were not quite there yet, I started thinking that there might well not be anywhere else for us to get to. I think that the level of agreement reached is the possible one, and it is more than enough to present the conserted decision on that RfA that the community asked of us. Consensus here was in the sense that, although it was a close call, promotion was correct and, even if not all of us would have necessarily done it if they had closed the RfA ordinarily, it is an outcome that we can support. Redux 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Good decision by everyone. I fully endorse the promotion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)