Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel

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

Please note that Daniel's first RfA is located here. Sarah 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel

Final: (233/3/3); Ended 06:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel (talk · contribs) - Daniel has been a regular editor since May, 2006. During this time, he has accumulated in excess of 15,000 edits. Since July, Daniel has been a prolific, dedicated editor, averaging 75 edits per day. His edits have been well spread through the main spaces, across a broad range of subjects, and include significant contributions to three Good Articles [1] [2] [3] and one Featured List [4].

However, Daniel is probably most well known for his extensive, tireless work as a checkuser clerk. A month ago he was appointed by Essjay to the position of head clerk. In this role, Daniel is responsible for organising and coordinating seventeen clerks, liaising with the checkusers, helping and advising editors requesting checkuser and ensuring the RFCU pages run as smoothly as possible without developing backlogs. As head clerk, Daniel was responsible for writing the checkuser clerk's guide.[5] As an administrator, he would be far more productive in this role with admin tools giving him the ability to help implement checkuser blocks and the ability to edit protected pages. Daniel currently tags hundreds of userpages as a result of checkuser investigations, [6] but he is forced to stop and ask for admin assistance in tagging protected userpages. [7]

Daniel is also a prolific contributor to admin areas, such as WP:RFAR [8], WP:CHU [9], AN [10], WP:ANI [11], WP:DRV [12], WP:MFD [13] and WP:AFD [14], [15] [16]. Daniel's contributions in these areas are always insightful, reflecting a clear understanding of relevant policy and guidelines. Daniel also helps close clear keep, merge and redirect AFDs. ([17],[18], [19], [20], [21])

Daniel is an excellent communicator, a highly valued quality in an administrator. In addition to providing checkuser assistance,[22] Daniel gives other editors feedback and encouragement [23], welcomes new users [24], alerts users to relevant discussions [25], warns appropriately [26] and he has the maturity to know when to ask for help and advice [27] and when to admit his mistakes. [28] [29]

In December, Daniel ran in the ArbCom elections. Though he didn't make the final selection, he achieved over 60% support and qualified for the committee, a truly outstanding accomplishment for any non-admin with less than 12 months on the project. [30]

Daniel is a sensible, intelligent, mature and reliable editor and I believe he will make a fantastic administrator. I ask the community to consider granting Daniel administrator status. Sarah 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominations - currently seven - Newyorkbrad, David Fuchs, Dfrg.msc, MichaelBillington, Lostintherush, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Tdxiang.

Co-nomination by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Often, as here, there is little that can be added to a nomination by Sarah, but I am happy to add my co-nom on behalf of User:Daniel. He has done excellent work as head clerk for the Checkusers, makes constructive and useful comments on the administrators' noticeboards, and provides useful clerical support as well as well-taken substantive comments in arbitration cases. He was a very credible candidate in last month's Arbitration Committee elections, in which his lack of adminship was counted by many against him, and I expect that he will be a formidable candidate indeed this year. Daniel had an earlier RfA, which ended with a consensus that he needed some time to attain further wiki experience and to demonstrate that some isolated newbie mistakes that he, like many of us, had made were things of the past. Since then, he has stuck with and redoubled his efforts for Wikipedia, demonstrated growth and maturity and dedication, and I consider him fully qualified for adminship. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by David Fuchs (talk · contribs), 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. helped me a great deal with a case at the checkuser space and has always been a good model whenever I see him around the wiki. He certainly could use and deserves the tools. The last RfA for this user stated he needed more experience; the ArbCom nomination narrowly failed, due to concerns that simply because he wasn't a admin, he wasn't good enough. Daniel has been the gold standard for a user before and after that, (hell, he has had vandals named after him!), and perhaps most importantly, learns from his mistakes and has grown as a user, and I feel compelled to lend my support to this user both on the goodwill of the nominator and my own experience. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs), 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His dedication is absolute, as shown by his article contributions and extensive work on FIFA World Cup hat-tricks (Featured article), Central Coast Mariners FC(Good article), 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies (Good article), and July 2006 Java earthquake (Good article). Daniel frequently makes posts to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Requests for checkuser and Administrator intervention against vandalism; showing that Administrator tools would be of great use to him.

Daniel has helped me personally more than I can say, and has never "been found wanting" in any area. Although failing his first RfA due to his relative newness, Daniel has become a major editor and subsequently declined nominations for Adminship several times since.

Daniel has proven himself to be a responsible, friendly, dedicated and reliable editor with strong experience in all fields. Any and all failures have made him work harder and furthered his ambition. He is a great editor who deserves the chance to become a great Administrator. Daniel.Brant is an editor that truly makes his own luck and I wish him all the best in this request. Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by MichaelBillington (talk · contribs), 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I first ran into Daniel on a user talk page, some 5½ months ago. He fist appeared on Wikipedia in mid-May 2006, and has been editing madly ever since. He's contributed to just about everything, and wading through his contributions you'll see he's written a featured list and 3 good articles, as well as many shorter or stub articles. (and when I say many I mean it :D) Daniel is the head clerk over at requests for Checkuser (which he does a bloody good job at) and has clocked up over 15,000 edits in his time here. He also regularly discusses issues on WP:AN/I, and is fantastic at teaching clueless users how to use Wikimarkup :-) He's been fending off the admin nominations for too long now, and I say it's about time we assign a sysop flag to this ~~mad~~ dedicated editor :) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Lostintherush (talk · contribs), 08:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there is nothing left for me to say after so many co-noms, just thought that I'd say my two cents anyway... I first came across Daniel when he caught me plagiarising his page (without any attribution to him!). He helped so much with redesigning my subpage that I became his fan!! Have noticed him ever since and he seems omnipresent everywhere from RFAR to RFCU to ANI. Well no point in going on repeating all the above noms so I guess I'll just shut up here. — Lost^(talk) 08:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs), 12:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to write an extensive co-nom, but due to my delay and Sarah's brilliant writing skills; I must say, ~~Brandt~~ is teh next big thing. Supportize this evil Ozzie and make history! — Nearly Topless Nick 12:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Tdxiang (talk · contribs), 10:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Daniel here for a long time and I must insist that Daniel's the best bet.--Tdxiang 10:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Thanks to Sarah for taking some time out of her currently-busy real life schedule to write this flattering nomination, and to all those who co-nominate and give their opinions in this. Due to the already-high number of co-nominations, I've used some blue drop-down boxes to minimise the text clutter. Cheers, and thanks again Sarah and everyone, Daniel 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional statement: Currently I'm writing up my answer to Q3, which is sitting on a piece of paper in front of me. Hopefully I will have it done inside the hour, as it is pretty long, and I have to quickly run off and do something in a second. Q1 and Q2 are done, and I added them. 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ~~Q3 done - I had a couple of more important things to do before I could type it up, sorry. Q4 shouldn't take too long, and I'll publish it hopefully shortly. 09:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)~~ ~~Q4 done. Feel free to ask me any more, however you may not get an answer until tomorrow afternoon (ACST) because I have commitments tomorrow morning. Cheers. 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Q10 Done. Any more qustions, feel free to ask :) 04:30, 27 January 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? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I must confess my love of Wikitables.

Admin task	Prior experience	Notes
CAT:RFU	Answering blatant "declined"/{{autoblock}} etc. requests	I also have been in communication with Luna-San on a variety of mediums regarding action taken on {{unblock}}s, and participate in Unblock-en-l
WP:AFD	Closing AfD's per WP:DELPRO#Non-admins closing discussions	I guesstimate I have closed over 150 AfD's under that section of WP:DELPRO
WP:RFCU/C	Being "Head Clerk", as appointed by Essjay	Rather than have to annoy fellow RFCU clerks that are admins, I'd like to be able to enforce blocks as the result of checks; see [31] (which I wrote)
CAT:CSD	Tagging CSD-able articles with the appropriate {{db}} tags	Again, guesstimating, I reckon I have nominated upwards of 600 articles for SD, as shown by the ungainly number of user talk edits - {{nn-warn}} etc
WP:RPP, CAT:PER	Occasional foray at WP:RFPP, and a good understanding of WP:PRO/WP:SP	I help out occasionally at RFPP keeping things neat and tidy; I've seen how it operates etc.
WP:AIV	Some solid periods of vandal-fighting	I often go through AIV when I get a chance and remove already-blocked requests; I also sometimes add notes if a user has stopped etc. to help the Admins
WP:DR, WP:ANI	Two cases with the MEDCAB, general participation at ANI	What I mean by this is, where appropriate, I could use my tools wisely to try and improve the encyclopaedia in times of disputes between editors
WP:AN3	General cleanup, extensive reading of this board	Naturally, you can't do much on this board as a non-admin except general formatting etc., but what I have done is read a lot of cases as knowledge-building

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

A: There has been some recent conjecture over whether this refers to mainspace only, or every namespace on Wikipedia. Due to the fact that I don't want to bore you with a novel, this answer is only regarding the mainspace. If you wish for me to respond to a similar question for a different namespace - ie. Wikipedia:, User talk: etc. - please ask me a question below and I'll be glad to do so.

Mostly, I like to clean up articles pretty heavily, and I'm a member of Wikiproject Wikify. However, I do also enjoy writing, especially related to football (soccer) related topics, and natural disasters. Most of my article creations are what I would call "extenda-stubs", for example Bellot Strait - just longer than a stub.

I was the creator and sole contributor to

FIFA World Cup hat-tricks. It was promoted during October, 2006. The promoted version was my initial creation (before anyone else had edited) with a few minor formatting fixes to the table (width etc.).

However, my favourite article is easily

Central Coast Mariners FC. It was, and still is, my main editing project. GA status was awarded during November 2006 after I rewrote basically the whole article and referenced it.

My first ever architecture article was Beaumont House, and it's probably my favourite creation. Didn't take very long, but it seems to read all right. I created the Samuel Davenport article straight afterwards, and I hope that I can keep writing like this. TSS Kanowna was straight after it, and I'm kinda liking this article run. Three DYK's in a week, and my first three of 2007 :)

Earlier in my Wikicareer, the mantle of my "best" contribution was probably

2006 FIFA World Cup controversies. It was my first real edit project, and with the help of Errant (Tmorton166), MyNameIsNotBob, NThurston and Mareklug, this article was rescued somehow from the depths of AfD. It was promoted to GA on August 13, 2006 however still needs some minor work.

I enjoy writing about Geography, especially natural disasters. I wrote most of the article on the

July 2006 Java earthquake, mainly while it was still "in the news". It was classified as a Good Article on 29 August, 2006.

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: Short answer: yes. However, RfA Q3 is not meant to be "storytime", but rather for me to tell you how I have improved as a result of these disputes.

Honestly, I was a total idiot when I first came on to Wikipedia, and probably acted like a dick a lot. Actually, I know I did. However, when I noticed, I made a promise to improve my general behaviour. Since my early Wikidays a number of people have commented that my behaviour in my first two months here was so out-of-character that it was as if it wasn't actually me.

However, I learnt from my first two months here more than I have in any other period since - I learnt that this isn't a game, Wikipedians are real people, and this project is serious. Basically, respect is required to make this a success. Since, I have upheld myself to an utmost level of civility and courtesy, and I have every reason to believe I have done so. I have faced a number of stressful, confrontational and/or anger-inspiring situations, and I have used what I learnt from my first couple of months and applied my knowledge of what's going to benefit the situation, and what isn't.

I run on the principle that I try to find middle ground with people whom I am in a dispute with. Saying "You're totally wrong, I'm right, desist" does the situation no good. What does is "Your contributions have merit, however you really need to do Y to make them acceptable on Wikipedia - see WP:X for more information". People who treat others with respect and act in a mature and civil fashion generally reach more amicable solutions compared to those who take the "I'm right, you're wrong, stop it" blunt approach.

Other than the idiocy of my fist month on Wikipedia, it's been generally pleasant. I've avoided some controversial topics where my input would add nothing new to the discussion; however, there have been a number of situations where it was. Three of distinction in the recent times are:-

An A-League template dispute. In the end, after some quality discussion, myself and an IP reached a compromise that we were both amicable to.
Neutralizer, a trolling sockpuppeteer and harasser of my good friend and nominator Sarah Ewart. In the end, after I proposed it, he was community banned. Even so, I continued discussion with him after the ban, and eventually convinced him to stay away from Wikipedia.
Fyslee and Ilena, which is currently going to RFAR. Read all about it here - my summary (with diffs to my contributions) is the second statement. Basically, in this situation, I disagreed with a couple of users, including an administrator, on a matter of community banning someone. I then proposed we take the dispute to ArbCom when we exhausted all other options

Regarding my block log, there's an explanation here about it. UC and I have always been on good terms, and both acknowledge this as an error which was certainly not his fault, and only partially mine (for not running Spybot: Search and Destroy more often!) :)

Other than that, there's been some minor things, as well as a couple of similar things a bit earlier than those I listed. I pride myself on giving neutral and insightful statements when I believe my thoughts would make the discussion better, both for the participants, resolving the dispute, and for the benefit of the encyclopaedia. I follow Essjay's now-famous quote "“everytime you click ‘save this page,’ be completely convinced that what you are saving will make Wikipedia a better, more friendly, and more successful project, and if what you've typed won't do that, don't click save" closely in this regard. Respect, civility, finding a middle ground, trying to remain detached, and realising that on-wiki disputes aren't the be-all and end-all of your real life are all important traits I have learnt from my disputes.

In addition, if you are a third party, you must remember all of those things, plus to remain neutral and not show bias either way. My first ever conflict as a mediator showed me the harm of perceived bias - it stops mediation, and most DR, in it's tracks.

Optional question from BigDT (talk · contribs)

4. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" a page. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete a page that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --BigDT 06:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I believe that administrators should never speedy delete pages if they aren't sure they should; if they second-guess their decision (impending or completed), it probably wasn't best to speedy delete it. Speedy Deletion is designed to root out absolute rubbish, but anything that makes an assertion of notability, or anything you're not sure about, shouldn't be speedy deleted.

If I'm not sure about something - if it's on the borderline of speedy deleting/prodding or AfD - I may resort to tagging it myself to allow another set of eyes look at it. Although the {{db}} tags generally serve as janitorial pointers for admins to find articles that should be deleted, they can be used by admins to get a second opinion if they aren't 100% sure.

Other than that, I'll never speedy an article that has survived AfD, and will immediately restore an article if I erronously did so under this situation (eg. there was no {{oldafdfull}} template on the talk page). The obvious ones - if there's an ArbCom remedy regarding an article's deletion for whatever reason, office circumstances - are probably not the intention of this question.

I would always prefer to stub articles. This is especially possible for some G11 candidates, and especially not possible for some A7 articles. Common sense, as always, prevails.

Optional question from Cyde (talk · contribs)

5. What is your single favorite non-article page on Wikipedia? --Cyde Weys 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: WP:RFCU, easily. However, CAT:RFU and WP:DRV run a close second. I see so much of myself in RFCU - process is important, but it can be bent to get a desired outcome; all neat and tidy, and well formulated.

Optional questions from mcginnly (talk · contribs)

6. What did you learn from this? [32]

A: I learnt a lot from that; so much that if I hadn't learnt a few key things from that, I would more-than-likely be blocked from editing by now.

Firstly, for all those who aren't aware, ~~this was in the letdown of the RFAR regarding Giano (I believe; if it wasn't, please correct me)~~ I have been reliably informed that it was in fact right after Carnildo was resysopped; not that it makes much difference, really, but meh. I saw what I characterized as a personal attack on Kylu, and gave Giano a warning (using one of the templates - my first error). It was later pointed out to me that Giano is one of the best contributors we have, a point I now not only know but acknowledge, and in giving a template message this was a Bad Thing to do. Previously, I had no knowledge of Giano, mainly because I hadn't developed an interest in writing about architecture :)

So, I gave Giano a warning, with the generic "your personal attacks and edit warring" wording. I would hav removed it if I had have known about Giano before this, and it was an error in judgement not to check about him extensively (now I do for any user who I am warning - lesson learnt number one). Giano wrote something in an archive about me that I didn't appreciate, and things deteriorated, more out of stupidity than anything else, all of it on my side (lesson number two was that if people say you're acting like a dick, you probably are).

I apologised after I was educated, a trait I pride myself in - I don't get on my "high horse" and stay there if I know I am probably wrong.[33] Giano later stated that "Please don't worry about apologising, when one stirs up a hornets nest as often as I seem to do, one has to expect to be stung once in a while", and we both shook hands mutually and moved on to improve the encyclopaedia.[34] I later found out we share a passion for cricket, and despite my half-hearted appeals (bad pun intended), he couldn't be turned from WP:ARCH to WP:CRIC.

The two lessons marked inline were important, but more importantly I learned to respect other people's views on differing topics on Wikipedia. WP:BULL I disagreed stronly on at the time, however I have grown to accept it, and even possibly adopting it (with some revised criteria, ie FL's as well).

Actually, I might as well pledge right now that I will follow this criteria if this nomination is successful: I will write one Featured Article or two Good Articles or one Featured List every year for the next two to retain my adminship. If I do not do so, ~~I will ask a steward to voluntarily remove~~ will not use my +sysop bit until such a time that I have met this threshold, and then I will ~~ask to~~ be "speedy reappointed". I do this in an attempt to become less like a policeman and more like an article writer.Modified per advice from a steward, 11:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

7. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?

A: Basically, the answer is never, if my action is undertaken unilaterally or without discussion. By discussion, I mean ANI/AN, not IRC or email - a discussion where everyone is invited to contribute. The main point to remember in these discussions is that blocks are preventative, not punishment.

The only, extremely marginalised, situation where I will block an experienced editor for a lengthy period of time is if it is clear the account has been comprimised; therefore, I am protecting the Wiki. "Clear" means no doubt; I'm not referring to little disputes or anything, but rather mass-blanking of articles/blatantly vandalising userpages with personal attacks etc. I always believe in assuming good faith.

Optional question from Majorly (talk · contribs)

8. Will you run for ArbCom again?

A: Maybe, possibly, probably, maybe not - I'm not sure eleven months out :) Ask me again in seven-eight, and I'll be able to answer your question. However, I can say I would like to, because some recent ArbCom decisions have astounded me, and some other actions I totally disagree with. Naturally, given I am a human with a point of view, these things are going to occur, but I'm all for helping a process improve, if that's what the community wants.

Sorry I can't give you any further information in answering this question, but it is just too far into the future.

Optional question from Nishkid64 (talk · contribs)

9. As an admin, you are expected to deal with and try to resolve conflicts between other users. How would you handle yourself in such a situation, and how would you go about solving the issue? (This is a general hypothetical, so I'm purposely not providing specifics here)

A: Every situation is different, and requires different methods of diffusion, depending on a number of factors: subject, namespace, editors involved, experience of said editors, prior history etc.

However, there are two general rules: attempt to reach a comprimise and an agreement to be civil whilst they work out how to solve their problems, and to never, ever, be patronising or blatantly in favour of one side compared to the another. If people are going to respect your comments, you have to be totally neutral and detached from the ideas the users are "fighting" over. Disengagement is a good tactic if things start getting too heated, as well.

Rather than repeating the details I gave further to this question in Q3, please read the last two paragraphs of my answer of said question.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

10. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. More information about efforts can be found at this handy page.

A: I suspect every administrator hates "spam" to some degree. Personally, I'm around the 6-out-of-10 mark (not extreme, but still non-tolerant). Wikipedia spam links are becoming more and more of a problem, for the same reasons G11's are: Wikipedia is becoming bigger and better, and (sadly) corporations big and small think they can exploit the setup of Wikipedia.

External links are useful to link to external pages directly relevant to the subject of the article. They are also useful, in limited topic areas, to link to further reading material - for example, a link to a transcript of a famous speech by Mr. X.

We most certainly should not be allowing every Myspace, Youtube etc. link into Wikipedia. Although not all are, some are spam in the clearest definition of the term. We should use vigilance and resilience in preventing Wikipedia from being used as a spam database. However, more importantly, is common sense. Always assume good faith without evidence to the contrary, and choose your options right: revert, caution, warn, block, blacklist etc.

I recently participated in an interview with a writer from The Age, and my answer to the question "What is the biggest threat to Wikipedia's functionality and quality in the near future?" was "Corporate exploitation". We are establishing ourselves heavily in a lot of areas, and this makes us a target, both for spam links and spam articles. Each must be dealt with in an attempt to combat, and deter, this kind of behaviour which expliots Wikipedia's reputation and lowers its' quality.

General comments

See Daniel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Daniel's first RfA [35]
You may view Daniel's edits here Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw this RFA, the name rang an odd bell and I didn't understand all the support. Just in case anyone else is similarly confused, this person is definitely not Daniel Brandt. Congratulations on breaking 200.--Kchase T 13:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd like to see more mainspace edits, but I'v seen him around and he's a reas asset to Wikipedia. Needs to be an admin.--Wizardman 05:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support KazakhPol 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; user has contributed quite well. Ral315 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jpe ob 05:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't care about mainspace edits if this is his Wikipedia record. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Absolutely! Glen 05:31, January 23, 2007 (UTC)
Always level-headed, great editor, and devoted soldier in the war against sockpuppetry. --Slowking Man 05:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Khoi khoi 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like giving Daniel the admin tools would only benefit the project; I can't see them being misued in the performance of his duties. (aeropagitica) 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Daniel has been doing a lot for the project for a while now. --BigDT 06:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has too many co-nominators, but I won't hold that against him :-) Kusma (討論) 06:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh -- how possibly not? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, absolutely. Mainspace edits aren't a concern given this user's record, and I've worked with him quite a bit recently. Definitely an excellent candidate. --Core desat 06:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course Shhhhh, he's already in the cabal anyway --Cyde Weys 06:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hard not to, given these nominations and his record. Sandstein 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per common sense, this user is a bloody legend, let's face it. [36] Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for outstanding contributions to, and by extension, understanding of, Wikipedia policy. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep Spartaz 06:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He clearly needs the tools and will use them well. --Bduke 07:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Devoted editor Alex Bakharev 07:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alphachimp 07:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (EditConflict) per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MONGO 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on. Go for it! --tjstrf talk 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
¡Sí! For the irreplicable and beneficial contributions this user has done for Wikipedia and the community. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support there's something nagging at me about this guy, he either did something I either really loved or really hated, either way he seems to pass my criteria and looks like a solid candidate †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This user would be an outstanding addition to the custodial staff. Give him the mop! Somitho 07:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If he wants to mostly work in the unglamorous precincts of the back office, that's fine by me. --Calton | Talk 07:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, er... I mean Support — Lost^(talk) 08:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome user. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't know what I should say here... This is a no-brainer. Grand master ka 08:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreserved Support. Daniel has done excellent work since arriving, and having the twiddled bit would definitely assist greatly in his work on the site. Pass out the mop and bucket! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Absolutely no reservations; short of a psychotic break I can't see the user abusing the tools that come with the mop and bucket. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and Redirect to RFB~~ Support, the perfect user. yandman 09:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Støtter Robdurbar 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no real reason not to. Great user. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 09:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - agree entirely with Sarah's nomination, and also because I've seen him in action, helping out in a volatile situation, specifically sticking to intelligent decisions instead of "siding" with people. But mostly because of Sarah's nomination. Milto LOL pia 09:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steel 10:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Yes, very yes! Thε Halo ^Θ 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clichéd thought you already were one support - just don't stop contributing! The Rambling Man 11:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Aksi_great (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dedicated editor. Good luck with the tools. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to nominate him like two months ago... anyways, I expect that he knows plenty about the structure of Wikipedia due to his experience writing a bunch of articles, having something like seven billion edits in four minutes, and if he's trusted to do clerical work for the CheckUser page then I think we can kick it up a notch. Bam! ★MESSED ROCKER★ 11:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The behaviour that brought down the first RfA still worries me, but seems an excellent contributor and people can act out of character. --Dweller 11:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<insert RfA cliché here>. --Deskana (request backup) 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No doubt. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rettetast
Strong Support A legend, an inspiring user. Good answers to the questions too. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely strong support. S .D. ¿п? § 12:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An easy decision - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect WP:SNOW closure :) MaxSem 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Conscious 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per my co-nom and everything above. A strong contributor on both the administrative side and to content. Who says there's no second chances on Wikipedia? Newyorkbrad 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no objections here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pea cent 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support certainly Agathoclea 13:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Absolutely trust this guy. And please nominate yourself for ArbCom again next time. --Majorly (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose: user is intent on bumping me down the WP:100!~~ Meh, strong support per nomination way up the top there. And Cyde, I hate to fight over cabalists, but Daniel's a lifetime member of the Aussie Cabal! Sarah 14:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really have nothing to say Support ~ Arjun
Support, per the illustrious nominators. Coemgenus 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong hey-I-wanted-to-co-nom-too-Support Daniel is a very experienced, dedicated and friendly user, will definitely make an outstanding admin.--Hús ö nd 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG YES. Long long overdue. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Would make an excellent administrator --Borgarde 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support #include pile-on.cliché Guy (Help!) 15:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going to sleep now more than likely means I'll miss WP:100 SUPPORT, so I'll do it now. – Chacor 15:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent and very helpful contributor, will be a great asset as an administrator. Warofdreams talk 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About darn time! He's dedicated, experienced, level-headed, civil... what more could we ask for? :) Srose (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- He uses tables to explain! Definite support... glad to see the community agrees! Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Need I even say anything? He's too good it scares me. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. Overwhelmingly sane user. Won't kill anything with the new buttons, so hand them over already. =) ♠P M C♠ 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seen him around everywhere, and seems to be very strong in policy and editing both. Anyone done the "thought he already was..." cliche yet? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --light darkness^(talk) 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive contributor.--cj | talk 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of that table. In my ideal world, Wikipedia will be nothing but tables, and I look forward to Daniel's adminship in that glorious future. Heck, I may even rewrite this vote as a table! :-) Just H 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Most certainly deserves it. —LestatdeLioncour t 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support <cliche>I thought he already was one!</cliche> --Akhilleus (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support deserves the community's trust. Pascal.Tesson 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above, even though I am highly skeptical of tables. Bwithh 19:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent candidate; excellent (plethora of) nominators. Xoloz 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been wondering why Daniel hadn't gone up yet. Welcome aboard! Chick Bowen 19:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well earned.--C J King 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The most helpful wikipedian I have come across. This is the man to go to for help or advice on wikipedia. Judging purely from contributions (75 edits AVERAGE!), it's safe to say he is one of the most devoted wikipedia members currently active. Mehmeda 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Support ~ trialsanderrors 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? At #91? :) --Majorly (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We needed you at arbcom.Baka man 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above :).--HIZKIAH (User  Talk) 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. G.H e 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Michael 22:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, you betcha. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go Go Superclerk! P TO 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Contribs. speak for themselves, answers are pretty good too. Gan fon 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No duh Support! Great editor and fantastic answers! Ha-ha Daniel, I've been waiting for #100, thanks to Brad's updates! Cbrown1023 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
♪He is the very model of a modern wikipedian♬ Support Bucketsofg 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Number 101!. Obvious. Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moments too slow for WP:100 support. I consider Daniel a friend, to myself and to the project itself, and I'm always happy and proud to work with him, on Wikipedia. He has an in-depth understanding of policy, a commitment to achieving consensus, and the knowledge to recognize when he needs help or a second opinion. I supported his ArbCom candidacy, before, and I'll happily support his adminship candidacy, now. I do respect NishKid64's oppose (in fact, I applaud him for standing, apparently alone at this time, for what he feels is right), but I also feel that I've seen people crack under less pressure, and that the important thing (at least for me) has been DB's ability to get up, dust himself off, and learn from his past mistakes -- that, more than anything, leads me to believe he will be a fine administrator. It's past time we gave this user the tools to do the job. Luna Santin 00:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as 5 co-noms is just silly Support. Strong answers and contribs demonstrate good knwoledge of policy. Am confident he'll use the tools well. WJBscribe 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's only appropriate that his declared favorite page has a rather large Wikitable at the top. Oh right, as for why the support (since that is what this is all about), good answers to the questions, and it seems like he's pretty much done all the adminy tasks that a non-admin can do. Something about an admin by osmosis comes to mind, but that logic might only make sense to me. -- Natalya 01:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive contributions, hard-working, helpful and civil. Daniel will do a great job -- Samir धर्म 02:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I have been very impressed with Daniel - he's a hard worker, has gotten involved with many of the key tasks an admin would have to address, and those combined with his answers to the questions above suggest someone who will do a good job IMO. Orderinchaos78 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good, dedicated user. Of course, I support. Danny 03:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yes support! Suxh fantastic candidates coming through at the moment, Daniel and Kuru! Viridae ^Talk 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I thought he already was an Admin. Kyriakos 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Merzbow 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, after some thought about Konstable's !vote.-gadfium 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC). Change to Strong support after reading his response to Konstable.-gadfium 08:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Time to give him the mop. - Mark 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A dedicated and intelligent user. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 05:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support he is not an admin yet?! Flyingtoaster1337 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to support per below.--KonstableSock 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Absolutely an ideal candidate, would not abuse the tools and is strongly aware of Wikipedia policy.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support level-headed and thoughtful work on DRV, firm grasp of policy. Thought he was one already, actually. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - what?! Not an admin yet? Gosh, I only thought that happened to other people. Well, you wouldn't abuse the tools, that's for sure, and are well versed in policy. Patstuart^talk|edits 08:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dvd rw 08:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there is enough consensus at this point in the game. Can someone find a 'crat to go to Special:Makesysop and promote Daniel before we have to make this page even bigger so it won't crash my browser anymore. Seriously, just promote here, keeping this on for 5 days is pointless -- Tawker 08:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And rob Daniel of a potential record? 120 supports in under 36 hours is something. – Chacor 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way. There's a good chance this might make WP:200. Who knows, maybe we'll have to create WP:300 before this is all over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support While I take issues raised by Nishkid and mentioned above very seriously, I know that Daniel would make good use of the tools. Given the time that has passed and the quality of the supports above, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Eluchil404 08:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support • As the head of the CheckUser clerks, an occasional helper on RFCU, and general Good Guy^TM, Daniel has been trusted with many peices of information that are a lot more damaging that anything that a sysop could do. I've only known Dan for about 5-6 months, but during that time, he has always been professional, calm, and respectful towards everyone on Wikipedia. He has always acted with the decorum expected of him as a clerk, and has never stepped over the line. He has been in disputes and fared well. In short, 0% probability of abuse, 100% probability of Good Things^TM. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Daniel seems to have had a genuine Damscene moment on wikipedia. I for one believe this is genuine and welcome him as a representative of an admin culture shift. Good luck Daniel. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought he had been an admin for ages already. Jon Harald Søby 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Duh. Proto::► 10:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I've always seen him doing good work around the place and fixing things too where they go wrong. Great for an admin position. JROBBO 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway 13:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Good chap.[reply]
Support -- is willing to get his hands dirty and pick up the slack where it's needed. - Longhair\^talk 14:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – user is obviously trustworthy, has obvious use for the tools and has the glowing recommendations of several high-profile co-noms. — mholland 14:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reservations about this, though I did hear a rumor he eats puppies[37]... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Warmly and without reservation. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, without reservation. Terence Ong 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, Daniel, and I am very impressed in your ability to learn from your mistakes. IMHO, your story is a great example of the potential in today's "problem users." TheronJ 16:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seriously, WTF?? Genuine case of RFA cliché number 1. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good editor. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Daniel has already earned the necessary trust through his exemplary work at WP:RFCU, and the presence of another administrator within RFCU will be a help to the whole community, as well as the checkusers. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Though you help to block me. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 17:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I thought he'd been here much longer. Deb 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thought he already was an admin. Savidan 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that my support is needed, but I'll offer it anyway. I think the project will be better off with you having the mop. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To think I almost missed this one. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support fully qualified user.-- danntm ^T _C 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dedication to the site clearly demonstrated. --InShaneee 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: If he is an Australian and likes cricket - he has two advantages in my book, so he can only be only be an improvement on the rest. If he keeps away from IRC and refrains from telling me I'm uncivil - and ignores that stupid comment above from Cyde, he may well be on the arbcom next year. Giano 19:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SynergeticMaggot 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe I'd say that I'd nominate DB myself in December or January, but it seems like you lot did all the work for me! Seriously though, great guy, and he could certainly use the buttons Gaillimh 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a disservice to Wikipedia to not support Daniel. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very co-operative on IRC--Doc^g 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jonathunder 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The wiki table thing is awesome! Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wish that this person could have become a part of arbitration committee, maybe next year. Yamaguchi先生 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any Mariners fan will get my vote. Great user and deserves to be an admin. Boltonfan22 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. icelandic hur ric ane #12 _(talk) 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support strong candidate. --rogerd 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Get to mopping. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Do have concerns per Nishkid64, but overall record suggests any rare errors in judgement would be outweighted many times over by the excellent work this editor is doing and will, I have no doubt, continue to do. Rockpocket 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support another about-time candidate. Opabinia regalis 02:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great candidate --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pile on support. Great candidate, would be a great asset with the mop. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I have disagreed with many things he has said or done, I believe he would make a good admin. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carpet 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing to fear whatsoever. -- tariqabjotu 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on Support. No reason not to give him the mop if he wants it. -- MarcoTolo 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Most definitely. One of our best users. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ixfd64 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One day he will be Chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation support Rcm 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Number 7 on WP:100 Support! — D e on555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 10:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as co-nominator!--Tdxiang 10:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: if he can cope with my insanity he can cope with anybody. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously this is going to be close! ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support does a great job at checkuser, and I'm pretty sure will do a great job as an administrator. Mop away! --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I think the "non-admin=/=non-arbitrator" thing last month wasn't the best of ideas, he's a good editor and he'd be a good admin (although it ruins his slogan for the next AC elections). Will ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. the wub "?!" 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. --Carioca 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support this person to be a administrator very positive and helpful yuckfoo 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support &ndash:OK, I'm on the bandwagon now too... -MrFizyx 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support an editor whose opinion I trust and respect Gwernol 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per the exchange between the candidate in me in the "neutral" section, below. Has need, has trust, will have mop. Agent 86 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Australia Day Support remember this on my next RfA, nah just kidding :) T. Kewl the First 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually resist pile-on, but for Dan it's different. He's a great editor, and will make a great sysop. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, amongst all the nominations and questions it was tough to find where to support. Teke^(talk) 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuaZ 03:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More support yet. --Kukini 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thought he was already an admin! Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 06:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Kncyu38 06:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; hate to use the cliché, but I really did think he was already an admin. Good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>I was going to co-nominate you, but you had to go and get nominated while I was on holiday! How dare you!</sarcasm>.^{Please don't take that comment as uncivil.} Seriously though, its about time! I'll shut up now before I start using random, obnoxious cliches, lol. Jorcoga Yell! 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overkill support Great user. —Mi ra 10:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good answers looks to be trustworthy ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 10:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest indefinite block as sock puppet or impersonator of banned user Daniel Brandt. (Please don't implement that suggestion, though.) I know Daniel mainly through IRC, and I find him to be a friendly and helpful user, unlike those who insult me on IRC (I name no names). Upon my request, he has occasionally helped clear the RFF backlog. In short, support, for he makes IRC not suck, and we should try to help him break Phaedriel's record. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good answers to questions, good work overall, plus everything everyone else said. Fram 14:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rudjek 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yonatanh 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of good stuff from you, Daniel. Just do please try and take the time to count to ten when you encounter stuff that makes you mad. IronDuke 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article writer, superb communicator, awesome clerk, courteous guy... I'm running out of adjectives here --Srikeit 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - combined janitorial and editorial duties is the perfect combination: GA/FA articles have been developed by Daniel, and then there is his RfCU Clerking which is top notch. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best editors of this project. Ni questions asked. He deserves to be given the extra tools. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't really think what I have to say will affect this RFA, but I support him per excellent reply to questions, and no issues that I can find that are recent. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Top-notch user. I thought he already was an admin. --Czj 06:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a thousand times over :) One of the best. riana_dzasta 12:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a number bigger than 200 next to my name on an RfA for the second time this month :). I guess my vote comment on Daniel's ArbCom election page no longer applies. NoSeptember 13:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - He not only has the intelligence, thoughtfulness, and insightfulness needed to be an administrator, but his posts continually demonstrate his ability to convey these things in ways that are clear and diplomatic. A highly qualified candidate deserves strong support. -- Jreferee 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support. Has a good head on his shoulders, will be even more of an asset than he is now. —bbatsell ¿? 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support per above. No problems here and helps out where necessary with the admin backlog. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - need I say any more after the above? MER-C 08:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Come on lets go for WP:300. Up for it? — MichaelLinnear 08:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prodego ^talk 16:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support just had to come here during my limited time online and support a great candidate. Mart inp23 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. good editor. —dima/s-ko/ 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone who I believe could use the mop well. Plus, he removed the hierarchy from Motto of the Day. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible editor who is qualified for the mop. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredibly well qualified. Time may prevent a WP:300, but I think he deserves one.--Anthony.bradbury 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete pile-on support. Notice how this is only my third edit in ten days? It's because I unconditionally trust Daniel to use the mop well. -- Kicking222 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support, however I do agree with a couple of the opposing votes below. Althoguh I think you've had time to change, saying you may edit destructively is never okay, & I also feel that some (althoguh maybe not this one) RfA's turn into popularity contests... I'd also like to see an FA in the future too. But in any case, DB, you are a good editor & I stand by my statement on your older editor review, that you are indeed someone newbies can look up to... :) Spawn Man 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When I saw the candidate's name on this list, my initial reaction was, "You mean he's not an admin already?!" Well, I hope he becomes one at the end of this process. YechielMan 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support. A lot of experiance on Wikipedia. This canadate has proven a good help, and has went above and beyond the call of duty. Although this user may have had stress, I don't think that means he can't control it, even with the extra stress that adminship may have. I think we all have some stress, and I trust the canadate to prevent that from getting in the way of helping Wikipedia. --Wikipedier 06:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier[reply]
Support What is the point in voting when the tally of support votes is already overwhelming and there is no chance of the request failing? Are you just trying to make friends or something? -Lapinmies 10:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've never seen this editor cause trouble. -Will Beback · † · 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Funky Monkey (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This guy makes me feel unqualified to be an editor, let alone run for admin. He is a reminder to all of the ideal candidate and a reminder to me of why I need more experience. He just made me promise myself to wait at least another 2000 edits. Honestly. TonyTheTiger 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I honestly thought this user was already an admin. Oh well, he deserves to be one. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jay(Talk) 02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. Joe 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support SatuSuro 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support How can you not? BJ^Talk 05:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Your previous RfA in early August failed because of certain comments (such as: "Until Wikipedia learns to stand up for its' policies, I will refuse to edit constructively, and may even end up editing destructively, if it comes to that.") that you made on your user page and your response at the GraalOnline AfD. Despite the great progress you have made, I have to say that I'm still a little bit worried about how your emotions will affect your admin capabilities. Over a simple AfD, you blew up, and I just can't help but imagine what would happen if you encountered a far more severe problem in the future. I've had some contact with Daniel before, and I think he's a great guy and would make a good admin, but I really can't overlook his actions since they weren't that long ago. Nishkid 64 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over 5 months ago actually. He was newer then as well, and has admitted his mistakes. If you think he's a great guy and would make a good admin, why oppose? --Majorly (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think he would be a good admin. However, you have to look at the small things, and how the candidate will react in such situations. My only concern for now regards how he dealt with himself in a prior tough situation. Who says that if it happened once, it won't happen again? Remember, history repeats itself, and this also applies for people and their actions. I'm concerned how Daniel would handle himself in a tough situation with all that admin wikistress. Nishkid 64 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask if you read Q3, and the circumstances outlined, as well as the explanation of progression? Oh, and from my understanding, this was not "a simple AfD", because simple AfD's don't involve the Office, Danny and Brad Patrick. 61.88.163.26 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did he actually do anything destructive, or was he just saying that to blow off steam? He didn't exactly stick to his word - he came back, after all. Milto LOL pia 23:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

61.88, I saw his answer and I understand his situation. Stuff happens. That's all. In regards to the AfD, I understand the logistics of the AfD, but as admin, he will deal with far more stressful situations. Also, Miltopia, he did not do anything, but I take the people's comments very seriously. Had the event occurred eight months ago or so, I would have disregarded this anomaly in behavior, and supported this user. Nishkid 64 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, things that end up at OFFICE tend to be very stressful, especially for new users that don't understand what's going on - and Daniel was a new user, because upon reading I saw "ban" and "block" mixed up often, WP:V mistakenly used to linkt to WP:VAND, and many other "newbie" mistakes. Out of interest, I checked Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nishkid64, and saw that you made a couple of interestng and much-frowned-upon comments during the RfA itself, and yet asked to pardoned. Balance would say that a rash and terse comment during an RfA is worse than a doubley-bad one five months ago as a newbie, but maybe that's just me. Ah, well, doesn't matter. 61.88.163.26 00:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for all those wondering who I am, I used to edit under an account up until two months ago, when I decided to quit Wikipedia due to time constraints. I am an in-real-life friend of Daniel, and when he mentioned he finally had decided to run for RfA, I couldn't help but have a peek. I said I'd even power up my old account and vote for him, but he respectfully requested I didn't as it would be skirting the bounds of meatpuppetry, even if he didn't mean to actually canvas my vote. A cryptic hint is I used to spend a lot of time around RfAr, as well...if anyone can guess, I'll give you a cookie. 61.88.163.26 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know things dealing with OFFICE can be frustrating. I know what I did in my RfA was wrong, and I even acknowledged it multiple times, and apologized for my actions. Just because I got too emotional in my RfA means I cannot oppose another user? Daniel first went up for RfA after nearly three months of experience. And how is he still considered a "newbie" after racking up 3,000+ edits on Wikipedia and showing a clear understanding for Wikipedia policy? By the way, bringing up my personal RfA has no real relevance to the RfA at hand. We should be discussing Daniel, not my actions in my past. I opposed Daniel because I felt a bit uncomfortable with this RfA at this moment. I still do, and trying to badger my vote won't do anything. Nishkid 64 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree -- you've both made your points, and I doubt either of you will change the other's mind. Let's not heckle the oppose vote(s) excessively -- that may not be your intention, but that's how it's starting to come across to me. Luna Santin 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for folks, the AFD in question was only the final battle of a long nasty edit war which included legal threats, mediation results subverted by the Foundation, etc. The AFD was just the tip of the iceberg. If someone would like to see any of the eight talk page archives which were all deleted, let me know. You can also look over the online site owners' talk pages to see some of the nastiness directed at Daniel at the time. It will quickly become clear that the AFD was nowhere near the entire issue. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the situation resulted in extensive WP:OFFICE involvement, dwelling on it extensively here would not be in anyone's best interests, and pulling up deleted archives relating to the matter is, to say the least, not recommended. I think it's sufficient to say that this incident involved a highly charged controversy and, more important, arose much earlier in the candidate's wiki-career. Newyorkbrad 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(<-- reindenting)

STOP! This is ridiculous on the part of the IP (who I won't name - see below). Nishkid64 is entitled - and encouraged - to give an honest opinion, and it has always been one I deeply respect. I've just spent 5½ hours down at the Supreme Court of South Australia assisting a team of five litigators, and I come home to find this? I'm writing up a full response to the developments here at present, but in the meantime can we leave the validity or otherwise of Nishkid's !vote alone, and stop badgering him, please? It seems to have died down after Luna's intervention and my friend let it go (thankfully - I don't my RfA to become a battleground), and I'm about to ring my friend and ask him to stop with whatever gripe he has with Nishkid (I'll explain more in my full statement). I appreciate constructive comments, for example (most recently) NYB and Wknight's, but not the badgering. Daniel 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've been busy, but here's a quick rundown. Nishkid sent me an email regarding our friendship despite the !vote, which I've paraphrased below to be applicable to this:
Hrm. I know who the IP is, and I'm about to ring him up and tell him to cut out the slight against you. You have my sincerest apologies for the badgering he has been doing; as he said, it came up in a conversation we were having in real life, for which I now feel kind of guilty for given what has happened to you.
I'm not at a liberty to reveal what his username was prior to when he stopped editing, as he may want to reuse it when he has more time, I believe. However, I must say you and him had a dustup over an issue, again which I'm not at a liberty to mention because it's his right to privacy, and it seems he has held a grudge ever since. Sorry for having you subjected to that crap - he'll get a boot up the ass (proverbially speaking) from me when I ring him shortly.
Back on to your email, and I hold no objection to your oppose. You may have noticed the quote which has been on my userpage from day one, which states "Stand up for what you believe in, even if it means standing alone" . It sometimes gets me into trouble - it did with the whole GraalOnline/Office/BradPatrick saga - see Wknight's comment, who was the admin closely involved in the whole thing (and sunk my first RfA, practically, although it's clear neither of us hold that fact against each other from his support of me and my statement right now). Danny's support is also notable, given the fact it was he I was so angry with, and he probably returned the favour with a new editor acting like a dick :)
I have always believed RfA was broken for the reason evident by your email - no one should be pressured, cabalised or negatively harassed about voting either way, especally when it's around 100/0, and to be quite honest your !vote was a sanity check to say "people do actually evaluate me at RfA as opposed to piling-on".
Again, apologies for that farcial nature of the responses by my friend, and I hope you can forgive my lack of foresight when I told him that this RfA was going. I felt compelled to tell him I didn't want him to !vote, as I consider off-wiki communication to swing concensus close to the lowest thing you can do, so he took it upon himself to batter you with slights. I honestly can't believe he'd do that, and he probably wouldn't if he didn't have a prior experience where he disagreed with you on something. I hate "revenge"-related and "grudge"-related actions, and I fear this was one of them. Sorry again.
I won't publish Nishkid's original email without notification of assent to such an action. Basically, a lot of people who I have acted like a dick towards in the past, especially during that first two months - Danny, Wknight especially - have given favourable opinions in this RfA; I also fully endorse Wknight94's summary of events - this wasn't a simple AfD, but an event that encompassed every possible problem in a situation like this - as well as Brad's suggestion that WP:OFFICE matters are sensitive and there'd be no benefit in revisiting it again.

As such, I believe this discussion is now moot given I totally accept Nishkid's opinion, and he respects mine, and I'll convinced my friend to stop, as I put it, "acting like a wanker" towards Nishkid. Unfortunately, he's not answering his phone at the moment, but I'll get him tomorrow before I get to court...again... Daniel 07:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose G e o. 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jaranda, you didn't give a reason for your support. You shouldn't be asking. --Majorly (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, granted that this is consensus not a vote and there is a standing tradition of oppose reasons being requested whereas support is considered to mean, "I agree with the nominator's statement." Granted that the 'crat reads rationales and not vote counts it's hard to to utilize a "vote" with no rationale to determine consensus. -- Tawker 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a "standing tradition" of saying "support" with nothing after it, perhaps it would be good to Assume Good Faith that the likewise would be true for opposing opinions. Just H 01:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a difference. Support means I agree w/ the nom. An oppose does not hence the request for a rationale. When one says oppose, you have no idea what the oppose is on whereas the support is the "I agree w/ the nom" - it's not assuming bad faith to ask for an explanation, it's just trying to build consensus -- Tawker 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Discussion standards should be equal for both sides in a discussion if a consensus reached is to be respected as a true consensus of the community. If one side has to explain its reasoning, it's only logical that the other side must as well, and likewise if one side does not. Just H 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not speculating too far, but I believe it may be because of what I did here - I, after overwhelming concensus was formed and backed by policy, removed the heirachry from Geo's "project", Motto of the Day. This, in effect, removed him from the position of "Chief/Senior Overseer", where he had a "special veto" or override concensus (this was all self-appointed). As Quiddity stated, "Geo does indeed have a long history of inventing hierarchies and pseudo-projects, and joining everything in sight". I have a number of examples, but this isn't the time, nor the place, to discuss them - this is my candidacy, not his.

If he wishes to object to my candidacy, and not give a reason, I will take, because he should not be badgered into giving a reason. Most of the supports didn't either, and I dislike people being scared off giving their opinion at RfA because they don't want be a attacked for giving a reason which is closely scrutinised. Yes, RfA is not a vote, but I don't mind in this case. Daniel 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I voted oppose because you immediately distanced yourself from MOTD when it became unpopular. this to me, shows a politician type. You may not be one, in which case you can prove me wrong. G e o. 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it makes you look more supportable since you're willing to take on the challenging tasks. Nice job. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too many co-noms from people whose judgement I question. I don't trust people who don't have the restraint to say, thanks, but one or two is enough. RFA should not be a popularity contest. pschemp | talk 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA should not be a popularity contest - I agree with this totally.... Spawn Man 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it shouldn't be a popularity contest, we should not punish people solely on the fact that they are popular. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No indeed. My oppose was based on lacking the guts to say no. pschemp | talk 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Who says the large number of people voting is support is because of popularity? There is no way to discern the motive from a vote. I have'nt seen:
#Support: 'Cause he's popular.

...anywhere. I agree with Cbrown, it is not Daniel's fault that others hold him in high standard. Dfrg.msc 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Strong Support the incident during his first RfA is in the distant past. Per my interactions on Wiki and his requests on IRC, I can confidently say that he can be safely trusted with the tools.--KonstableSock 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)In light of your participation in a recent IRC "discussion" about me behind my back (which included nothing more than calling me bad names behind my back) I am no longer convinced about you. I will not elaborate as you know what I mean, and discussing back-room IRC conversations could just give justification to those itching to block me. Though you weren't the one venting steam and spreading rumours about me, I do not think other administrators (or potential administrators such as you) should condone such actions (which could have resulted in blocks if they were on-wiki) and even help out to an extent. I am sorry to withdraw my support, as I had one of the highest opinions of you; I am not going to oppose, but I am just no longer sure of your nature.--KonstableSock 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Konstable, I think there is a mis-understanding here. My input into that discussion was to firstly comment about the fact that you are under no ban/block/probation from the ArbCom when someone implied you were; then I said that Freak could revert your addition if he felt it was intended to bait, although it probably wasn't a good idea as a number of people (myself included) respect your opinion highly regardless of recent events; and then when the topic of blocking you came up, I made an informed decision that this was probably heading in the direction of "discussing an experienced contributor and blocking them for dubious, controversial behavioural issues", and so I made sure I did my utmost to redirect the discussion to ANI immediately.

As I stated in my answer to Q7, I strongly believe no discussion about blocking an experienced, semi-experienced, and/or controversial user should take place on IRC, especially when this block would be hotly disputed. Blocks for "incivility" reasons on experienced users I especially hate, and even though I believe that every user should remain civil, I appreciate that "cool down blocks" on experienced users is a Very Bad Idea, and when "concensus" (despite it not being concensus) is formed over IRC, it becomes a Totally Horrible Idea. Blocks are preventative, and these type of blocks actually make the situation worse, rendering them pointless.

I agree totally, utterly and fully with Giano et al on that issue (blocking of experienced contributors through IRC discussion only). If I called you names, then the leak you're getting isn't accurate fully, or at least pulled out of context. I hate people who insult me behind my back - I know a couple who do it via email regularly - and it would be hypocritical if I did so. If you have particular phrases/quotes of me doing this, I acknowledge that you can't quote them on here (and would be disappointed if you did, as that would have no context), so please email me at killfest2[at]gmail[dot]com and I'll be happy to further discuss this with you.

Konstable, you know I gave my full support to you when you were going through the troubled times, and you were a great sysop, and probably still would be. For me, a neutral from you stings because I respected, and still respect, your opinion highly. Although we haven't agreed on everything, you were, and still are, a good friend of mine. I would chop off my right hand before even contemplating insulting you, especially over a confidential medium, because by cutting off my right hand I wouldn't have the ability to insult you any more by typing. I fear this is a big mistake, and I would really appreciate discussing it with you, as what you have said goes against my base principles of respect and courtesy, as well as my strong opinion on IRC slander and blocking discussions via the medium. I normally quit IRC alltogether when discussions like that [the discussion about you] occur, but I wanted to stay as I saw you were being misrepresented (ie. the myth about you being restricted in any way). Cheers, Daniel 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I was not getting the full discussion in detail, but I heard of you mingling and supporting the jokes of people who at that very time had been sitting on IRC and telling some strange fictional tales about me over the period of several hours - which was the root of my suspicions. Well thank you for clearing that up, and now that I'm convinced you were not part of their cabal, I have switched back to support, I hope there are no hard feelings. :-) --KonstableSock 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what Sarah and Cyde would tell you (jokingly, of course), I'm in no cabal :) No hard feelings, of course - I hold no negative feelings against anyone who makes a constructive point against me, regardless of whether it is later revoked as a misunderstanding or not. Cheers, and thanks for your reconsideration, Daniel 06:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, you'll probably not be a bad admin, but I really wish you'd try to cull the stupidity of adding pointless one sentence co-nominations, instead of encouraging it. - Bobet 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bobet, I don't think it is a reason to oppose a candidate, so I'm glad to see you here in the neutral section. However, I must say that I would caution people against having lots of unnecessary co-noms because I do tend to agree with you. I think one or two is fine but it is unnecessary for people to add lots of co-noms for the sake of it unless they are adding something unique that the nom or other co-nom(s) failed to mention. I can't understand why anyone would write a short and redundant co-nom rather than just writing it in their support !vote because, as mentioned below by Maxwell Smart, it doesn't do the candidate any favours at all. This was a matter of some lengthy discussion in the archives back in November. [38] I'm also not in favour of people adding co-noms without asking the candidate first. I think it puts the candidate in a rather unfortunate position. Cheers, Sarah 14:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~No comment on the merits of the candidate or whether this RfA should pass; in fact,~~ I had deliberately not posted an opinion because it completely turns me off when a nominee has multiple nominators, no matter how good the candidate might be. I only toss in my $0.02 because Bobet raises the issue. While multiple co-noms are almost always a sign of over-enthusiasm for the candidate, as it clearly appears to be in this case, I am always left with the feeling that it comes across as peer-pressure (at the very least). Multiple co-nominations are rarely, if ever, necessary. If a quality candidate has an exemplary record, let the record speak for itself. Anyone beyond a single co-nom can simply add their comments to the "support" section. This is absolutely not meant to disparage the candidate or his nominators, as the nomination is clearly in good faith. It is just a comment on this practice, which happens with too much frequency for my liking. Agent 86 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You both make very good points, and ones I'll remember in the future if my input is required. I will attempt to plead innoncence, given this was the first time I had to deal with co-nominators, and apologise for any possible lack of foresight I showed in making said comments. Nevertheless, hinesight is a beautiful thing, but even more is learning from your errors :) Cheers, and thanks for the thoughtful comments, Daniel 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you've got much to apologise for. You were not the one doing the co-nominating, and there's no "error" in accepting the multi-noms. Neither do your co-nominators, only because their actions are clearly in good faith. I just find the practice unnecessary and that it does not always come across as intended. Agent 86 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to remember your comments here if I was to ever consider giving a pile-on co-nomination to a candidate :) Daniel 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This response made me laugh on a day I didn't know I needed one. For that reason, and for your thoughtful response to this issue, I'm happy to toss my (less-than-necessary!) "support" into the pile. Agent 86 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral No hard feelings, but I (1) Don't know you well enough to support; and (2) Reading through the RfA, you smell like the "model" candidate. By that I mean you seem to be fiercely popularist. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it makes me nervous to see somebody who appears to be so desperate to please absolutely everyone. In my opinion, pleasing everyone means that either you're not making bold enough decisions, or you're doing it deliberately. Neither of these are, in my opinion, helpful to the project. I would like to see administrators willing to do what they think is best, rather than what the community, or RfA community (let's face it, neither of these groups know best) thinks. — Werdna talk 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this !vote, but at least it proves there is no Australian cabal.... Newyorkbrad 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I must strongly agree with Werdna, but sadly, if you don't follow the example given by Werdna above, RfA is often impossible pass, as evidenced by the difficulty in some RfAs in passing and more especially in the difficulty admins being reconfirmed after a recall etc. -- Heligo land 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to agree with Werdna to some extent (considering that I happen to be reading Profiles in Courage, coincidentally), but there must be a sensible mix of sensible conscience and selective responsiveness to be an ideal admin. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral You appear to be a fine clerk and contributor, Daniel, with the 1FA "mark" met and several other substantial article contributions. And Checkuser is invaluable. However, I'm rather worried about the nature of this nomination, particularly the comments of your IP friend. I just do not think that a candidate with any possible influences of this nature on him or her can be safely entrusted with the tools of adminship. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.