Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Danielfolsom[edit]

(23/17/8); ended 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC):

Danielfolsom (talk · contribs) - I'm pleased to present Daniel for your consideration. He has been among us since July, 2006, though it took him some months to get the bug; since then he has been a consistent and diligent contributor. Daniel has over 6000 edits nicely balanced between article, talk and project space. He has an interest in template space, and (for some strange reason) enjoys trawling CAT:CCSD to see if he can help new or inexperienced editors rescue valid articles. He is also a project coordinator at Wikipedia:Spotlight, through which he has demonstrated his commitment to improving the encyclopaedia.

Daniel's considered approach to editing was clear from the start when he sought guidance through WP:ADOPT, where I had the pleasure of mentoring him. Ten months later, I'm confident he both understands and cares about our policies, writes carefully and neutrally, and is a helpful presence in calming disputes. Like all of us Daniel has made mistakes and is still learning — indeed his willingness to seek advice and constructive criticism is among his strongest assets — but I believe he now has the skills, experience, temperament and enthusiasm to serve constructively in an administrative capacity. Rockpocket 07:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I graciously accept - thanks for the nomination Rockpocket.--danielfolsom 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would probably be most active in the speedy deletion candidates - since, not to be immodest or anything, I think I have a good eye for what can be improved and what should be deleted. That is actually probably one of the biggest reasons I'd like to become an admin - I think I could really help with some of the more tedious tasks.
As most can probably tell, a lot of my time has been spent reverting vandalism quickly - so the rollback feature could really allow me to be more productive given that it involves less time. Also, the fact that I spend time reverting vandalism also shows that I might be able to keep up the quality of some of Wikipedia's lesser known pages, as I'll have time to browse Special:Unwatchedpages and watch AIV and try to give some help there.--danielfolsom 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, it's hard to say one contribution as my "best", as most of my contributions are spread out and are influenced so much by other editors. However, if I have to say a few I would probably go with the 2004 NBA Finals (a few diffs from that: 1, 2, 3) and also anything I've done with WP:Spotlight - which I explain here.--danielfolsom 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: Yes I've probably been in quite a few editing conflicts where one of us would misread a fairly innocuous comment as an attack, which would obviously have bad consequences - however more recently I think I've been generally more open minded about everything. I will either ask users to clarify or back out of a discussion and let other users resolve it. Obviously this is a trend that I will continue, and I'm proud to say that none of the conflicts of old are ongoing.--danielfolsom 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Jehochman

4. What do you think of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehochman (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean - however, to give a very general answer, I think groups such as those are great. While I haven't exactly researched this group for an answer - frankly I would say that any club that gets Wikipedia members involved in Wikipedia disputes (with the intention being to mediate the dispute, of course) is great. Feel free to request a more detailed answer if this is not satisfactory. --danielfolsom 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Pedro

5. William Jurgens was recently nominated for speedy deletion, an area you indicate you are keen to work in. I declined it. What are your thoughts on this? (I've deliberately kept this vague.) Pedro :  Chat  09:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well I mean, personally I probably would have done the same, I'm in a slight rush so I haven't had time to look at why you kept it or what the article was like at the time, but the fact that he's written three books would probably just lead me to tag it up a lot - as beyond a list the books aren't really mentioned, so a stub tag would probably be fitting in addition to a few others.--danielfolsom 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Piotrus

6. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes - being an admin is an honor - not a privilege, thus to assume that you being granted that right once is somehow synonymous to a grant of everlasting rights is ridiculous. An admin is not above the community - they are part of it, no more important than the anonymous IP editor, so an admin can't assume that they are above the communities judgment, so should the community judge that an admin is unfit to continue his or her role, then that admin has an obligation to resign.--danielfolsom 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from User:Dustihowe

7. In the past, you have been in arguements that have gotten pretty serious, in my judgement. Do you feel that you will continue to stand your ground as an Admin, if selected? Or do you feel that you will be more courteous to the community, even though you have admin privilages?— Dustihowe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here - but to go on what I think you mean: it would honestly depend on the situation. I mean if I'm in a dispute with an editor that originated from me and the other editor, then it's my and the other editor's obligation to both stand our ground, but also find compromise. However, if I go in specifically to help end a dispute, then obviously I wouldn't have any ground to stand on - as I wouldn't be arguing either way. Even beyond that though, it's really just situational.--danielfolsom 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Tiptoety

8.How much time do you believe an administrator should put in to contributing to wikipedia, do you believe that an admin should try to contribute everyday, or that they can contribute when they feel like it. How often do you plan on contributing? Tiptoety 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... well, I'll answer your last question first. I've actually been kind of sick this past month - but normally I contribute every day, and I'm on at least 3-4 hours a day. Your first question is more complicated. I would say that ideally, everyone would contribute every day, however that'd be in a perfect world. So ... hmmmm, well I guess I think that admins should contribute whenever they feel like it then - however, should their contribution frequency not satisfy the community (as there are limits), then that admin should face resigning their position. It's really the communities' call.--danielfolsom 01:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Danielfolsom before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Strong support as nominator. Daniel is not going to abuse the tools and will be an asset to the project with them. Rockpocket 01:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Full Support - I know this guy in real life, so if by some weird chance he abused the tools, I could hunt him down and break his legs :P Confident he'll make a great admin. David Fuchs (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom, answers, overall record. Qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 01:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nomination is good, a quick check of contributions showed nothing to jump up and down about. Daniel 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to review the Kiev incident in detail. Daniel 11:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support John254 02:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nomination. Also nice to have User:David Fuchs making sure his legs are intact or broken, as the case may be.  :) --Folic_Acid 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Hirohisat 紅葉 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. An experienced editor. I'd prefer a higher percentage of mainspace edits, but he's done some good work, both in the encyclopedia and in the admin-like areas. He's also quite active, so he'd likely be available if needed. Useight 06:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This is a very experienced user and I am confident that he will not abuse the tools given to him. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support This guy looks like he knows what he is talking about and by looking at his history, he looks like he is self confident and will be willing to stand his ground in arguments ( like : this). Dustihowe 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Danielfolsom is clearly an experienced editor and one who has a grasp of what WP:CIVIL is all about. He'll make a good admin. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - enough experience gathered to be a great admin. But please learn from the mistakes that're pointed out below. Lradrama 17:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will definitely try - I do realize that I have made more than a couple mistakes - but what I consider important is really what I have, and really what I'm continuing to learn from those mistakes - so I completely agree with you. Thanks for the suport.--danielfolsom 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Willingness to being open to recall is crucial. Being able to take a stance against experienced editors and not fearing criticizing them shows good backbone. Good luck! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per nom. Epbr123 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Very cautious support - I'm concerned by a couple of things (like this [1]) for instance, but I can't get past the feeling that Daniel, like many of us, is a good user who's made some bad judgment calls. I strongly encourage Daniel, should this RFA pass, to take a deep breath when he sees criticism and look for the spirit behind it. No one here wants you personally to fail or wants to see bad things happen; we all want the project to succeed with you as a part of it. I'm afraid that you take criticism very personally and sometimes lose sight of the basic kindness and decency of most people on here, who really are some of the most gentle people I've ever met. Criticism is nothing more than someone bringing to your attention something that bothers them, and it takes a lot of courage to go to someone and say "here's an area where I think you can improve". Please take that in the spirit in which it is meant - including with this missive. I also encourage you to cultivate mentors - beyond the ones you already have - because a breadth of opinion is always helpful (there's nothing wrong with the mentors you have, and I respect each of them; I just think "more is better"). Then, listen to your mentors. That said, I support your request for adminship and wish you the very best of luck. - Philippe | Talk 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm going to go ahead and give my support, as I've seen you having good interactions with others, notably the particularly annoying user EverybodyHatesChris. Being able to handle an editor like that with a fair bit of coolness is good for an admin. That said, some of the opposers, particularly Bishonen, do bring up valid points that you should heed, regardless of the result of this RFA. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Support. Good editor overall, and some of the opposers' criticisms aren't very fair and/or have been explained away. However, I see one or two valid concerns (particularly those raised by iridescent and Pedro) which push me to a Weak Support. This RfA may well end without consensus, but I urge Daniel to try again in a few months and take the opposers' points under advisement. WaltonOne 21:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - looks okay to me. Deb 21:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support I had dealings with the applicant some months ago and was very impressed by the sheer commitment and good faith they showed in some very heated exchanges, which included taking time away to allow tempers to cool. This is a rare case where I know something of the editor, and everything I know makes me believe they would be an asset to Wikipedia in having the tools. LessHeard vanU 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per Walton, basically. The opposers raise legitimate concerns, but many of them are trivial and not really related to adminship. I believe Daniel is editing with the best interests of the project in mind, and that the net effect of granting him the sysop tools would be a positive one. I'm not sure that this RFA is going to pass, if it doesn't, please take the advice of the opposers to heart, and if you retry in a few months I'm sure you'll pass! Melsaran (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - I like your style and the answer to question 8. Rudget Editor Review 14:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Looks like Siva1979 is supporting everyone's RfA while opposing my RfA! Making me jealous... er, I mean Support per Siva1979. NHRHS2010 Talk 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehehe, good point! :D But, for the record, I remember Siva opposing other candidates as well, even though it's the exception, not the rule. Nothing necessarily wrong with it. We try to do our best here, that we often come to different conclusions is just a sign of the diversity of WP. Gray62 11:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Good contributor, good record. Worth handing the tools to. Twenty Years 14:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I'm concerned about the candidates' notion of "assuring that policies are followed on talk pages"[2] by means of interjecting alphabet soup (e. g. WP:CIVIL) into content discussions. It seems rather crude, or even counter-productive. I don't feel happy about the idea of an admin admonishing editors in this manner, with the authority of the block button behind him. On an occasion I noticed, back in August, Daniel gave the experienced editor Irpen a "reminder" of WP:CIV, probably our best-known policy, and one I can't for the life of me see that Irpen had violated. Please make your own judgment of the dialogue here, at Talk:History of Russia. As a way of keeping the peace on a contentious talkpage, which has seen a lot of real incivility, Daniel's intervention seemed to me clumsy at best, and predictably it had no good results. I queried its wisdom at the Editor Review which Daniel had running at the time, but I received prickly and self-righteous answers from him.[3] I'm sorry, but none of this suggests to me that the candidate is ready for adminship. However. If I can see some evidence that his intervention technique, or general interaction with others, has become more mellow and productive since August, I'm prepared to reconsider my opposition. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Oppose per Bishonen. The whole farcical History of Russia "improvement" drive was made worse by Daniel's involvement. For instance, I added two citations from reliable sources (standard English-language histories of Russia) to a statement Daniel was questioning for no good reason - and he still wouldn't accept them. He didn't appear to know what he was talking about but this didn't stop him intervening and making the situation worse. Wouldn't trust him in a position of power. --Folantin 09:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose – Ran into you before, my past interaction with you was enough to set of my alarm bells that I should oppose (for example: this). It wouldn't surprise me if you would delete articles because they're "obnoxious". Your mainspace edits are also very worrying (or I should say: lack of).[4] The most shocking thing though is this, since when has "common knowledge" (or I dare say your knowledge) been a reliable source? Matthew 11:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Cite#When_to_cite_sources - "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." - thus common knowledge does not need to be cited. This is evidenced by the fact that even featured articles do not need to have citations for every sentence. It was pointed out to me on the History of Russia page, where someone had actually gone through and put fact tags on almost every claim - and I was defending it, which I now see as a mistake.--danielfolsom 11:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to carefully read what you just quoted: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." The indication of a fact tag says to me "this sentence has been challenged, provide a source". So what you just quoted to me only serves to support my oppose: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." Ergo you are still (or your "common knowledge") not a reliable source. Wake up! Matthew 12:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, again, I would disagree especially given the History of Russia situation - but I guess we can just agree to disagree here.--danielfolsom 15:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is obviously a middle ground here, where some statements of common knowledge should not reasonably be required to be sourced ("California is a US State" for example), irrespective if one has been requested. Of course, if something is such common knowledge it should not be too much of a challenge to find a source. So while common knowledge is most certainly not a reliable source, your question presumes that reasoning is the basis on which Daniel acted. That is a straw man, since a reliable source is not an absolute requirement for every single sentence in every single article. I'm not sure I would have removed that request myself, but I hardly find it a "shocking" edit, especially considering the context in which it was added. Rockpocket 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I remember Daniel primarily as a guy who was "talking privately" with Piotrus about promoting his page to good articles. Given a number of concerns associated with the opaqueness of the GA nomination process, I find private communications between the nominator and the reviewer morally reprehensible. That's just me, though. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had been taking a while to re-review it after I put it on hold and I was merely explaining that to him, and because a discussion/dispute came up in the middle of everything, that also delayed the final review. However, I later failed it - so it's not as though he and I were conspiring to pass an article, but in fairness - there isn't a policy that dictates that I can't communicate with a nominator, and this was, to my recollection, my first article ever reviewed--danielfolsom 11:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ghirla, I respect your grounds for opposition, but inflammatory wording such as "morally reprehensible" should in my opinion not be used. Newyorkbrad 12:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was helping out with this review, Daniel was trying to deal with a protracted discussion in which Piotrus was rather uncooperative and he eventually failed the article. I think Daniel dealt well with this conflict and remained impressively polite and calm. Tim Vickers 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Your recent mainspace history is extremely unimpressive — especially this move, where 10 seconds on Google would have shown you that you were moving it away from the correct name as given on their own website. You say you specifically want the tools for deletion, but have participated in a grand total of one XfD in the past month. You say "I have a good eye for what can be improved and what should be deleted", but a skim through your deleted mainspace edits shows a huge number of edits to articles that went on to be deleted, one successful CSD tag in July, and no other (successful) CSD tagging since March other than a couple of dead redirects. As per Matthew, while it's in the past I'm deeply unimpressed by the arrogant & bitey Template:Obnoxious, and this comment on your user page seems to indicate that you still support the sentiments it expressed & feel you were hard-done-by when it was deleted (for those who can't read deleted edits, the text of {{obnoxious}} was "An editor is concerned that this section may have too many insignificant facts in it, creating an obnoxious look. Please consider shortening this section to an appropriate size, with only noteworthy information") and, like Matthew, I get the strong feeling you'll delete content because you think it looks ugly. — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the obnoxious template the only justification you have for this? I mean saying I'll delete things I think are ugly is a fairly major assertion, perhaps if you could provide a few diffs I could better contend that. As to the edits to pages that are to be deleted - that is perfectly explainable actually, User:Danielfolsom#Other (last sentence, 2nd IP): "I usually try to make edits even on ones I'm pretty sure are to be deleted - just in case I'm wrong and they're saved ". and last point: I actually have not editted much at all recently due to a virus that's been going around --danielfolsom 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I think it's valid. The fact that you created a template for pages you think are "obnoxious", and are still defending it on your userpage seven months later (despite the 8-1 snowball delete) indicates to me that you haven't grasped just what the problem was. As Iamunknown put it way-back-when, "Some person spent time to research those "insignificant facts" and arrange them in a way that puts off an "obnoxious look"; we could at least do the common courtesy of not marginalizing their work". On a different note, as well as the Russia incident Bish refers to above, there's another prime example of you charging headlong into someone else's argument at Talk:Negroid. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, fair enough I suppose, although to clarify: I'm not defending the template on my userpage. I list every template I've ever created there - and write little things about them. I have admitted that the wording was excessively harsh - as evidenced by the actual discussion. So again, I'm not defending it, I'm merely stating my point of view. Given that I list every template and my take on them, for me to do otherwise would be somewhat strange.--danielfolsom 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I'm afraid. The obnoxious template was a pretty bad idea. I'm concerned by the History of Russia discussion too. But I really wish you hadn't answered my question with "I'm in a rush", and then echoed that in a response in neutral. Whilst I appreciate your courtesy in trying to reply promptly, rushing is not a good admin trait. Better to have waited and replied with all the facts than to rush a response at your own RfA. It worries me that you would therefore carry that attitude to C:CSD where rushing is right off the agenda. I'm sorry. Pedro :  Chat  12:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright fair enough - however I will say that I think you'll find that humans in general are at one point or another in their life are in a rush - regardless of admin status, and I would say that rushing to make a comment and giving a quick example is hardly comparable to deleting a page--danielfolsom 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Bishonen. Interaction with Irpen was counterproductive and indicates a lack of experience. Not what we'd want to see in an admin. Ronnotel 13:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. What you're describing displays his lack of respect to the Fight Club rule of Thou shalt not criticise a regular. I believe this is an indication of integrity rather than of inexperience; it's a virtue rather than vice. See also WP:TAAR. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is with the overall approach - e.g. WP:DTTR. In any interaction as an admin, you must take into account to whom you are speaking and tailor your message appropriately. Criticizing a regular is fair game. Treating them like a newbie is unhelpful and demonstrates a lack of experience. Ronnotel 17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with Διγυρεν here. Irpen's comment to which Daniel politely responded citing WP:CIV - "do as you please. There is nothing new in that" - was hardly constructive or conducive to promote harmonious editing either. Which appeared to be Daniel's point. That it was made to an experienced editor is neither here nor there, in my opinion. As Daniel's mentor at the time Bishonen contacted me, but I declined to get involved for two reasons. Firstly it was (and remains) a tempest in a teapot, and Daniel was at the stage where he should be able to deal with such things by himself. Secondly, I don't think his actions were anymore or less problematic than those more experienced editors he was interacting with. If that comment was made to an anon who had made Irpen's comment, then no-one would bat an eyelid here. Consequently, I know that Daniel learned a lesson from the fallout from that exchange as I talked to him about it. That lesson may simply be that everyone one is treated equally on Wikipedia, but some are treated more equally than others. It is a principle that many expect their admin candidates to be aware of. Rockpocket 18:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. However I do still have some reservations that would likely be resolved with some additional experience on the part of this candidate. Ronnotel 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Bishonen, Ronnotel and Pedro. The concerns raised make me feel the user needs to work on being less confrontational. Invoking Civil and the rest of the conversation with Ipren, in which he was an interloper, seemed overly strident. The obnoxious fiasco was a while ago, but viewed in more recent context of the Ipren conversation remains concerning. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification I find Danielfolsom's interjection less troubling because it was directed toward Irpen than a less experienced user. Irpen took it in stride and invited Daniel to take part in the discussion at hand. I'm afraid a new user might only have become frustrated by the civility remark and that it would have inflamed the situation. If an admin is going to assume the burden of dispute resolution, he needs to know when to step in and when not to. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Believe it or not, but after few interactions with the Danielfolsom‎ I've got the impression that I've got to wathlist the then red link [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom]] as it seemed to me that the user is an "admin material" and this is where he was heading. Answers to questions are non-persuasive to say the least. Evasive answer to Q3 is alarming. Q1 and Q2: I see too much interest in policing and too little interest in content writing. That's not an inclinations I like in admins. While some of non-writing admins are actually good ones, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do (bossy attitude). The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. Q2: three diffs provided in an answer to the Q2 do not show much, if any, content actually written by an editor. He merely improved and standardized article's referencing. Useful, no doubt, but not very significant. His userpage lists very few articles and mentions History of Russia among his contributions. I was around at the time and also saw no significant edits to the article from the user other than purely formatting ones. Actually, his conduct at talk:History of Russia during this editing period was not very encouraging., to say the least and shows exactly what often happens when the users who don't write get themselves involved as judges in the content disputes. When this was raised at Wikipedia:Editor review/Danielfolsom by Bishonen, the candidate's response was totally unacceptable. In response to a critical review, Danielfolsom removed the comments with the summary that implied the reviewer's bad faith saying: "evidently the editor is less interested in actually resolving a misunderstanding than being able to show off with snide remarks". This is unacceptable for an admin. Additionally, I am alarmed by the user's preference to conduct behind the scenes communications when there is a conflict going on. In addition to Ghirla's example, I remember at least one more and there is no way to know how many more was there. --Irpen 19:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite follow your comment "it seemed to me that the user is an "admin material", when it appears you don't consider him to be admin material at this time, could you clarify? Rockpocket 20:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rockpocket, I think Irpen means that s/he (sorry Irpen for not knowing your gender) got the impression from his/her observations that Daniel thinks himself admin material, not that Irpen thinks so. Sorry if that is incorrect, Irpen. I am assuming this because I got the same impression, but I don't have a problem with folks who aspire to adminship, as long as that isn't their entire guiding force, causing them to put on an act until they get the tools (to be clear, I do not believe Daniel has done this). Sarah 13:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. That does make sense. I think Daniel does aspire to adminship (otherwise, I presume, he wouldn't have accepted the nomination), but I also believe that is because he is keen to contribute. Its obvious Daniel isn't a prolific article writer, but he is a contributor who enjoys the more janitorial aspects of the project. Since admins are the janitors of Wikipedia, it seems entirely unsurprising to me that he would like our janitorial tools to enable him to maximize his contributions. Rockpocket 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose based on the unsatisfying answers to the questions as well as some of the responses to previous opposes. User's contributions are great and there's a lot of good things to be said about this candidate, but there are also some issues to be resolved. Some of the diffs given above and some of the responses seem a little bite-y. A valuable contributor who doesn't seem quite up to par for what I'd expect of a sysop, so I can't support now. Perhaps with some improvement I'd say otherwise next time. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose: The distinction between "privilege" and "honor" indicates something borne out in the editor's actions. He appears to view being an admin as a badge rather than a set of duties, and his answers to the questions show that he wants to fix things. We are not broken, and this sets my teeth on edge. A person overtly interested in mandatory "civility" on talk pages using an edit summary that is a frank insult to a user generally viewed as conciliatory? Oh no. In addition to the puzzling behavior on the Russian talk, the private communications, and the concerns raised by Bishonen, this kind of rudeness and inability to comprehend, much less incorporate, the other peoples' perspectives is anathema. Geogre 21:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose: There are many good things about this editor, but there are a few things that concern me. First and foremost is Daniels answer to one of the questions where s/he was asked how he/she would /does handle conflicts between other users, Daniel stated that at times he backs out and lets other users work it out. If Daniel is to become an admin his role will not be step out of a conflict, but to take hold of it and work it out in a civil manner. Second, i see very few (7 I believe) reports to AIV which makes me wonder if this user has the proper level of knowledge to justifiably block users who abuse Wikipedia. I am also disappointed in the excuse that Daniel makes, stating that he does not have the time and was rushed, that is not a good excuse for making a mistake, and if your are to be an admin you must have the time to make appropriate edits. I believe that this editor needs a few more months, gain more experience performing admin tasks, and then re-nom. Tiptoety 22:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait - what? I said I was rushed when I was responding to an editor who asked to see a few of my edits- and that was to explain the reason why I only could give one of the edits, and I said I could get more to them later. I don't know how this has turned into a big issue (this part isn't really directed at you - I mean 'big issue' as in a lot of people have brought it up).--danielfolsom 00:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment was made due to your reply to Pedro's comment above. Tiptoety 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see - well that decision would stand regardless, all that was saying was that I didn't have time to check what the article was like when he reviewed it (which an admin would likely never have to do anyway) - however more recently I have and I've found that it's about the same - I just haven't edited the comment yet.--danielfolsom 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to state that you have many strong qualities, and one of them is showing right now, you are not afraid to take a stand and defend yourself, which is key. But like i said, i believe you need a little more experience before i will vote support. Tiptoety 01:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thank you - yeah sorry, I didn't mean for that to go on as long as it did - I was just getting confused by how many editors had mentioned the "rush" thing, thanks for the feedback regardless,--danielfolsom 01:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, per Bishonen, Iridescent and Irpen. Not enough experience as an editor, and thus, not surprisingly, clearly not a conflict solver (yet). Gray62 00:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah's posting increases my concerns. Jumping in into an aissue, grandstanding with admin tools, not taking the time to understand the controversy, coming to false conclusions and in consequence maybe banning innocent editors is certainly not what we want to see from an admin. This is unacceptable. Gray62 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose sadly. Normally, 3,000 edits is plenty to see if we can trust one with the mop. So Danielfolsom passes the edit count test. I've not run into this editor, yet the more I see, the less I can trust. This user seems not to have learned from Editor review, or from mistakes in the past, as noted above. I love to cite policy at XfD, but it's sort of a pain to do so on talk pages. Please apply in a few more months, when I have more to see. Bearian 14:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Enough edits but we need people who can administrate that knows Wikipedia like the back of their hand. Yes, we all make mistakes but if he is still learning, I think we should keep it on hold for another few months when he has passed the learning stage. Thats my only problem. Otherwise I would support, but another few months maybe. Aflumpire 05:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Passed the learning stage? I would much rather have an administrator who was willing to learn, than one who thought they knew it all. I believe Lillian Smith said "When you stop learning, stop listening, stop looking and asking questions, always new questions, then it is time to die." Rockpocket 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have to agree with Rockpocket here. Tiptoety 18:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I like Daniel on a personal level but I have observed fairly recent incidents which make me worry what he would get up to if he actually had admin tools behind him, particularly the 'block' button. One fairly recent incident which I observed was when an editor complained on ANI about behaviour on one of the anthropology articles (I think it might have been one of the African anthropology articles where people were disputing textual content and the use of images, but I can't find it right now). I went over there to have a look but Daniel was already there. I appreciate his enthusiasm and I believe wholeheartedly that he has the project at heart, I'm just very concerned about what would happen if he had the tools and could actually follow through on some of his comments that imply or suggest imminent blocks and so forth. On the anthropology page, he really aggravated the situation, said a good faith editor was engaging in "trolling," while he was giving out warnings to others for similar comments (I felt that some warnings implied he had the ability to block, though I don't believe he was deliberately trying to misrepresent himself as an admin) and declaring a so-called "consensus" when there really was quite clearly not one. And then not long after someone questioned his credibility, he vanished without bothering to respond, leaving the page in a state. I got the impression that he would like to sweep into disputes, reprimand people, doll out some blocks and then disappear, his job done (but in reality, with the page in even more of a state and the editors even more worked up and stressed out). I hoped, perhaps, that this was just an off day but I see from the comments and diffs posted above by Bish and others that it wasn't. I do like Daniel, though, and I would like to see him work on the issues raised in this RfA, maybe slow down a bit, and come back again when he is sure that these issues are no more. Sarah 13:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking Daniel's contribs, I guess you're talking about his postings [5] at talk:Negroid. Yes, I agree, this isn't exactly the display of good judgment we want to see in an admin. :-( Gray62 16:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: I find Ghirla's comments to be very concerning indeed. Also per Bishonen and several of the other points above. In adition the candidate does not seem to have a particularly strong mainspace history record. Giano 07:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Weak Neutral I hate to do this, and may change my mind later, but while I realise that Daniel is a great editor with a sustained edit count and that is great; however I would have liked to see a more rounded experience; i.e. more reporting at AIV (currently kate doesn't show any >13 edits to it) and in general more tagging at CSD (I can't seem to find any at all in your contribs) as if you say you plan on participating there but there is not much evidence of actual participation to get a feel of what is suitable or not, you may receive some grief for deleting articles that are borderline as you would be an admin. Also I see there is not much RC patrol going on; and while is is not a prerequisite for adminship, dealing with the conflicts arising from there, would be of use as as admin you would have the blocking capability. Other than that, your article contribution is solid. Phgao 07:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a minor clarification, I feel I should point out that I think Daniel's experience with CSD comes from his propensity for helping editors at Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion. My understanding is that he will spend the time trying to work with new editors to improve and source articles that he considers to be salvageable, and not waste time on those that are not. You can get pretty experienced in ascertaining the application of CSD criteria, I would imagine, as when you get it wrong it is your time and effort that gets wasted! Personally, I put more value in that experience than in adding templates and moving on (not that there is anything wrong with that either, of course). However, your points are sensible and valid, and I'm sure Daniel will take them on board. Rockpocket 08:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I would agree with you there, as doing such work would enable one to ascertain the minor shades between what would be CSD or AfD or even PRODed. I myself like to see as many well sourced articles as possible and it is great that Daniel is helping salvage articles that perhaps normally would be CSDed. Also is it possible to provide some examples of articles that Daniel helped from Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion? Phgao 08:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I can find you a bit more - but I'm in a slight hurry right now so I'll give you one of the top of my head - Politicks.--danielfolsom 11:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure Politicks is really the example you want to give - it's blatant vanispam & undoubtedly fails WP:N & WP:BAND top-to-bottom. — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree, per the first requirement (non-trivial works), but regardless, I suppose you plan on nominating that for deletion then, so we can discuss more there.--danielfolsom 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll wait until after this RFA's finished - it's unfair to ask you to take part in two arguments simultaneously - but I see no way it's salvageable; every source is either a trivial mention "xxxxx did this - Politicks also appeared", straightforward listings, reprinted press releases or invalid sources like IMDB, and I can't see any reliable sources to expand it from. This is a discussion for another time and place, though. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I believe I could have supported, but the issues raised on the opposing side just does not allow me to. Best of luck. Jmlk17 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral The opposing sides issues also are slightly convincing. He has a good amount of edits though, so i will stay neutral. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I've interacted with the candidate at Veganism, where he contributed positively by dealing fairly with a disruptive editor (who shall remain nameless). However, he and another editor engaged in this long and ultimately pointless discussion about the propriety of criticism sections, the content and tone of which leads me to be unable to support his RFA. Skinwalker 13:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. I'm generally happy but I have some small issues. Civility is one, although most of the issues quoted above are tiny things, and the answers to questions are a bit poor. Also have some issues with the confrontational attitude towards opposers. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I have a strong idea where this nomination is headed, so my !vote really doesn't matter. Two observations I have are: (1) some relatively petty things - IMHO - have been brought up: whether or not the Tour de France is the best-known bike race (or not) is one example; (2) some more important issues have been brought up that led me to be neutral here - I don't think nominees need to be picture perfectly pleasant Doris Day types, but this editor has more than a couple of cited examples of falling below standards of civility I would like to see; (3) a final observation, some editors have equated a willingness to defend a minority position with the willingness to use admin tools to thwart the majority position - editors should be very careful making that leap of illogic. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. I think "the regulars" should be templated more often and should have the humility to read the policies they're violating. I don't think citing policies is a bad thing, and this user seems to make good faith efforts to improve articles. That said, some of the other concerns by the opposition resonate with me. User perhaps needs to be a bit more diplomatic. Cool Hand Luke 08:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. Want to support and will support you, Danielfolsom, if your intervention style keeps evolving the way it seems to have of very recently. Wishing to mediate in conflict situations is certainly commendable, but it gets tricky when you rush in with the attitude of an arbitrator or judge. I agree with Luke: a bit more diplomatic would strenghten my support, and so might a bit less bossy. Some of the examples given above, specifically surrounding the discussions on Talk:Veganism, Talk:History of Russia, and Talk:Negroid, are a bit too rigid and recent for me to support your candidacy yet. My reservations aren't strong enough to oppose either. Hence neutral. Good luck. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:15, 15 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danielfolsom&oldid=1142503746"