Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gimme danger

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

Gimme danger

Final (77/11/6). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 10:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Gimme danger (talk · contribs) – After editing for four and a half years, I've participated in nearly every task Wikipedia has to offer. I think my broad experience qualifies me for a mop and some soap. Sometimes I wish I could put them to good use. Danger (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to those !voting: I prefer not to reveal my gender on Wikipedia and thus prefer to be referred to as they or them. If this is distasteful to you for reasons of grammatical purity, any gender-neutral pronoun set is fine. Or you could go with he/she, his/her and the like. But that's just ugly.

And of course, thank you for taking the time to read these answers and for your comments, kind or biting!

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: This answer has two parts. First, I would use the tools in my normal Wikipedia work. I've recently begun working at the help desks and would like to be able to change the revision visibility of user's personal information. Sometimes I spend an hour or two at new editor's contributions and usually nominate a few pages for speedy deletion; it would be nice to be able to do that myself.

Second, I would like to work where I'm needed. I get a kick out of seeing numbers count down; I like working backlogs. This is evident in my contributions. I'm happy to do tasks that are relatively tedious and require concentration, over and over.

Clarified per Fastily: In short, I would like to do two types of tasks that require admin tools. I would like to do the tasks I encounter over the course of my normal editing, as I described in the first paragraph of my answer. I would also like to work to remove administrative backlogs.Danger (talk)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am fundamentally a gnome. The project of which I am most proud is clearing the WikiProject Wisconsin's assessment backlog of some 5,000-ish articles. (At least, it was clear in 2008.) While I assess I make small fixes as encounter them. I've undertaken a few similar projects recently.

I welcome new users and have been involved in adoption and mentorship and consider making it easier for other users to create content a fundamental goal of my work here. Writing is not my strong suite; I prefer to smooth the road for editors bolder than I.

Jane S. Richardson was a DYK. It was a challenge for me to write and I'm proud that I managed it, but I was more happy that it provided a suitable background for the fantastic image that Ms. Richardson donated to Wikimedia.Danger (talk)

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: Of course, yes and yes. Earlier in my editing I concentrated on Tibet, an area of understandably heated debate. I attempt to keep a strictly neutral position, though I recognize the practical impossibility of that task, and assume good faith as long as possible. It is a point of pride to me that I have been accused of being paid to edit by both the Chinese Communist Party and the Government of Tibet in Exile. (And I've never seen a cent from either.) I believe in following dispute resolution processes, discussing on talk pages rather than through edit summaries, and gently redirecting troublesome users. These principles have generally kept me from getting into disputes in the first place, although there's no pleasing everybody.

Recently, meaning in the last year, things have been quiet for me. I undertook a mentorship in 2009 of a topic banned user, Wikifan12345, and it caused some stress when he lost interest in the process. After a certain point, I believe that it is no longer productive to continue with disputes and I generally inform those users politely that I don't wish to talk with them anymore. Seems to work. Since I don't generally have any problems, I think I'll continue on this course.Danger (talk)

Questions from The Utahraptor

4. Would you ever work at WP:AIV? If so, under what circumstances would you block an editor (for example, would you block an editor with no warnings, one warning, two warnings, etc.)

A: It's possible that I would work there, although I have no real interest in doing so at this time. Blocking an editor who has not been warned should only be done in cases of especially egregious misconduct: making unambiguous threats, outing users, or particularly severe BLP violations. Clearly compromised accounts and usernames that clearly violate username policy also could be blocked without warning.

For standard vandals, the sort who add "penis" to random articles, and other blatant misconduct like spamming and minor copyright violation, I think three warnings is sufficient. (I consider the third level user warnings somewhat redundant and at that point think the angry red pictures on the final warning templates need to come into play.) For the sorts who add defamatory material to BLPs or particularly disgusting vandalism such that it could not be mistaken for a test I think one warning, with red picture, is sufficient.

For subtler misconduct, I find it impossible to make broad statements about how many times an editor should be warned before being blocked. Failure to assume good faith or follow verifiability policy needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Danger (talk)

5. Pretend for a moment that you are made an administrator, and you come across a backlog at WP:RPP. Under what circumstances is page protection appropriate/inappropriate?

A:Page protection is appropriate in cases of ongoing editwarring that involves multiple parties or extensive vandalism. Editwarring generally requires full protection, but semi-protection can be applied if all the parties are IPs or new users. Coordinated attacks by multiple autoconfirmed accounts also is grounds for full protection. Persistent vandalism or content violations should be dealt with by semi-protection. It is generally not appropriate to protect article talk pages, to full protect an article for a long period of time or to full protect an article pre-emptively.

There are additional cases, of course, but, pretending I was an administrator, I would work while rereading the appropriate policy, which is how I do pretty much everything except grammar editing. (And dashes. I now feel very confident about dashes!) Danger (talk)

Additional optional questions from Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

6. A biography fails to qualify on either GNG or BASIC. Can it still be considered worthy to find a place on Wikipedia?

A:No. While it's not matter of worth, a subject without significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not have a place on Wikipedia. Without such sources, we cannot write anything, since anything written would violate verifiability. Having an article with no content would be silly.Danger (talk)

Follow-up First of all, are you aware of the special notability criteria? Second, would you explain the difference between WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability? DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of special notability criteria. Verifiability is the principle that everything claimed on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source. A notable subject is a subject that merits an article on Wikipedia. General notability guidelines are very simple. They ask if writing on this topic be verifiable. In the case of special notability criteria, the criteria are used as a proxy to confirm that a verifiable article could be written about the subject. (This connection is made explicit in the first sentence of the sports guidelines). For example, if a musician has won a major award, it can be presumed that there will be articles in music magazines about the award; it's possible that the award itself has a citation. The seeming exception to this chain of logic is WP:PROF, which specifically notes that the subject's biography might not be the subject of secondary sources. I am skeptical that this is a correct application of notability, because it would seem to allow articles that are not verifiable. Of course, because it is a guideline it clearly has the support of the community; were I made an administrator, I would follow WP:PROF. I am not inclined to pointiness.

The important thing to keep in mind, in my opinion, is that verifiability is a core content policy, one of the four axioms of Wikipedia editing, if you like. Notability is a derivation of verifiability and notability guidelines outside of GNG are inductive arguments about the verifiability material on certain classes of subjects. Inductive arguments are not airtight proofs.

So, to explain my answer, the question posits that there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, since it fails the GNG and BASIC. Thus regardless of whether the subject meets specific criteria for notability, any article text would violate verifiability and thus such an article has no place on Wikipedia. Such a beast as a topic that fails the GNG but meets a specific criteria seems unlikely, but it is not impossible. That is why I did not mention specific notability criteria in my answer; they seemed superfluous from my standpoint.

Note: BrownEyedGirl BrownHairedGirl has explained why my answer was inadequate and I certainly understand her concerns. I am copying my response for the benefit of those reading these answers. I think I should explain that I approached that particular question from a philosophical standpoint and took the failure of GNG and BASIC as a given. As in, assuming perfect knowledge that an article does not meet GNG, could it have a place on Wikipedia. In practice, I believe in cleaving to community guidelines and in the value of the specific notability criteria; if presented with a subject that appears to fail the GNG but meets a specific notability guideline, I would not push the red button, so to speak.Danger (talk)

7. A new editor removes a well referenced paragraph from an article aggressively claiming in the edit summary that the content does not adhere to NPOV. You realize that that's not the case, and ergo rollback the content. The new editor deletes it again strongly disagreeing with your revert. You rollback his deletion again and warn him for vandalism. This time the new editor starts personally attacking you on your talk page by accusing you of being a paid editor for Wikipedia. You rollback that edit too, warn the new editor of repeated vandalism. The new editor goes ahead and again deletes the content from the article, leaving the same aggressive edit summary of the paragraph being non-NPOV. An administrator comes along and sees what's going on. What should the administrator do?

A:Firstly, I hope that this would not happen and if you're taking the example from my contribution history, boy is my face red. In any case, the administrator should warn both users about the pitfalls of editwarring and the merits of calm discussion, warn the new editor about personal attacks, warn me about biting the newbies and failing to explain my edit to a new user and offer help in understanding NPOV to the new user. (It took me 2 years and about 5 close readings of the policy before I actually understood NPOV policy, so I can empathize.)Danger (talk)

Follow-up: What is the difference between rollback and revert? DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A revert is an edit that undoes the edit of another user. Rollback is a user-right (or a Twinkle button) that allows an editor to revert an edit or several sequential edits by the same user without having to go through the edit history manually. It inserts a standard edit summary that simply states that the edits have been reverted. Thus, it should not be used except in cases of unambiguous vandalism or edits where a detailed edit summary would not be needed. If the user in the question was using the user-right, they should be warned for using it inappropriately.

Since I was the user using rollback in the question, I interpreted, wrongly, that it was referring to the Twinkle rollback buttons that I press so often. (I have not applied to be a rollbacker because I think Twinkle gives me more functionality anyway; the tool was given to me today though.) Thus I didn't make the connection that there was no informative edit summary (for reverts of this type I use the feature that allows "rollback" with a custom edit summary) and that the new user had never actually been informed of what he was doing wrong.

With this new information, the admin should deal with me much more harshly, not necessarily with a block but with a more strongly worded message. Perhaps they ought to be rhetorically smacking their hand with a hammer as they speak to me. If I have a history of using the rollback function like this, the administrator should consider revoking that privilege. Danger (talk)

8. True or false: An article that has escaped deletion at an AfD previously, cannot be tagged with a CSD again.

A:Technically false. It is possible that the article is later found to have copyright issues that must be removed, reducing it to a dictionary definition that is then transwikied without the article being deleted and could be tagged under A5. And then there are the shadowy G9 deletions and is any page ever immune from those?

In general though, having passed through an AfD indicates that the article does not have any of the blatant issues that would qualify it for CSD (ie. it asserts notability, it's not a clearly degenerate article of any sort). Danger (talk)

9. An article qualifies on GNG, is free of copyright issues, has valid RS available, yet is deleted after discussions at AfD despite all delete !voters accepting the article qualified well on GNG (assume that the discussions were faultless; and not influenced by office action). Give three kinds/varieties of articles where such a deletion might occur, despite the article qualifying on GNG.

A:

1. A POV fork of another article without mergable content.
2. A howto type article: "How to change a tyre" has many independent reliable sources available, but Wikipedia is not a howto manual.
3. A promotional article for a notable product or organization that has no non-promotional content and no page history worth keeping. Danger (talk)

10. In your sojourns at NPP, you come across an article titled Salonia Durelli with one line written that this is a new animal (earthworm) group found in an island off Australia. You search the Internet and find that the claim, although apparently notable, is not seemingly credible. You A7 the article. An administrator whom you've given a heads-up on the article, comes across, and "______" the article, with a reasoning "______". Fill up the blanks.

A:Keep the article. Since species are considered inherently notable, claiming to be a species is a claim of notability and thus the article fails A7. Also fails A7 because it is about a group of animals (at least one hopes a species is a group), not an individual animal.

I would suggest taking it to AfD because there are no sources and it is a clear hoax, at least to a taxonomist: Salonia was already taken by a genus of brachiopods in the 1930s. Danger (talk)

Follow-up is there a speedy deletion criterion for clear hoaxes,or do they need AfD? DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, G3 covers clear hoaxes. I did not suggest speedy deletion under that criterion in this case because I think that the hoax must be extremely blatant for speedy deletion. In this case, knowing that it is a hoax requires some specialized knowledge of zoological nomenclatural rules. (It would be even more obvious to a brachiopodologist.) Thus, I think it ought to go through the due process of an AfD, if only so that the deletion acquires the weight of community consensus and is not based solely on somewhat esoteric knowledge. Danger (talk)

Additional optional question from Malleus Fatuorum

11. What's your general view on civility blocks? Do you think that a very short block (a few seconds or minutes say) can ever be justified?

A: By "civility block" do you mean a block based on incivility? If so, I think that the incivility must be egregious and ongoing such that it is a a currently disruptive force in Wikipedia. The blocking policy uses the term "gross incivility". If I were an uninvolved administrator, I would block the fellow who came to my user talk page and called me a bitch a few times and told me to go fuck myself, if his behavior had continued. Mild incivility, I think, should be noted with warnings to the offending editor. If the editor is persistent in zir poor conduct, but is not significantly impeding the 'pedia, I think an AN/I thread is appropriate. Because incivility is a highly subjective call, I think there should be some discussion before blocks on that basis ought be issued. Civility blocks should issued with care. If a user is merely irritating over the long term, there is no reason to block zir; not everyone's personalities will mesh. Only when the user has a long history of disruption through incivility, say by, driving experienced editors away from articles with subtle but continuous negative insinuations about them should ze be blocked. (For the record, the user I'm thinking about left Wikipedia long ago.)

Under the current block policy, I cannot see a justification for any very short ban. If a user is being disruptive now, they will probably be equally if not more disruptive in 5 minutes when the block expires. I think this conforms with policy against "cool down" blocks. The only cases where short blocks would be justifiable are perfunctory blocks to restore a block record after a user has exercised the right to vanish and when the cat steps on the keyboard (perhaps not justifiable, in that case, but understandable). Danger (talk)

So what would you suggest ought to be done about administrators like the one who issued me with a 10-second block on 11 December 2009? The problem I'm getting at of course is that administrators are given access to all of the tools, not just the ones they express an interest in, or have demonstrated any aptitude for. Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To respond to your edit summary: in short, egregious incivility likely to continue equals block. Mild incivility equals warnings, persistence equals AN/I to determine whether a block is appropriate.

A ten-second bloc is a misuse of the block tool; it does not fall under the parameters of use set out in the blocking policy, as I attempted to explain above. In this particular situation it certainly didn't help matters. I think it's appropriate to ask for an explanation for the block. If the block was actually inappropriate and the behavior on the part of the administrator issuing the dubious block is a one-off, then I think a warning or reminder is an appropriate response. If the behavior is part of a pattern of abuse of the tools, then I think desysopping should be discussed at AN/I. Danger (talk)

I'm sorry to go on about this, but administrators get away with murder so far as blocking is concerned. So, do you see a difference between alleged incivility on article talk pages vs. user talk pages? Would you ever block for incivility (rather than personal attacks) by a user on that user's own talk page? Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference, though a subtle one. Article talk pages are where collaboration on article development takes place. Disruptive incivility there directly interferes building the encyclopedia. Since it is more of a threat, the threshhold for blockable behavior is lower. In their own userspace, I think editors deserve more leeway because it is less of a threat to article development. Incivility on another user's page, walking over and pissing on their rug, if you will, is more egregious than incivility on either article talk or one's own user space because it shows a fundamental disrespect for the other user. (It's the difference between calling someone an asshole on the street and following them home and doing it in their living room.)

In practice though, incivility is almost always spread over several talk pages and infects edit summaries, so these aspects have to be weighed. Therefore, it's not really possible for me to make a solid determination on your second question; it depends on the situation. If an editor's uncivil behavior is limited to their talk page and not egregious incivility, I can't see blocking. Danger (talk)

Very sorry to make this longer. But would it be fair to say that an editor who has been uncivil in response to an unsolicited post on their talk page is entitled to more leeway than elsewhere (within reason, of course)? —WFC— 08:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Within reason, yes. I think of one's userspace as one's front porch or living room; you can't punch people there, but you can smoke. (In real life, I have to leave rooms where people are smoking, which is why this is is apt to me.) But as I said above, unless the incivility is disrupting the operations of the 'pedia (punching people), I can't see unilateral blocking anyway. Danger (talk)

Questions from FASTILY

12. A user takes an image of a map in the public domain they found on the Wikimedia Commons, modifies and updates the map, and then re-uploads the file, releasing it into the public domain. Detail how you would react, if at all?

A: Public domain works have no copyright and thus can be used in any way by anybody, including modification. Depending on the scale of the modifications the user made, they may have created a copyrightable work. (They would hold copyright on the original aspects of the work, although since the work in question is a map, it is unlikely; most aspects of maps cannot be copyrighted because facts cannot be copyrighted.) If they have not created a copyrightable work, then if they have marked the page with {{PD-release}} the license is incorrect. I would contact the uploader to ask about changing it. The end result in this case ends up in the public domain anyway. --Danger (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

13. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.

A: In general, no, because it is theoretically possible to obtain a free image of that person. There are exceptions though. If the article is specifically commenting on that image, it may be used under fair use. (For example, the photograph by Annie Liebovitz of John Lennon and Yoko Ono is used to illustrate a paragraph specifically commenting on that photograph.) If the person's earlier appearance is the topic at hand and no free images are available, a fair use one may be used. If the article is commenting on a group that has disbanded, then a copyrighted image of the group might be used (see The Runaways). The general principle is that if a free image could possible replace a non-free one then the non-free one should not be used. --Danger (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

14. An editor goes to and takes an photo of a copyrighted statue with their own camera. The editor then uploads the image of that copyrighted statue to Wikipedia, claiming it under a free license, because after all, the photo was taken by the editor. Detail how you would react, if at all.

A: In general, the copyright of photographs of copyrighted statues is not held by the photographer, thus the image should be deleted under F9 as unambiguous copyright infringement. However, in some cases freedom of panorama would allow photographs of a statue placed permanently in a public place to be copyrighted by the photographer. If the statue in question clearly fell into that category, I would check the relevant legislation before acting, and if the statue and image qualified under freedom of panorama laws I would go on my merry way. --Danger (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

15. As a rule of thumb, images from Google Maps are generally prohibited on Wikipedia. Why? Explain in detail.

A: Because Google Maps owns the copyright to all Google Maps images, any use on Wikipedia would have to be under fair use. Using Google Maps images as maps does not fall under fair use because it is possible to procure maps of any given place from either the public domain or with a license compatible with Wikipedia's. In special cases images from Google Maps may be used under fair use to provide critical commentary on features specific to Google Maps that could not be found in a more free image. --Danger (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Mkativerata

16. Will you consider yourself an involved administrator in respect of articles related to Tibet (or a similarly defined topic area)?

A: I will. At any rate, I haven't edited Tibet-related articles significantly in about two years and I have no interest in clambering back into that particular morass either as an editor or an administrator. I have plenty of more enjoyable options than involving myself in nationalistic conflict, like chewing on broken glass or clipping my cat's nails. --Danger (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Gimme danger: Gimme danger (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Gimme danger can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• This is an awful lot of questions for just the first day of an RfA. —Soap— 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Danger, I find your answer to question one to be rather vague; just where exactly do you intend to do administrative work? I'm considering opposing you at this point because you have not made it clear how the tools would benefit both you and the project. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, I've clarified my answer to question one; I hope it allays your concerns.

I'm sorry, maybe I was not clear up above; allow me to clarify my question. I'd like to know which specific administrative areas (list them out - e.g. WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD) or backlogs you wish to work in. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Clearing the backlog of files with the same name on Commons seems like a good project. I was deliberately vague because I am happy to clear any backlog if asked to do so, but that's the one I have my eye on. --Danger (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So you want to work with images eh? See above please. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Impressive. Very few editors can correctly answer the questions I posed above. I'll admit I was concerned when you indicated administrative interest in media files/copyright with only four edits' worth of experience in the file namespace, but now it's quite evident that you either have much experience or are just a beast at researching. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Looks to me like a fine candidate. – Athaenara ✉ 11:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
2. Support I like this editor, Danger is helpful, some involvement in adoption, good to know about the help desk involvement. I think im paticularily impressed with the way Danger handled the event when a new editor tried to scold him for adding a welcome template. Danger effectively calmed the user and with good and appropriate humour diffused the situation. I have no doubt that Danger will be a fine admin, good natured, experinced and helpful. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Support. Taking a browse through the contribution history shows helpful activity in a wide variety of areas, and no red flags that I could find. A clean block log and constructive comments on AfDs and talk pages suggests the good temperament required for the job. 28bytes (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Answers to questions four and five show an understanding of policy, so I support this nomination. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
5. Support A fine candidate. No issues here.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 17:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
6. Support. Experienced user, hardworking, and helpful. No reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. I particularly liked his/her answers to the first 2 questions, which indicate a general proclivity towards repetitive janitorial work; the type of user that tirelessly clears entire backlogs with speed and efficiency, something Wikipedia definitely benefits from. -- œ^™ 17:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
7. Support. I checked the past thousand or so edits. Seems an honest and worthy admin candidate. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

   Checked Gimme Danger's edits further down the line. That, plus the answers above (Not only am I perfectly satisfied with the answers the editor has provided to my questions, but I'm also more amazed at the editor's answers in response to Fastily's questions - the answers are beyond impressive); these assure me that in this editor here, we have one of the astutest admin-incumbents around. If an editor can read up thus and place the read material in such an appropriate context, as is proven through the answers above (and to the opposing bench below), this editor then is one of the most intelligent and civil editors I've come around while reviewing RfA prospects. Trustworthy, diligent, judicious, with as few follies as should there be in a future administrator. Gimme Danger, I look forward quite eagerly to have you with us in the admin-corps. Best wishes. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

8. Support Fine with me. Good answers to the questions so far. ThemFromSpace 17:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
9. Support per the fine people above. I don't think that they could have said it any better. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
10. Support longterm user with a cleanblock log and a nice mix of contributions. BrownHairedGirl makes a very valid point, but going through a fairly large sample of the users deletion tagging I feel comfortable with Gimme danger having the deletion button, though I'm sure they won't forget BHG's point. Danger is not currently a Rollbacker, but on the basis of the vandal reversion that I've seen them do I'm happy on that front as well. ϢereSpielChequers 20:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
11. Strong Support I would have offered to nomination Danger for adminship had we discussed it. I have encounter many of Danger's edits related to WikiProject Wisconsin over the past several years. I am very impressed with the quality of all of their edits. Danger has show a lot of dedication to the project and Wikipedia will benefit from another trustworthy person added to the admin corps. Royalbroil 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
12. Support There aren't any problems with him. WAYNESLAM 23:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
13. Support Good overall user, I see no issues Peter.C • talk 01:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
14. Unlike DGG, I was very impressed with the answer to question 6; it showed that GD respects our verifiability policy and understands the underlying point behind the notability guidelines. A check of GD's contributions looks fine (I especially liked reading Jane S. Richardson!). Seems fine to me. NW (Talk) 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
15. Support – Years of great work. The mop would help. —mc10 (t/c) 04:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
16. Support The candidate has shown a willingness to do grunt work (e.g. putting assessments on talk pages of Project Wisconsin articles); that — along with ample experience, trustworthiness and a sound understanding of Wikipedia's policies — should make him/her a fine sysop. I have to agree with the opposers, however, that s/he did fumble the ball on Question 6.--Hokeman (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
17. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. Seems like this would be a fine candidate. --rogerd (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
18. Support- BHG's oppose gave me pause, but in the end I think the candidate will use the tools responsibly and correctly. Reyk _YO! 06:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
19. Support User has been around since 2006 feel the project only gains with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
20. Per above. One two three... 09:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
21. Yup. This support is based on assessing the candidate's contributions. I see that it's possible to catch this candidate out by asking a series of increasingly technical questions that tie them in knots, but I also see that as a non-issue. In the real world this candidate has sensitivity and clue.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
22. Support - No doubt that you'd do well with the mop. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
23. Weak Support. I think there is more to suggest that this candidate is able to learn "on the job" and will not wreak havoc with the admin tools, thus meaning that it's more likely a net positive to grant them the tools than a net negative. I make this support "weak" because I do acknowledge BrownHairedGirl's and DGG's concerns in the oppose section and I urge the candidate to reflect on those concerns if this request is indeed successful. That said, I still think that in the end, it's more likely that the candidate will be a good admin than a bad one and as such I'm willing to give them a chance to prove it. Regards SoWhy 16:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
24. Support Only positive points here, unless we really start nitpicking, which is unnecessary as it's only an admin, not the president. AD 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
25. Support Long term contributor, a net positive. E. Fokker (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
26. ¡Dame Peligro! Seems to be a good editor, and that's groovy. Diego Grez (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
27. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
28. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I see that the candidate is responding to the opposers' concerns (in the sense, not of badgering, but of acknowledging and engaging with them), but after considering those concerns I do not find them sufficiently troubling to affect my !vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
29. Support - Candidate appears qualified, and bizarre distribution of edits does not appear to be an issue in my opinion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
30. Support Oppose concerns are marginal; any errors in policy knowledge can be corrected, he can learn. His heart's in the right place, as far as I can see, and he appears qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
31. Support I have no problem with the answer to Q6. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
32. Support I'm quite troubled by recent arguments that candidates need to be article writers in order to properly represent those who are. RFA is not about electing representatives... this site is not a parliament. Admins are not supposed to represent anybody. The question should simple be whether the candidate has demonstrated that he will use the tools responsibly. I believe he has. Acer (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
33. Support. Despite having made a whopping total of four edits to the file namespace, someone is clearly overqualified for media file work. On a side note, a better answer to 12 would have been "nothing", but the response you provided works too. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

    If it makes you feel any better, my initial answer was "Toss the cat off of my desk, because I would be doing that anyway". --Danger (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

34. The opposes based on answers to questions are generally about minor issues. The notability subguideline issue in q6 is the only one that I think is anything close to "wrong". The rollback/revert conflation in q7 has been adequately explained by the candidate. DGG's identification of question 9 as a problem is puzzling for me. I think the answer is fine. I'm comfortable with giving the candidate a broad set of admin tools. Any concerns I'd have about narrow experience were hit out of the park by some of the answers to questions. Those answers include the answers to questions 12-15 which show unusual knowledge of, and likely competence in, an area in which the candidate doesn't appear to have been active at all. Other answers are also good. I accept the candidate's explanation for the sourcing of the Richardson article -- see the response to SandyGeorgia's oppose -- inconsistent with best practice as it is. The positives for me include a demonstrated willingness to work backlogs. Working backlogs generally involve the least controversial use of tools. I think the candidate is sufficiently experienced, qualified and capable, as demonstrated by the record and responses to questions and concerns in this RfA.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
35. Support Your head isn't up your arse, you have a solid A- understanding of policy, and you survived a trial by fire that proves, at the very least, that you can maintain sanity under pressure. Not the best I've ever supported, but adminship is "no big deal" so you'll be fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
36. Per Mkativerata. - Dank (push to talk) 05:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
37. Support. Hasn't broken anything in 4 years, answers show a good head on his shoulder, wants to help with gnomish tasks that need the admin bit, seems to know more than many about images - what's not to like? The 2 main oppose reasons listed thus far seem to be a) apparently took a wrong turn through the maze of policies in answering Q6, and b) not enough of a content creator. On a), I say "meh"; I will take clue and sensibleness over knowing the alphabet soup just right anytime. On b), I might be concerned if otherwise a lacklustre candidate; but clue wins. Martinp (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
38. Support His record convinced me that he is trustworthy enough for adminship. Hobartimus (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
39. Support. This is one I had to mull over a lot. Unlike some of the opposes who consider the explanations of a world view based on mathematics and mathematical terminology, I find that a particularly strong point. I believe this editor would bring a refreshingly different worldview as an administrator to the project. In the editing record I see a steady hand, an honest individual, and a motivated editor. Elitist perfection for adminship is not one of my requirements for support. This nomination should be absolutely no big deal. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
40. Support – no problems here. Perseus, Son of Zeus 16:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
41. Support. I originally wondered if the candidate has misunderstood notability, based on Q6, but reading it again I'm satisfied that's not the case. I think the answer was really suggesting that someone who failed GNG or BASIC would be unlikely to verifiably satisfy any of the specific notability criteria either - and I think that's largely true. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
42. I have minor issues with the answers to some of the questions, but a review of the last 6 months edits show nothing that would make me oppose. -Atmoz (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
43. Support Gimme Danger has down excellent work with WikiProject Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
44. Support - I see no problem here. Deb (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
45. Support - Some quality answers to the questions, needed a couple of nudges to get there in a couple but hypothetical queries can be vague, and- as per User:Fastily's comments regarding the answers to his media questions and Dangers calm and intelligent responses throughout this process. Limited work in some areas but a very helpful and clue-full contributor, from what I see here and in his contributions, I trust him to take his time. Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
46. Support. Long length of service without problems that I can find, and I've seen this user around and find them to be intelligent and reasonable. I'm afraid the questions to the candidate here have become a textbook example of RfA overkill, and the candidate's answers strike me as level-headed and reasonable nonetheless. I've looked carefully at the opposes up to this time, and I'd like to try to explain in detail why I find them unconvincing. One substantive concern centers around supposedly "wrong" (or slow) answers to questions. It's been observed recently at WT:RFA that questions can become a sort of battleground for editors who have strong opinions about disputed areas of policy, with questions to which any answer the candidate can possibly give can be seized upon as evidence of being on the wrong side of something that, in fact, is still being debated elsewhere. That's what I see here. I've read all of the candidate's answers, and I find nothing that demonstrates wrong thinking about policy or a desire to subvert consensus, only things where some editors have pet views that weren't immediately parroted by the candidate, and are being construed as misunderstanding policy. The candidate's civility in the face of this is exactly what a good administrator would do. The other substantive issue concerns the lack of content experience. It seems to me that it can be a problem if a candidate is unable to demonstrate that they know how to navigate complex matters of disagreement over content, and I'm willing to oppose on that basis. But let's not overlook the fact that it is possible to demonstrate that ability in other ways. I've noted the long edit history without blocks and the calm demeanor during this RfA. At the risk of over-focusing on a single diff, let me point to this one from my watchlist: [1], which shows a good ability to get the information right. The opposes have shown me a lot of failures to jump through meaningless hoops, but nothing that would indicate misuse of the tools. (Parenthetically, I'd also like to compliment the candidate on not revealing their gender, a practice that I too attempt to follow. It's not a substantive reason to support or oppose an RfA, but I just wanted to say that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
47. Support Questions were largely answered well, a few minor issues, but certainly nothing to keep me from supporting. Contributions show they they appear to be a sensible and rational person, and can handle adminship well. With regards to Malleus Fatuorum's oppose, for in general I share his concerns, I think I can trust that the candidate will take the time to figure out what they're doing and act within reason when working in areas they aren't familiar with. C628 (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
48. Support I have read the opposers' reason. They are valid. (Prefer to see specific details in areas he the candidate would work in Q1, not general comments about backlogs). But after weighing up with the benefits of long consistent track record and varied experiences. He's The candidate is ripe for the mop (net positive) but will need to be on training wheels for a while to get up to speed in areas such as WP:AIV and other areas.--Visik (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
49. Support. Appears to be knowledgeable, good answers to the interrogation, and a brief look at random bits of edit history reveals nothing bad. I think this candidate can be trusted with the tools and put them to good use. However, I'm concerned that so many !voters have used the term "He" &c despite the candidate's earlier request concerning gendered pronouns... bobrayner (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
50. Support Could not have been more impressed with the answers to fastily's questions. As Fastily rightly notes you are either totally on top of image related policy / copyright issues or you are a demon at researching the correct process; either of these is good enough for a thumbs up from me. I can only assume that your policy knowledge in all areas will be the same (you know it, or you know where to find it). Pedro :  Chat  11:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
51. Support Deserves their own mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 13:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
52. Support Good answers to a lot of tough questions that most RfA candidates don't have to deal with. —Soap— 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
53. supportharmless with a useful degree of resistance to being prodded.©Geni 22:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
54. Support a far better than average candidate, who fielded some tough questions very well. It is clear he understands the WP:N and WP:V. I absolutely cannot understand the objections -- everyone has a slightly different take on rules, policies and this candidate's views are very reasonable and logical.KeptSouth (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
55. Support. Per Newyorkbrad + my own review of the opposes not being strong enough. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
56. Support—since this RfA came to my attention, I have been leaning towards support. I have seen Danger's name during my time here from time to time for quite a while now, and they have clearly demonstrated that they know what they are doing and are here to help out. What motivated me to support even more was their commendable handling of this request. Best of luck, Airplaneman ✈ 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
57. Support Another RfA candidate who knows exactly where their strengths are and how best to apply those strengths to improving Wikipedia. Sidenote, I've had to make a more-than-casual study of copyright law, and I wouldn't have even attempted to answer Fastily's questions without a copyright-law text in front of me. Anyone with that much gorm deserves the mop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
58. Support - I am rarely compelled to !vote in RfAs of people I have not seen around the wiki, but the poise shown by Danger in this RfA combined with excellent answers to Fastily's questions have swayed me to support. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
59. Support See no reasons not to trust user with a mop. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 03:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
60. Support if for no other reason for the remarkable equanimity (if that's the actual word i want) Danger has demonstrated in this RfA; i like his willingness to explain, to open up his editing philosophy, without either feeling badgered by or badgering opposers; in addition, i find the opposes insufficient in their reasons to convince me. I simply urge Danger to continue with this level-headed approach if/when he becomes an admin. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
61. Support While there are, as stated below, minor blemishes in this candidate's answers, they are overall among the best that I can recall seeing at an RfA. The answers to Fastily are seriously compelling. As NYB correctly points out, it is virtually impossible for an admin to have read, remembered and applied all of the range of policies and guidelines here. A good admin will therefore work in areas where s/he feels comfortable, and it is our job to decide, on the basis of answers given and on editing history, if a candidate can be trusted to do so. I feel that this candidate can be so trusted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
62. Support for the many questions you had to answer, and that you did, well. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
63. Support Seems to have the knowledge and experience required for the job. SnottyWong ^chatter 19:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
64. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
65. Support Looks like a fine candidate. Likeminas (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
66. Support He looks good to me. The opposes aren't entirely convincing. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
67. Support. Familiar name with all positive associations. Best of luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
68. Support - I'm pretty satisfied with the answers this candidate provided to the many questions asked. Overall a net positive. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
69. Impressive answers to most questions, especially those regarding copyright. Overall, a strong candidate. —Dark 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
70. Support - A top notch editor who I'm sure will make an excellent admin. Kaldari (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
71. Stong support per NYB and Wifione. The opposition is unconvincing. The answers to the questions were fantastic for someone who has no experience administrating the project. If you see flaws in logic, remember that we learn on the job. I am interpreting several oppositions to read as though Danger should have already been through the new admin hazing by the community when doing the job. This is requests for adminiship, not administrator review. Keegan (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
72. Support - Actually, the candidate only barely, if at all, passes my own criteria: too many auto edits, too little substantial own creations/major edits in article space, no interest in the RfA system. The list goes on, but on the basis of trust, the candidate has mine, and has adequately demonstrated more than sufficient patience and dedication in the onslaught of far too many pile-on subtle, and trick questions, and opposition diatribes. I wholly share Keegan's comments above, too.--Kudpung (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
73. SupportQuarl ^(talk) 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
74. Support - The opposes are very unconvincing. Unlike what everyone else seems to think, the user's answer to Q1 is perfectly satisfactory, in my opinion. Answers to Fastily's questions show obvious "clue"/knowledge. No problems. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
75. Support - per Kudpung, it's a matter of trust, and this candidate's answers to questions has earned mine. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
76. Support - great candidate. Knows the place well, and will make fine use of the tools. Orphan Wiki 03:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
77. Support: Good luck. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per answer to question 6, which suggest that the candidate did not read WP:BASIC#Additional_criteria before replying. That's particularly odd because in reply to question 6 GD wrote "I would work while rereading the appropriate policy, which is how I do pretty much everything except grammar editing".
   I would not usually oppose a candidate on the basis of one misunderstanding of policy or guidelines, but this one is serious because it could lead to the wholesale deletion of stub- or start-class articles on people for whom notability per WP:GNG may be demonstrated only through research in specialist (possibly offline) sources which may not be accessible to general participants at AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

   I think I should explain that I approached that particular question from a philosophical standpoint and took the failure of GNG and BASIC as a given. As in, assuming perfect knowledge that an article does not meet GNG, could it have a place on Wikipedia. In practice, I believe in cleaving to community guidelines and in the value of the specific notability criteria; if presented with a subject that appears to fail the GNG but meets a specific notability guideline, I would not push the red button, so to speak. --Danger (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reply, but that doesn't persuade me. Perfect knowledge is not something we should ever assume: all we scan do is to work with the knowledge we have, having done our best to try to learn what we can. I note your support of the specific notability guidelines once that was pointed out, but regardless of what to make of that answer, the whole perfect knowledge thing puts me right off. Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth, and our ability to verify may fall far short of the truth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   That's fair. I can see how that wording would be off-putting. I use "assume" in the sense of a mathematical proof, where we assume that givens are true, regardless of whether they are true in the real world. So in my mind, the question was based in an ideal world. (Unfortunately, I have not yet been cured of that mathematical training.) From that perspective, my perspective, the question was very much like asking "given a polygon with 4 edges, is it a triangle?" In the real world, one of the edges might have a length so negligible as to make the shape a triangle, so the answer is only obvious in that idealized environment. I should have understood that my wikiphilosophy is not at issue, but my ability to use the tools without blowing things up is. --Danger (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, but my warning light is glowing stronger. Wikipedia is a complex and sometimes a bit self-contradictory web of compromises between various ideals, and the idea of someone is approaching it with the pure logic of abstract mathematics seems to me to be a recipe for big, big trouble if they have access to the buttons.

   We have an ideal of an encyclopedia which can anyone can edit, but hard knocks of reality have shown us that some people screw up it and need to be shown the door, that sometimes things get heated and we need to put an article in a locked case by fully protecting it, and that letting unregistered editors create new articles invited all sorts of high-profile trouble which could seriously damage (or even sink) the whole project. The ideal has had to be trimmed so that the ship can stay afloat, and while it would be logically neat to stick to a pure position, we've found out the hard way that in an imperfect world we can't quite mange 100% purity.

   Same with notability. You set out a purist abstract position, but the hard reality is that in some specialised cases the community has decided that it is best to postpone the purist notability test until some specialist researcher does the work a generalist can't do. In some cases we accept that not enough may ever known about a topic to fully pass our notability test, but that nonetheless it's better to complete the set (e.g. winners of a high level sporting competition or members of a parliament) by allowing a few articles where the best we can do is verify facts without establishing notability. You're probably right that this is logically flawed; but you missed the central point that these logical flaws exist in many places across wikipedia as we experiment with ways to reconcile ideals which sometimes conflict.

   I know you were thinking out loud, but this approach still worries me. Adminship is a sort of power, and after doing the job for more than 4 years, I'm pretty sure that it's like real-world power: something to be applied in a murky world of competing truths, with a clear understanding that most of the time we are faced with a search for the least-worst option rather than for the perfect one. In the real world, much well-intentioned havoc is wrought by people who think that their power can be exercised by the application of purist logic, and I have seen the same thing happen on wikipedia. With the question that sparked this off, you had the chance to take some time to answer, but you still well down the wrong path; if you're making a practical decision under pressure, I don't see that you'll be more likely to forsake the purist logic. Even in your reply to DGG's supplementary you say of the subject-notability guidelines that "they seemed superfluous from my standpoint". I'd be a lot less worried if you just said you'd screwed up that answer, but I just see more pure logic :(

   I have reviewed the above before posting, and I know it sounds harsh; sorry, but I have not yet found another way of putting it all. You're clearly committed to wikipedia, and civil, and seem to have a good track record as an editor, and I am quite sure that you act with very good intentions. But I think that as an admin, your over-reliance on dry logic will lead to trouble. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   I guess all I can say is that I do pure math, where everything is abstraction, and I do organismal biology, where everything is an exception, although there are exceptions to that as well. Most of my work, in assessment and categorization, is the application of broad classification guidelines to articles which never fall nicely into those categories. When dealing with controversial topics about which I personally have strong opinions, I have been able to combine a devotion to neutrality with an understanding that perfect neutrality is impossible. I think that I have shown through that work that I am comfortable with ambiguity and am able to apply principles in the real world and I regret that I was unable to convey that. --Danger (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   Danger, I believe someone can fail GNG and BASIC, even in the omniscient sense you mention to BrownHairedGirl, and still meet notability for a biography through exceptions such as holding a named chair at an accredited university according to WP:ACADEMIC criteria 5, for example.

   The fact that you were mistaken isn't a red flag for me; everyone makes mistakes. The fact that you try to defend your answer to BrownHairedGirl, rather than look up the special criteria for biographies and admit to a mistake, is a red flag. Too many administrators think they can do no wrong just because they are administrators. We need more administrators who will admit it when they are mistaken.

   Warren Dew (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   I addressed the exceptions in WP:ACADEMIC in my response to DGG's additional question, at the end of my first paragraph. While I do not believe that such exceptions are acceptable in light of verifiability, that is a personal opinion. I have no interest in contravening the community consensus represented by the guideline. Consensus is more important than my personal opinions, even those about Wikipedia. [2] I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, I'm just not convinced I'm wrong in this instance. --Danger (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose on the basic of apparently unsatisfactory answers to qys. 6, 7,9. I've tried to clarify this by some supplemental questions there. My feeling is the candidate means well, but does not yet understand some key policies that govern administrative action. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

   If I may ask, what part of my answer to question 9 was unsatisfactory? You did not ask a supplemental question for that question. --Danger (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   your further explanation is satisfactory, though you should have given it in the first place, without needing guidance from me. My questions were not intended just to oppose, but to clarify what you did know and what you did not--for this one, you did know. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   I was asked to clarify whether I was withdrawing my oppose. Quite the opposite: the further discussion since I gave my oppose has confirmed what I thought: the candidate has not the slightest idea of the difference between WP:N and WP:V, and thinks WP:N a mere consequence of WP:V. Unless he means to say that only some of the topics that meet WP:V also meet WP:N, I don't even understand it. The use of the GNG in AfD debates is the exception, not the rule--most controversial AfDs involve discussion of the various provisions of NOT or BLP, all of which have no exact boundaries. And though I don't think he would necessarily close in a deletionist way, just close improperly on inappropriate criteria and inadequate judgment in whatever direction, one of the very most deletionist of all of us has encouraged him to close as many contentious AfDs as possible. And I see no reason he'll use better judgment elsewhere. And I certainly don't think he'll give adequate explanations, either initially, or when people inquire. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose per BHG and DGG, though fairly weakly. Partly on Q6 but also on a few other stumbles out of the gate (q7, q1 a bit, etc.) More a case of NOTNOW then NOTEVER. Just learn a bit more first. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   Reading through answers on images and the like, my worries about policy knowledge have been reduced. I don't think I can support but due to Q6, but I'll not oppose. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose per BHG and DGG, and on checking your DYK, Jane S. Richardson, I don't find any close paraphrasing concerns, but I do find several instances of text that you added that is not supported by the cited sources. I've updated a dead link from the version you last updated at January 2009, compared the new source links to the June 2008 version you mostly created for the June 7 2008 DYK, and cannot verify all of the text, some of which is still in the article. I'm unable to determine the source for this text: "While attending high school in 1958, she won third place in the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, the most prestigious science fair in the United States, with calculations of the satellite Sputnik's orbit from her own observations." Neither of these sources (p.5) seem to mention third place. This reinforces DGG and BHG's concerns that you may not understand key policies (certainly, we all learn and improve as we edit, and that DYK is two years old, but before putting forward an example of the work one is proudest of at RFA, one might check that work and make sure it's up to snuff). I've also found this RFA hard to follow, since you have failed to sign some of your posts here, making it harder to know who said what; diligence, thoroughness and double checking your work are important qualities for an admin, and you really should put your best foot forward at RFA. I do think you're a well-meaning and hard-working editor, and wish you the best! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   The source that identifies the place that she won is Women in Chemistry. When I was writing, the fact that none of the articles were comprehensive gave me trouble; rather than put several citations on each sentence, I opted for what I felt was the most relevant one on each sentence. Every fact in the article as of when I finished writing is in at least one of the sources. I would have not written it like that in 2011, now that I understand sourcing standards better. I take your point that I ought to have cleaned up my house before inviting everyone in, so to speak.

   I'm sorry for the confusion in the question section. I interpreted it as a questionaire, not a discussion and thus figure any text would be obviously mine, but clearly I was wrong. I've added undated signatures at the end of my posts to make it easier to read and will sign everything from now on. --Danger (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   Gimme danger, thanks for the response, and I've been most impressed by your composure and tone in responding to the issues raised here, and your willingness to work in media, an area lacking in admins. But evidence continues to surface that you just don't know enough about the fundamentals of Wiki yet (per DGG's followup and the quality of the stubs pointed out by Wifione). I like what I've seen from you in temperament and dedication and longevity, although your editing history is a bit spotty, so if you were to work more diligently in article space and demonstrating competency in other areas of Wiki, and return in six months, I'd likely support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Warren Dew. I wasn't too bothered by misundestandings of policy or any of the other opposes, but Warren Dew makes an excellent point of which this candidate has not demonstrated. Administrators are regular editors too who need to be able to admit mistakes and not try digging themselves out.--v/r - TP 20:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose. Those who do not participate in project space ought not to be given authority over those who do. If it were possible to hand out the subset of the tools the candidate requires to carry out those tasks (s)he is interested in then it would be a different matter. But it isn't, and administrators have developed a habit of moving into areas they have no knowledge of and accreting additional powers to themselves. None of this would be much of a problem if it were easier to remove incompetent or abusive administrators, but that's clearly a dead duck. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   The candidate has apparently created eleven rather iffy stubs, so clearly my concerns about content creation are unwarranted. Malleus Fatuorum

5. Oppose (+1 (edit conflict))- Per Brown Haired Girl (#1) and Malleus Fatuorum (#6) - Per BHG, WP:BASIC was missed, and as my late Grandfather used to say - "Read everything before you do anything." - Also, re-reading policy while editing on the fly doesn't seem like a good idea. Per Malleus, I agree entirely that if you don't participate in a particular area of the project, you shouldn't be able to control those who do. What you don't understand, and don't use, you don't work in. Sorry, no go. BarkingFish 20:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   Not to badger, but I find this oppose puzzling. No one participates in every area of the project, and since adminship is (as Malleus correctly notes just above) conferred as a whole, theoretically your position would imply that no one is qualified to be an administrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   I think that's not the key issue, NYB. The project has poor writing. Just look at it. It's below what you expect of interoffice memoranda or briefs or the like. Should we put in power moderators that are not content creation savvy? It's like having an editor who was never a journalist or a partner in a law firm who had no JD. And it's not just a social thing, but one of understanding the nature of what is done and the importance of it and what goes on in the craft. You can say sure, why not have a manager who is just a manager. But I think in reality there are downsides to that approach. Or at least it's possible that in WP, there are downsides to that approach. It's at least a debatable position and not the same as your reductio ad absurdum or whatever (IANAL). Heck, maybe if the moderators here were a little more editorially and research savvy, they'd be able to reign in the Gianos and Mallueas's with a little defusing remarks instead of banning them. And if this seems "unfair" to those that don't want to write...well...the Navy doesn't let supply officers rise to command ships either. (I'm not even arguing the position per se, just floating it as an idea.)TCO (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   Or alternatively it could imply that the concept of "administrator" is fatally flawed. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   I would ask for your idea of a better system to replace it, but this isn't the place for that. Perhaps we can at least agree that any flaws in the very concept of adminship are not the candidate's fault. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   Neither are they my fault. The candidate is asking for rights (s)he has shown no knowledge of how to use. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   Newyorkbrad, would you let someone loose in a JCB just because they had a learners driving license? I doubt it very much. Similarly, why would you let someone control areas of Wikipedia they don't understand just because they have the powers to do so? As I said before, if you don't understand it, you shouldn't be able to control it. BarkingFish 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   BarkingFish, I myself haven't read and understood and applied the policies and guidelines relevant to each and every area of the sprawling, complicated project that is Wikipedia, and I've been an administrator for four years. (Geez, tempis fugit.) The important point is that the candidate be familiar with a reasonable number of the most important areas, and not express interest in specializing in areas at this point with which he is not currently familiar. I repeat my point that if your position is taken literally, there is not a single Wikipedian qualified to be an administrator, which I submit is not the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   One might well be tempted to argue that it is indeed the case that a significant number of the present administrator cadre are unqualified, but because it's effectively a job for life – and even beyond life bizarrely – there's very little that can be done about that except try to ensure that fewer unqualified candidates are promoted in the future. But your observation that so many administrators are unfamiliar (all according to you) with the correct use of their powers simply reinforces my point that the administrator concept is fatally flawed. There are however core areas centering on content production and the treatment of other editors that every administrator ought to be familiar with, and that this candidate seems to be struggling with a little. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   While I hate to get in the way of a good argument, I am troubled by your concern that I am struggling with the treatment of other editors, since that is a priority to me. Could you please explain what you meant by that so that I can change my behavior if necessary? --Danger (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   I didn't say there was anything wrong with your treatment of other editors, but as you've done relatively little content work there's not much evidence to go on. When you're CSD tagging, vandal whacking, or opining at AfD you're adopting an authority role to some degree, but when you're working with other editors on a potentially contentious article you have to be a lot more colegial in moving towards some common ground. I'm not saying that you're not collegial, just that there's very little evidence to go on. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   Take a tour through the candidate's edits on the Tibet-related talk pages. All of the comments I saw there (I sampled a couple dozen) seemed to be exactly that: collegial editing on a contentious article. Of course, YMMV. 28bytes (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   I said "very little evidence", not "no evidence". Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, the reason I read as I work is because, no matter how many times I read the policies, it is helpful to be reminded of the details and nuances that might surround the specific task I'm completing. (Every 50 or so articles, for example, I review the quality assessment rankings to make sure that my assessments are in line with them.) Also for what it's worth, my initial major contributions to the 'pedia, were an attempt to rewrite the Buddhism article from August to October-ish 2007. Many of those edits were deleted because I made them on a userspace copy. This is when I discovered that I'm actually not very good at writing articles. (It could be that starting out with Buddhism of all things, made me afraid of writing, too. If I could do it all over again... ) I truly want to be a janitor; I do the work that would be a waste of the time and talents of people who are actually good at writing. --Danger (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose A third of his edits are automated as well as insufficient quality content creation. Someone65 (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, could you explain why you believe 33% automated edits is a bad thing? Do you think that's too high for an admin candidate? Too low? What do you believe would be a good number of automated edits for a candidate who has over 13,000 non-automated edits, as this candidate has? 28bytes (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   These opposes have no logic. Why does the number of automated edits effect how a candidate will be an admin? It doesn't!...plus, they are all Twinkle...would you rather the user manually post talk page warnings/nom AfDs/speedy deletion, etc. CTJF83 chat 01:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose per BHG and DGG. There's some positive stuff, but the fact that he/she needed prompting on a few key questions before coming out with the full answer is a bit off-putting. Especially on question 6 where he/she continued to argue the point and, in my view, made things worse. Low involvement in project space is also a concern for an admin candidate.--Korruski^Talk 09:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   That last bit should be a plus, should it not? NW (Talk) 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   I wouldn't have thought so? The projectspace includes WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:AIV, WP:AfD, etc. Those all rely on administrators to run smoothly. Having no interest/understanding of those is an off-putting trait in an admin candidate.--Korruski^Talk 17:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   I was an admin for over a year before I turned in my tools, and my experience was that some of the best administrators I ever worked with had either no experience in the projectspace but did have clue and so could easily adapt, or had no interest in working in projectspace but still worked very well in other areas. Some of the worst administrators on the other hand were ones who spend the majority of their time in projectspace—I myself was probably one of those, and it was a big reason why I stepped down.

   Gimme danger hardly has no understanding of the areas—just look at his answers to the questions above. Does that look like someone without a clue or someone who isn't willing to research before making a move? NW (Talk) 18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   My view is that projectspace is too important to gaining an appreciation of how Wikipedia runs 'behind the scenes' to make up such a small proportion of a candidates edits. I'm grateful for your views on admins, but I am afraid I can only support or oppose based on my experience and opinions, and not on yours.--Korruski^Talk 19:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   I wasn't trying to say that your view was worthless or anything. I just was saying that you have only made about 1300 edits to the encyclopedia and have never been an administrator. That doesn't disqualify you from opining by any standard, but in reality, what makes a good administrator is very different from what you want candidates to be. NW (Talk) 19:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   I totally realise you weren't. My point was just that it would be a nonsense for me to vote based on someone else's experience and opinion. If I did that - what would be the point in me voting at all? If my low number of edits makes my opinion less useful, then I trust that the closing 'crat will take that into account. Alternatively, if you believe that people with low numbers of edits are insufficiently qualified to vote in RFAs, then I can only suggest that policy needs to be changed. Until then, I respectfully listen to your opinion and thank you for taking the time to explain it, but note that it is based on a personal experience that I do not share, and that I therefore can't really be expected to change my mind on that basis.--Korruski^Talk 09:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

8. Oppose. I couldn't disagree more with opposing based on arbitrary criteria about "automated" edits. However, I have fundamental concerns about Q1. I can't trust someone who won't tell the community what they want to do with the bit—it would seem to suggest that either they don't know what administrators do or that they have something to hide. If you could tell us what you plan to do with the mop, I might reconsider. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   I respectfully ask that you read the discussion between Fastily and I here. --Danger (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

9. Oppose. I have clicked on the 11 articles he started and most are extremely tiny stubs or categories in sheeps clothing. One was a really cool topic about seafoam and he had a great source, but still only got a sentence down. One about a film with some length to it, had mostly been developed by others. I think the fellow is capable of content creation. He has the IQ. He just needs to find it important, experience it, etc. The project needs better writing and content. What we have right now is not the right standard. I'm not asking for a Ph.D. thesis from the fellow. Maybe a Masters or a coupla B.S.s  ;-) (Still seems like a cool dude and liked his answers to questions, but he needs to WRITE AN ARTICLE!) TCO (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
10. Oppose, for now. There's obviously a lot to like here: the volume and bredth of your experience, clean block log, effective use of edit summaries and a sense of humour. I feel like your answers to the questions are (by-and-large) pretty good, particularly your responses to Fastily's questions, and I also like the manner with which you have dealt with the above opposes. However, I'm afraid have some queries about your speedy deletion work. I have reviewed a number of your taggings from the past year and found a couple that don't sit well with me.
    As a general comment, I feel you have too great a preference for the A7 criterion. Usually, this leads to you using the A7 tag where G2 (obvious test article) might be more appropriate (like Louise corrigan and Emery snow), but I accept that this can be a matter of personal preference, and for the most part, this doesn't do any damage. More concerning, however, is your tagging of Abigail louthan (an obvious attack article) and Brick Line (which makes unreferenced allegations of criminal activity) as A7 where they should clearly have been tagged as G10. I am also a little concerned by the speed of your taggings. You have tagged a number of good-faith articles for deletion within minutes of creation, including the tagging of The life and times of Joanna Minter and Koomochi as A3 (no content) within 7 and 3 minutes of their creation, respectively.
    Now granted, most of these problems are from mid-2010, but you haven't done much tagging since then, and so we have no indication of any improvement. Seeing as you have indicated that you may work on CSD backlogs, I'm afraid I'm not sufficently comfortable with your accuracy in this area to support. I'm open to being convinced, though.  -- Lear's Fool 11:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

    As a note, if any other admin wants to restore the pages I've linked to above (other than the attack pages, obviously), please do so. I'm still getting a feel for the tools.  -- Lear's Fool 11:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

    My CSD tagging really dropped off when I started doing NPP (in the rare cases I do it) from the back of the patrolled log. If you'd like I would happily either do some NPP before close and log the pages or answer a series of hypothetical speedies.--Danger (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

11. Oppose. Gimme danger's strong viewpoints on Tibet-related articles show that he is unable to be (or be perceived to be) a fair adjuciator or applier of the tools on at least that topic, and his edits in the Tibet-related field show a misunderstanding of, or a bending of policy towards activist ends.

    On article talk pages, Gimme danger has indulged in soapboxing and a victim mentality together with activist editors complaining that "history is always written by the winners". He has assigned himself the job of "watching Tibet-related articles to keep PRC propaganda from leaking in", but makes no promise of vigilance against the other side. He expressed a strong preference that the period of Tibet since 1950 be referred to as an "occupation", and disambiguation guidelines and historical perspective be damned, he pushed to downplay the British invasion of Tibet and make the Chinese invasion the primary topic.

    He fights for a dichotomic terminology that pits the government of Tibet against outsiders who are truly "pro-Tibet", comparing Tibet's current leaders to the American segregationist George Wallace. He stokes a battlefield mentality by putting Chinese topics against Tibetan topics, including by arguing for the use of peacock terms and other boosteristic fluff on Tibetan culture topics, for "fairness" with Chinese culture articles.

    Gimme danger reverts content changes with misleading edit summaries such as "rv ungrammatical changes", often to advocate activist positions such as to deny that Tibet is a part of China. He also does not accept valid changes that are "without explanation" for him. Instead of working with inexperienced editors to keep their balancing additions that might mistakenly use weasel words, he removes the additions completely.

    He has been very emotional for the inclusion of materials sourced to advocacy groups and "survivors in exile" and the time he "invests in in collecting" those resources. Yet he apparently doesn't see attribution to those advocacy groups as important, misrepresenting unreliable shock propaganda statistics from the Tibetan government in exile, as from simply "Tibetans". He meticulously maintained the ideological purity of pro-Tibetan independence POV forks.

    Gimme danger defends the presence of nationalist symbols and pro-independence territorial marking on general interest articles. He himself has gratuitously added links advertising the Tibetan independence movement on unrelated articles, and has inserted long quoted rants from antigovernment Tibetan émigré leaders into peripherally related China articles. Although much to his credit, Gimme danger did vote to keep an article that pro-independence editors tried to delete because of the inconvenience its presence posed to their cause, he agreed to "phase out" sources that are "offensive" to them.

    Latent tendencies for vindictiveness, uncritical evaluation of sources, political battlefield mentality, and reckless reversions are already tedious to counter in regular users. But when reversions turn into revision deletions, who will hold Gimme danger accountable? He must demonstrate that he can police himself and his politics to gain community trust, and in my view, he has not done that yet. Quigley (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

    These examples are from a long time ago (18-24 months) do you still think this is relevant to Gimme danger today? SmartSE (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

    If Gimme danger cites his "broad experience" after "four and a half years" of editing as a qualification, then he should be prepared for users to check into the quality of these qualifying edits. Plus, as most of Gimme danger's edits as of late are semi-automated administrative tasks that don't have to do with editing articles substantively, looking into edits from before that time period give us insight into his temperament and how he handles controversial content issues. If he believes that he has changed significantly since then, maybe he can offer some more recent edits that repudiate some of the behaviors shown in my statement of opposition. Quigley (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

    There are many misrepresentations here. The name of one of those articles at the time was Invasion of Tibet (1950); Danger liked "occupation" because it was [inserted: claimed to be] more neutral than "invasion": "The title here is going to have to take a point of view, since we have to pick one title and it should probably be the least awkward one that's acceptable to all parties." The George Wallace comment was an analogy that pointed out a semantic fallacy. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

    I don't buy that "occupation" is more neutral than "invasion", and neither do the advocacy groups, who by and large use "occupation" in their publications. And the editor he replied to with an analogy to George Wallace was not using a logical fallacy. It is indeed absurdly non-neutral to say that the government of Tibet is not "pro-Tibet" and that antigovernment groups are: it's really a common tactic used by insurrectionist groups who bear names like "x people's liberation army" or "x people's salvation front", implying that the people in a given area need to be "liberated" or saved from their own government by force of arms. In any case, it's clear that he wants to draw an analogy between Tibetans and black people in the 1960s United States, and that grossly inappropriate paradigm seems to influence his edits in this topic area. Quigley (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

    If for some reason this goes to a crat chat, I'll have more to say. RFA is not the place to solve the world's problems. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

    To be clear, I am not interested in reopening some of these disputes that Gimme danger has taken sides in over the past few months. I point to them to say that answering policy questions in the abstract is one thing, and consistently applying policy in your own behavior is another. Apparently, Gimme danger fares better with the former than the latter. Quigley (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

    As someone has expressed support above for GD receiving the mop, I was concerned to read Quigley's opposition rationale above. However, I have reviewed some the diffs he provides (each link that is a diff going as far as Quigley's point on peacock terms, then I ran out of time). I personally view them as reasonable changes and measured discourse in support of Wikipedia's mission building NPOV articles (which allows for differences of opinion). I struggle to find any one of them objectionable in isolation, and in several instances feel Quigley must have misinterpreted their intent. It is always possible that a series of unobjectionable or even highly positive edits can together make for a dangerous and damaging pattern of behaviour, and that is hard to judge on a cursory check like mine - but I have personally found no cause to change the Support !vote I have made. Martinp (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

    The problems are, I do admit, hard to navigate for someone not familiar with the subject matter, which is why I expected a response from the candidate himself. Perhaps I introduced these materials too late in the process, and so Gimme danger feels he can simply wait and pass by default. If this (lack of) response is indicative of how Gimme danger will (not) respond when his use of administrator tools is questioned in the future, then God help us all. Quigley (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

    As an aside, history has often been written by the winners; should anybody here genuinely doubt that, I'd happily cite one or two acclaimed historians. I'm not going to take sides in a dispute at RfA over specific contentious words about article content (we have enough drama already), but it's very valuable for editors to be aware that the content - or phrasing - of sources on a conflict or major dispute may be influenced by the more powerful party. This awareness is not something I would criticise. It's inevitable that an experienced candidate at RfA will have said something about content that somebody disagrees with over the years, especially if they touch on nationalist or interethnic disputes - surely an area which needs more eyeballs, not fewer.bobrayner (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

    The problem with a "history is written by the winners" mentality is that it lends itself to the formation of walled gardens on Wikipedia where people who want to right great wrongs exploit Wikipedia to publish and gain views for the history that mainstream scholars reject. This is common, as no doubt others have seen, in articles about cults or secessionist movements. But for all editors, and especially for administrators, articles should be written on the basis of a broad scholarly consensus, and not on the basis of countering perceived injustice(s). As my litany included instances of Gimme danger doing his part to maintain POV forks and unreliable sources for twilight zone-esque history articles, I find it hard to believe that his words in fealty to the notability and verifiability policies are more than just that: words. Quigley (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral You appear to get deletion right, you have been around for a while and you've edited steadily. I'm surprised that the majority of your edits are related to the article's talk page. Also, I'm curious as to what areas of the WP:BACKLOG you intend to take that requires administrative privileges. Otherwise, I see no reason to support. Minimac (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

   The odd distribution of my edits comes from assessment, help desk/editor assistance, and AfD categorization. Since I've assessed at least 6,000 articles, if not more, my edit distribution is quite skewed toward talk space. The administrative backlog is attractive to me because the numbers are generally small and because the tasks are new. (It feels more satisfying to count down from 60 than from 6000, at least for me.) But there are large number options in the admin backlog too. --Danger (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral Still looking. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Not really sure. A few minor issues on the questions raised above are not a big deal for me; still would like to see a bit more extended involvement in projectspace (only seems to have picked up in the last month and a half) and projecttalkspace. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   Does project space in this case mean Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk (above it seems to mean article space)? I generally stay silent in discussions if others have already made the points I want to make, which is why my activity on noticeboards has been limited. I only recently discovered the help boards when I was looking for an alternative to commenting on RFCs and saw a need. --Danger (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   Projectspace = Wikipedia namespace, yes. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

4. The quantity of content is unimpressive. Then again, Jane S. Richardson is well balanced, well illustrated, and is one of far-too-few female BLPs at DYK. Any user that can put up with myself and Malleus piling on in the same question clearly has enough patience for the role. The tipping point from support to neutral leaning oppose was the italicised part of Q6. To accept that our piecemeal approach to notability depending on field as the de-facto situation is one thing, to believe that this is a wonderful thing is quite another. I often oppose on those grounds, but have refrained because I see a lot of good things, and because you strike me as someone who will take the feedback from this RfA on board if it is successful. —WFC— 04:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   (update switching to oppose, until content creation improved.) Thought the fellow seemed very bright. Also that his answers to the hyptothetical questions were the right way to respond and very unfair to gig him on not questioning the "givens" in the question. By following the givens, he was showing respect for trying to answer the hypothetical. Can't support as I don't know anything about the fellow or even want to get into deciding thumbs up or down in the arena. Seems like a nice guy though. (He should write some articles, though.  ;-)) TCO (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   The editor's started some eleven articles and contributed to others too. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks. I don't have the brain power (literally, am ill) to nuke through analyzing all of it. It is possible that the fellow is a stellar content creator. If so, my principle would still hold, just this fellow would pass it. I did check one article real fast and didn't see that much text coming out of him: [3]. I think it's important to have slogged out some amount of writing. And maybe this fellow has. 11 stubs would not do it for me, though. Can you maybe elaborate on what the fellow has done, in terms of substance? I don't think we have to have the BEST writer here, the strongest man to lead our warriors. But we should have a certain level of competence. A certain ability to shoot and fight in our "officers". P.s. Very cool of you to message me. TY. TCO (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   Wow! One article almost completely uncited and another tagged for wikification. You've convinced me. (S)he's the perfect admin candidate; I'll strike my oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 05:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   Wi Fione must have a point to make, he just hasn't gotten to it yet. (Need to move that article to the correct name, without the ampersand ...) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   OK. I went and clicked on the list of 11 articles. Sorry, not impressed. Very stubby and then there were articles that looked like categories. What were those? The foam thing seemed like a cool topic and he had the PNAS available. But not developed at all. How could any editor with soul for creating Wikicontent resist the urge to build that thing out. Just don't understand someone who could do that. See Wilmer W. Tanner for an example of editors getting seduced and wanting to build content, just recently. The fellow is probably bright enough to learn how to build content, but he needs to buckle down and do some of it. It will be good for him regardless. Plus it will give him invaluable insight on the project, challenges of creators, etc. He needs to be incentivized to do so and the project needs to be incentivized to "get better". Switching to oppose, sorry. Still think the fellow is sweet and I had NO problem with him discussing the intricacies of the opposes and I think those who did are UNFAIR. TCO (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   The articles that look like categories are indexes. I was active in the outline and index projects until I had a change of heart on the usefulness and validity of such articles and such work.

   Frankly, I "resist the urge to build" content because I have a crippling fear of formal writing. Writing terrifies profoundly, in a heart-racing, palms-drenched, nausea-inducing way. I nearly dropped out of university because of this. If I'm going to go through that kind of hell, I'm going to put it toward my degree. I can respect if you don't believe that editors who do not write do not understand Wikipedia, though I disagree. I do not, however, appreciate the insinuation that I am less devoted to the 'pedia because this. I can't write, so I do the unpleasant work so that people who can can focus on more important things.--Danger (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   I don't have any urge to hurt you, but my reservation remains. How would I view a newspaper editor who was scared to write, but good at administration? A NASA engineering manager who was a good organizer, but poor technically (would worry she would crash Shuttles). I'm not asking for Giano stylings. But some reasonable "time in the trenches". Get in there and get bloodied up a bit, before leading the troops. It'll help ya understand all manner of things about the project better and will help you when dealing with the creators.

   And I can't understand what is so tough about 'pedia in the first place. If you can write a stub, why can't you flesh it out? It's easier here than with a grade on the line. But I don't want to argue with a claustrophobe about why sleeping in a tent is no big deal. But reservation is the same whether it's shyness, lack of ability, lack of desire, or a diagnosed phobia. I wish you could get a mentor here and find some stuff to work on though. Or join a simpatico crew and start editing with them. Biology and species and stuff is some of the most accessible stuff to go after here. Don't have POW war pushers. Still get decent views. Can read some cool papers and secondary lit. Lots of models of completed articles. Get in and wrte some paras and push an image or two through Commons. Please try. Would even help you.

   I just think the project needs better research and better writing. Not in some abstract or super high powered manner, but in the most basic way of "look at the work product from the standpoint of the reader". That's more important than policy wars or RFAs or Wikipedia Review criticism or any of that. Just to raise the bar from two feet off the ground, to three or four.

   Don't sweat it about the Indexes, I just had a suspicious reaction to them and had a little fun describing them. You're probably going to get your tin star, so roll with a little banter. You'll see it on the pedia. But write an article! If you can chat, you can probably write articles. And I liked the way you handled yourself with questioners. And both your studies (math and bio) are cool beans.  :-) But get in the ring and go a few rounds. Don't need to be Casious Clay, but it's a useful and transformative experience to stand up and do it. TCO (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

5. Neutral There's so much to like here, and I see evidence of a thoughtful, even-handed editor who would act calmly and be open to correction. But the answer to Q6 suggests a serious misunderstanding of notability (and its relationship to verifiability). Because I consider the notability concept among the most essential Wikipedia artifacts, I therefore don't feel comfortable voting support. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Unconvincing reasons for adminship (question 1). Mediocre content contribution. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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.