Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom 2

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

Danielfolsom[edit]

Final (26/24/18); Closed by Rlevse at 23:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Danielfolsom (talk · contribs) - People probably want to know why I’m nominating myself when, since my last RFA, I’ve only really been active on Wikipedia for a month. The reason is that that time and because of my last RFA, along with the new experiences I’ve gathered within a month: I believe that I now have views that are more mature than the one’s I held in my previous RFA; I realize I can't prove this through text, so I encourage all who have doubts to ask questions - because I am confident that I can answer more than adequately. I believe that I can greatly improve this encyclopedia as an administrator, and while most of my answers to the questions brought up will concern actions in the one month I have been really active, if asked for I am perfectly ready to answer all question about any edit I have made, because those edits are part of my history, and they still count. If I made a lot of edits to templates - those count. If I vandalized a few pages - that counts (I never did that - but you get my meaning).

I encourage users to try my knowledge of policy with their questions. I realize that said knowledge is a concern since I’ve taken time off. But I’ve read through the policies, and I surprised myself because I forgot little (I wish I could say I forgot nothing, but there were one or two things that just completely escaped my mind; the biggest thing was a MOS thing; I thought that the references section came before the See also section). I know I am ready, and I’m prepared to see if the community thinks I am or not. danielfolsom 21:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to !voters. I would request you to evaluate the candidate on his experience and knowledge of wiki policy, not his wiki activity levels. Do ask pertinent questions to decide his knowledge instead of checking for activity levels. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would probably be most active in the speedy deletion candidates - I'm well versed with the policies concerning deletion, and I know what is and what isn't an acceptable page. I have edited quite a few templates, a few of which are now protected, and on with something like Template:Articleissues, where users ask for changes, I think I’ll be able to help there. As most can probably tell, a lot of my time has been spent reverting vandalism quickly, so I hope to be able to keep up the quality of some of Wikipedia's lesser known pages, as I'll have time to browse Special:Unwatchedpages. I'm also going to say what I'll do on a limited basis, because while I'm sure I know the policy regardless of the situation (with maybe one exception: Images, for me, are a little tough), I think it's important to clearly define limitations - which I do have. I have been in a few conflicts. However, I do not believe I have been enough conflicts to actually search for conflicts and protect pages based on them. That being said, I do know when a conflict is bad, and if I arrive on a conflict, I will be able to tell if the page should be protected. I will never touch images. I have uploaded on image before, and the reason it is only one is because images are just too difficult for me. Finding the right attribution, finding the copyright stuff, ect., is all just over my head. I will not seriously edit the main page. I don't have experience with wikinews or featured content, so that is not my place. I say seriously because if there is a typo or a format error on the main page, I know enough about templates and wiki-syntax that I will fix that.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm going to use what I have on my userpage here, because I've actually logged some of, what I think is, my best stuff. I've worked with WP:Spotlight. There are two articles that I've edited under that that I am very proud of - both of which came after I returned from my wikibreak:
On John Jay I was the main writer (as of this revision) on the During the American Revolution section (not including the Minister to Spain sub-section, but including the Treaty of Paris sub-section), the The Jay Court, 1789-1795 section (which is probably the one I'm most proud of, it was something like 11 sources for 3 paragraphs–I know that doesn't seem like a lot, but the Court opinions were very dense), and parts of the Jay Treaty section.
On Biafra (as of this revision) I was the main writer on the History section and the Economy section. This was a hard article to write; there really wasn't that much information out there, so I'm pretty proud of what i managed to get.
As I said in my last RFA, I'm also proud of 2004 NBA Finals (a few diffs from that: 1, 2, 3, and a recent one: 4).
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: Well, to warn everyone this is going to start a long story that will actually take up the entirety of my answer - so know that end of the first paragraph isn’t the end of the incident brought up in the first paragraph.
Since a long wikibreak, I have been in one controversy, where a user was drastically changing the tone of a page I didn’t have much familiarity with. I saw that the same user had been reverted in his or her previous edits, so I reverted, and suggested that, in order to avoid conflict, the user simply bring up the proposed edits on the talk page. I was reverted, and then quickly found myself in a mini-edit war ( I believe I made 2 revisions, including the one previously mentioned, and I also toned down the user’s edit just a bit).
Now before the wikibreak - I got into at least two arguments over pages I had no familiarity with. I have reviewed a GA nominee once - Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018. It did not go well. I suggested changes to the article, and there was a mini-dispute over those suggestions, but ultimately it worked out. Then the article got into an edit war over a different subject. I hadn’t given it a second review, and after a few days, with the edit war continuing, I felt guilty for not giving a review for so long, so I explained on the nominator’s user page the reason for the delay - I said I was waiting to see if the edit war was serious, or whether it would die out soon. I eventually failed the article because of the edit war, but my comments to the nominee were brought up on my RFA - I would say it bringing brought up was the dispute I’m taking about. I mean that dispute was never completely resolved, but it was a dispute nonetheless.
The other controversy before my wikibreak was over Negroid - another page I knew nothing about. I was trying to resolve a dispute over pictures - I think it was questionable which pictures accurately represented the subject. One of my first edits was this:

Ok, I'd like to ask just a few things:

  1. First of all, a question - can we confirm that each of the three proposed pictures (including the one on the page) accurately represent the topic.
  2. Secondly, is there any chance that we could get a labeled drawing of a "negroid" skull? This would be less personal and thus more ideal - especially since we refer to the term as offensive.

Unless we have confirmation of the first, and unless we can assure ourselves that the second is not possible, then this debate is going to become extremely monotonous.--danielfolsom 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem started when I tried to keep civility (that’s a pretty big lesson I learned: mentioning that users should remain civil can do more harm than good), and eventually everything just blew up. After a winded discussion there were many different thoughts (one person wanted to just delete), but luckily eventually the problem was solved. I think my biggest gaffe in that situation was trying to keep the peace by bringing up policy; a simple different choice of words might have let us resolve that situation sooner and more smoothly, but luckily, again, it it was resolved in one or two days. For this article I went to User:tjstrf for help. I regret this. It’s not that tjstrf isn’t a great editor; it’s just, in hindsight, it was very unfair for me to put this on his shoulders. So, me knowing that guided my actions in the debate I first mentioned (and to conclude this long-winded story):
I posted many comments to the questionable user’s talk page. None were responded to, so I went to WP:AIV. The page was protected, and the conflict was over.

Optional question from Autumn Fall

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: I, sadly, would not unblock the user. I understand that as we are on Wikipedia, we should not be afraid of vandals. This is the encyclopedia that everyone is allowed to edit. If we become afraid of those who vandalize pages, then we will block too harshly and too quickly, and perhaps lose what would have been a reformed, quality editor. However, in this instance the user was initially blocked for a very brief amounts of time; this block was really this user's second chance. The user failed to take advantage of the chance (s)he was given, and despite making one quality edit, the user's irresponsible vandalism before and after that one solid edit show that he ultimately is a source of harm. As administrators, when it becomes clear that a user has become a source of harm, it is our duty to protect Wikipedia from this harm; we do this through blocks. The blocks are not used to punish the user, but rather to simply make clear that we are serious about Wikipedia's quality. I feel like removing the one week block would both put Wikipedia at risk and let the user know we aren't really serious about blocking. Instead, I would explain essentially what I have said above on the user's talk page, and I would point to the blocking policy, because the user seems to think I am blocking him or her as punishment, as (s)he says "i hereby give you permission to block me for life in the event that i vandalize again", and obviously that's not how the block policy works. Lastly, I would offer myself as a source of guidance should the user need help upon the blocks expiration, because if the user is genuine, obviously I want to make sure that the user doesn't think the community now looks down upon him or her, and I would let him know that he still has all the same rights as other IP users (and I might plug the idea of getting a user account so the user can create pages).
Optional questions snagged from jc37 by Synergy
You've said that you think you have a better understanding with respect to policies so: In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: If the editor has displayed a consistent pattern of disrupting the encyclopedia, and if that editor has ignored warnings, then it is appropriate to block.
To specify: if the editor is, on an article in the mainspace, consistently vandalizing pages, amending the pages to include copyrighted information, posting information to a biography of a living person that violates WP:BLP or violating WP:3RR, and if that user ignores the warnings given to him or her, a block is required.
On the talkspace (including user talk space), if the user is making personal attacks, legal threats or harassing other users in any other way (i.e. perhaps being very uncivil, and if the user is ignoring all warnings, then a block is warranted.
Finally, and just generally, if the user has been found to use multiple active accounts (violating WP:SOCK) or is found to be evading a block, then blocks can be warranted.
  • A: If there is a WP:Dispute that has resulted in edit warring, if there has been frequent vandalism, if a page has been deleted and is continuously recreated or if a template is on a massive number of pages and has become a potential target, then protection can be necessary.
  • A: The most common reason for a speedy deletion is probably the a7 criteria, the article has not established significance. The g1 (nonsense), g11 (advertising) and g3 (pure vandalism) are also occasional, as are user request (in the userspace). G12 - copyright violation - is also a big one to look out for.
  • A: Frankly I can not think of a situation where policy should not be followed, but that’s the point. If we had thought of such a scenario then the rules would be adjusted by now. But that is absolutely not to say that no such scenario exist. The rules are not perfect, and WP:IAR is a perfect response to that creed. If a rule prevents a user from bettering the encyclopedia, then it should be ignored.
  • 6. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: Consensus is the general agreement of the users involved in a discussion. On a talk page, consensus is almost always formed by compromise, a solution that makes almost everyone happy. On a XFD discussion, consensus is determined on the quality of arguments. For example, if everyone says "The subject of the article is awesome - we should keep it" - that's not a valid reason to keep. On a DRV discussion, consensus is formed by discussion of how the closing administrator acted.
  • 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: First of all I would examine the situation. If the editors are simply edit warring then I would warn each editor, and if that fails, should the editors violate WP:3RR, they would be temporarily blocked, or, should they stay within WP:3RR but still edit war, I would protect the page and try and work with the editors on the talk page to form compromise. If compromise can not be failed, I would probably ask for a third opinion and then perhaps, if necessary, suggest applying for formal mediation.
  • 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: I realize that this is probably a little short for an answer: but I can't think of any other way to put it – this is what most strongly compels me: I believe that as an administrator I can serve this encyclopedia better.

Optional questions from  Asenine 

9. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: I would like to say WP:V, but who am I to say that? Whether I am a typical user or an admin, I can not override consensus; in this situation, I can only hope to create it. Consensus on article talk pages is achieved by compromise, and surely the editors and myself can find a solution that is well sourced, but also satisfies both parties.
10. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: I can not think of a time where a very annoyed user has come to me, but would I be able to help? Of course. Really there's no difference between coming across a dispute on a talk page by chance and having another user bring a dispute to your attention via a talk page. I can suggest that the editor requests for a comment, or, if the editor is looking for advice (assuming I'm not familiar with what they're asking) - I can direct them to the village pump or WP:HELP or WP:Help desk.
11. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: My primary activities are watching the recent changes log, which I might do slightly less simply because I would also watch the unwatched pages; editing Spotlight – which I plan to continue to do just as actively; and going through the backlogs and seeing how I can help out there, which I'll actually be able to do more efficiently, especially since even now I spend some time in the contested candidates for speedy deletion category.

Optional questions from - Jameson L. Tai

12. Please summarize your experiences on Wikipedia since your last RfA. Could you tell me something you've done that was special, something above and beyond that could show us that you are ready for the admin position?
A: First of all even in a month I've been a lot more active on articles - the John Jay and Biafra edits above were both in this month, and I attribute that to my work with WP:SPOTLIGHT, which is a collaboration effort that I've been much more active in since my last RFA. I also believed the RFA let me learn what I needed to improve on; it seemed like my knowledge of policy was only average - so I've really worked on trudging through policy pages, and now I'm confident that on the rare instance that I can't recall policy, I can at the very least find it. This isn't a result of the RFA as much as something I've learned over my time at Wikipedia, but I've learned not to simply take a side and argue for that side in hopes of persuading the other user - because that's not consensus. Another big thing I've learned as far as disputes go: bringing up WP:CIVIL can sometimes do more harm than good, and no comment can be made too lightly, because disputes are usually heated enough that you can't risk the chance of someone misunderstanding you.
Oh, and I created a bot, but that's not too much to do with admin related tools. I realize that this is a strange admin request, simply because I haven't been active that long since my last one, but I'm asking the community to judge me on my overall experience and my answers to the questions and not the outcome of my last RFA; I mean I'm not asking for a redo of my last RFA by any means; I believe that I have a much better comprehension of policy than my last RFA, and I've done a lot more work for a collaboration effort than my last RFA - as evidenced by my Jay and Biafra edits. That's not to say that my Jay and Biafra edits or my bot or my answers make me "deserving" of adminship, because it's not that I think I deserve this; it's just I look back on my last RFA, and I see that then, obviously (as proved by the outcome) I wasn't ready, and I look at myself now and I do see massive improvement, and I believe that I am now ready to serve the community better with admin tools.

Optional question from DragonflySixtyseven:

13: why have you not done any newpage patrol?
A: It's simply not a project that I've been active in, I try to help protect wikipedia by primarily watching the recent changes log, placing messages on user's pages if they vandalize, and then alerting an administrator if the vandalism continues after the user has used up his or her warnings.--danielfolsom 22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Tiptoety talk

14: Sorry for adding another question to the already large pile. You stated in your nomination statement that: "I do know when a conflict is bad, and if I arrive on a conflict, I will be able to tell if the page should be protected." Can you explain a bit more in depth what you mean? Also, when do you feel blocking should be used over protection in a edit war?
A: I'm saying that I can tell when there is a legitimate edit war (i.e. one that does not involve vandalism), or merely many constructional edits. If users have violated Wikipedia's policy on 3 reverts or have shown extreme incivility and ignored the warnings given to them, then it is appropriate to block them, however, if the users have not violated 3RR, then protection is more appropriate, as the idea of protection during an edit war is that both sides can come to an agreement over a compromised solution; if the editors have not shown incivility or violated other policies, then I would suggest that it is a very bad idea to block them - since that is almost equivalent to a cool down block, which I am very opposed to.--danielfolsom 22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Essentially I'm running on all of my edits, but the major difference between this time and last time is my comprehension of policy, which has improved greatly. I realize this is not the best political time for me to run, but I think that I can make a difference now, and I truly believe I've changed over the last few months.--danielfolsom 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "best political time"? Ironholds 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm thinking that it means "the time when running will appeal to a lot of RfA-goers." —Animum (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, first: sorry for the late response - I missed this section. Second, what I mean by not the best political time is the fact that I have only been super-active a month since my last RFA, and thus that obviously will turn a lot of people off, but I'm running now because I think that I do have a much better understanding of policy and I do think I have the total contributions necessary.--danielfolsom 18:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this on another user page, and doesn't this sound weird to anyone else??[1] America69 (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, before I was on a different wiki, and I had mentioned that very very briefly, and that user wanted more information; on his advice I took the reference down.--danielfolsom 14:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Screw-it support for now, you seem like a really nice guy and I don't think you'll have much trouble with being an admin. It's a little concerning that you've only been active again for a month but to be honest, you seem to have got straight back into it with hardly any problems. If something substantial comes up, I might switch, but for now I don't see why you wouldn't be a net positive for this project. Good luck with your impending opposes (I guarantee they'll be a few) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support-I trust that this user will use his powers for good, rather than evil.-Red4tribe (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - The low activity isn't a problem for me, since it's the only thing I can see that could be construed as "negative". Net positive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - though he has only recently returned to regular activity, I am confident he has the good sense needed to become an admin. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Plenty active, has clue. —Giggy 04:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — Appears to be a conscientious and helpful editor. I checked out a few pages of contribs and found no problems, although use of the mandatory-edit-summary tool would be a good idea for the future. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I believe that he would be a good admin. Xclamation point 06:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think taking breaks, or at least editing at reduced levels of activity, should be mandatory for everyone. It prevents people getting too vested in the project and allows them to look at things with a clear mind. naerii 09:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I'm not concerned about the recent low activity level. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --BhaiSaab 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Banned editor. east718 // talk // email // 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a lie, it enmded in March 2008. --BhaiSaab
    Banned and now blocked editor. KnightLago (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Low activity is not an important reason to oppose. I rather like quality than quantity and I rather have more admins even if they are not very active than no more admins. Those complaining about low activity should look up users with high activity and nominate them for adminship. As long (at least) as there are admin backlogs, we need more admins. And this user seems like a good candidate, who understood the most basic rule: You cannot know all rules by heart but you should be able to make yourself familiar with them if needed. SoWhy 21:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, no significant reasons not to. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I like the reasoning behind many of his answers, particularly #4-6. I also think his talk page contribs show good reasoning and an ability to remain calm. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Seems absolutely fine to me. Good candidate. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Model Wikipedian. The opposes don't have much to go on. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support all self-noms, because anybody who wants adminship should automatically have it. Adminship is "no big deal", right? KleenupKrew (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. He's got experience and he knows the policy. It doesn't bother me that the majority of his contributions were last year. Axl (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I nominated Daniel last time because I believed he would be a net asset to the community in an administrative role. That remains the case. If he wishes to volunteer his time to do janitorial work, and there is no reason to believe he would use the tools abusively, then we should welcome the help. Rockpocket 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per good interaction, mostly on IRC, but more importantly, on here. Majorly talk 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Looks like the user will use the tools wisely. ffm 00:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I trust him with the tools. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I've had the pleasure of interacting with daniel through IRC, where every so often we edit the same articles (the spotlight group; IRC helps to coordinate the task, with real time conversation) in an attempt to expand, verify/source, and transform articles into good ones. While some of these articles are not tagged as GA just yet, I believe them to be very good candidates, and have rather enjoyed the experience. I see no other issues that are strong enough to merit my opposition. Synergy 09:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support: Seems ready, willing, able, and WP:CLUEful. As for the wikibreak, I concur with naerii. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Overall I think you have a good record and granting you adminship would be a net benefit to the project even if you are not always that active. It is clear that you have built up quite a lot of experience and contributions, particular with templates. I have reviewed the Template:Obnoxious controversy and I have not found anything which really concerns me; I am overall getting the impression from your user page that you have learnt from the incident. The answers to the questions are quite impressive; I have no concerns over the answer to question 4 which is well justified. No concerns over civility either, I see you are also doing some good work at Wikipedia:Editor review. Good luck. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support; owns a clue. — Coren (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak Support: oppose reasons dont convince me. This RFA may fail but I am looking forward to support you next time -- Tinu Cherian - 06:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support; little difference my !vote will make now, but I trust Danielfolsom and will also support him if he decides to run again. Cheers mate!

Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak Oppose for now. A month of edits doesn't (for me) show you have enough experience with current wiki policy (rather than October 2007 wiki-policy) for me to feel able to trust you with the tools. My vote may change based on questions. Ironholds 21:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Activity in the past 9 to ten months has been very low, and I would have troble trusting you with the tools with that record. Sorry. America69 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Fails my standards. One month of activity is simply not enough.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 02:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, I say one month of major activity since my last RFA, total I have 10 months of activity.--danielfolsom 02:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Unfortunately, I must question the wisdom of any candidate who uses his or her real name. An administrator often finds themselves the center of a lot of controversy, regardless of whether or not they intend to perform controversial actions. Said controversey can easily mushroom, and the potential real-life implications can cause unwarranted complications both with the administrator and the project as a whole. Badger Drink (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this really a valid reason to oppose, though?--Winger84 (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's rather valid. Less cut-and-dried than seeing a bunch of "on wheels!" page moves, a bit more valid (or at least more complex) than "power hunger" / "voted to delete once", probably about on par with "articlespace" / "too soon". It speaks to the candidate's sense of judgement - for instance, his ability to distinguish good-faith contributors from "civil POV warriors". Badger Drink (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you certain Daniel Folsom is his real name? I can think of at least one instance where someone's pseudoname looked like a real name. Xclamation point 06:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That must have been me. My name is Eve Ryme. user:Everyme 07:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a wild guess and assume you're talking about this guy (aka this guy? Anyway, in absence of evidence to the contrary, I have no choice but to make the assumption I made. Badger Drink (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of WP:BEANS, I'd say that this argument can also be used in reverse, leading to another CDB Q&A dilemma; We also have people who believe that those applying as administrators should reveal their real identities. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It most certainly can. Anyone who feels along those lines is welcome to comment appropriately. I still feel the way I do, apologies. Badger Drink (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have it on good authority that the user's real name is Joehammad Van Hooijdonk. The nick "Daniel Folsom" is likely derived from the character of the same name in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is not funny but it is fairly inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think X! was referring to this user, but I could be wrong. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of examples of looks-like-real-name. Chick Bowen has said that his name is after a radio broadcaster in his town (IIRC), while Peter Damian comes from the real-life Peter Damian. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I can't for the life of me see this as a valid oppose reason. Candidate does need to know he can be buying off wiki trouble if someone takes enormous exception to his on wiki action, I would recommend against it, but that's not a enough to oppose. Dlohcierekim 18:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have for some time recommended that people here, especially those in positions of authority, use their real names. In case of difficulty, there is available a list of those WP:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. 20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    If I was drawing a paycheck, I might consider publishing my real name, but seeing as though this is mostly a volunteer operation, I think demanding real names is about as silly as demanding we publish our Social Security Numbers. I see it serving no real purpose, as it offers no real assurance unless candidates are also required to post proof of their names - and at that point, I'd see adminship as being a sort of Groucho Club (as in, I would have serious doubts about any person willing to become one). The one situation where I could advocate requiring contributors to forward personal information, of course, is when a participant claims to hold an academic degree. But real names - no positive point, several negatives. Badger Drink (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But opposing someone based on their perceived use of a real name has no correlation to their actual conduct as an admin, which I would argue is more important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it not be simpler to ask whether Daniel Folsom is his/her real name? If it is he won't object to telling us and if it isn't he doesn't have to reveal it. However I can see absolutely NO way in which his real name being known would in any way impede his ability to be a competent and effective admin. Harland1 (t/c) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Daniel Folsom is my real name - sorry, I didn't think that was the question - I thought everyone who was suggesting my name wasn't Daniel Folsom was being tongue-in-cheek; I think the question is whether me using my real name is irresponsible, which I don't think it is, but I suppose I understand Badger Drink's point.--danielfolsom 13:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per not enough time from the last RfA to demonstrate clear progress. --Winger84 (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean that he hasn't shown the progress you would like to see or that it is iyo absolutely impossible that he even could have progressed enough in that time ? user:Everyme 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: Sorry, doesn't meet my criteria. — Realist2 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'cratnote Could you please elaborate? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He means this.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 23:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, not ready yet. Needs more experience in admin related areas. Since last RFA, I see < 20 deleted contribs. Of these, none were the result of tagging for speedy deletion. Of the 250 edits prior, I found 5 that were the result of tagging for speedy deletion. I found one user talk page notice of speedy deletion. Of the last 500 Wikipedia namespace edits, dating back to May of last year, I found 3 contributions to WP:AIV. Of the last 500 article space edits, dating back to Septmber of 2007, I found 14 reversions using twinkle. I find troubling this edit from April 26, 2008, in which he removed a list of "notable gangs" that contained only blue links, because the section was "leading to too much vandalism". Candidate has been remarkably inactive until this month-- at an editing level effectively comparable to a Wiki break. It has been nearly 1 year since user's prior RFA and period of high activity. Policy, interpretation of policy, and consensus change over so long a period. Candidate has not demonstrated in practicle, measurable terms having kept up. In the prior RFA, candidate had problems from impetuously jumping in-- which I think led to some of the conflicts in question 3. No decison on whether this RFA indicates that problem persists. Dlohcierekim 19:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Not enough recent activity to determine whether the candidate is trustworthy. Townlake (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose More activity is needed for me assess this candidate. AniMate 05:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Not enough recent activity to assess whether supporting is a wise idea.  Asenine  11:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Oppose (sorry) - the opposes from the previous RFA were a concern...and then there's a long break and some contributions above. There was a lot of conflict cited by the opposes at the previous RfA, so a concrete display of collaborative eidting I think is needed to dispel this aura. GAs and FAs require collaboration, so producing a GA or two at the minimum shows an ability to negotiate with others which is needed here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak oppose, per Ironholds and Casliber. Nsk92 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Ironholds and Asenine. One month of recent activity is just not enough to run for adminship. LittleMountain5 review! 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose You're right, it is sad. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a question - when you say "you're" - do you mean me? I'm not really sure what you're talking about ...--danielfolsom 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No consistent activities to justify the request Lajolla2009 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose: I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. That and having only one months worth of recent activity isn't enough for me to throw in support at the moment. seicer | talk | contribs 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak oppose. Sorry, but I don't agree with "one month of activity". :) —L.Sunday Scribe 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Xp54321. Edits in the month of August (563) are twice as many as edits in the previous ten months.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JPG-GR (talk • contribs)
  19. Oppose per Seicer and JPG-GR. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per your wavering answer to 9A. VasileGaburici (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Although I do feel this editor means well, just a month of recent activity doesn't qualify for the power and tools of an admin (and yes, I'm aware of the full 10 month activity). DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Question 9A Lajolla2009 (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indent as double !vote. user:Everyme 09:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Not Now. Please display your judgement in Afd and newpagepatrol before you receive the button for speedy delete. jmcw (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. I'm certainly not saying never, but there were some very legitimate concerns expressed at the last RfA. I don't think one month of heavy activity, one year from the RfA, is enough to assess whether these problems have been fully addressed or if you fully understand current policy. I raise no accusations, I just don't feel the sample size is large enough for me to draw any definite conclusions about your suitability for adminship at this stage. I will be happy to re-evaluate my position next time round, but I can't support right now. Rje (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Sorry. you haven't edited much in the last nine months and only one month of activity is simply not enough. --Kaaveh (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral for now. Aside from this month, you haven't edited much in the last nine months, so I'm not convinced as to your familiarity with the project. Useight (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - You seem to have been slightly inactive the past few months, besides this month like what User:Useight said above. Can't really support this user just yet until I see more activity around Wikipedia. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Apologies, but your activity on the project hasn't been enough to gauge your experience with any degree of accuracy. We simply haven't seen enough. Come back after a few more active months. PerfectProposal 00:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral-- I like you but coming back too soon is a problem. I would also recommend using the "force edit summary" tool. --Cameron* 10:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, thanks, I'll try that out. I actually used to use that for a while (I assume you mean the thing in my preferences that warns you if you forget to leave an edit summary?), but I just got a new computer, and I hadn't checked the check box yet; I'll do that now.--danielfolsom 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok apparently I'll have to search for what your talking about - as I expected the check box remains on regardless of which computer you're on; sorry for misunderstanding you there--danielfolsom 17:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - Can't support due to the lack of activity. Try next time (and get someone to nominate you ;-)). Macy 18:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral He is amazing with Spotlight, but I don't think he knows the policy well enough. He won't intentionally misuse the tools, but he may not be able to know how to use them quite the right way.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  19:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm sittin' on the top of the fence, wastin' time... Heed the concerns offered by the opposers, give us an opportunity to assess your general stance and abilities and ideally wait for someone else to nominate you in a three or four months. Normally I'd say 2 months at most for someone with your already-attained degree of knowledge, but speaking from experience a one or two month waiting "penalty" is warranted, otherwise you will draw some opposition for trying again too soon. user:Everyme 20:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiptoety puts it as concisely as possible below. There are no real deal-breakers, and the answers are actually very good already. Some more time is all you need, and I'm confident you'll be recognised and acknowledged as a future asset for the admin corps in your next RfA. user:Everyme 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. A few more active months and you'll be good. Malinaccier (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Your enthusiasm for the project is commendable, but I believe your RfA is a bit premature. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. I'm concerned about your having only one active month since the first RAF. Even though the first RAF was 10 months ago, I can't tell if the issues brought by the opposes in the last RAF are improved on during your active month. I also agree with Macy's advice. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral - I don't think I want to vote Oppose yet because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I'm going go to vote neutral and see how you respond to additional questions before I make my decision. I might even post some questions. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Not convinced - per Jameson L. Tai. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral - meets some of my standards, but I think he's not quite ready yet. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral. Recommends withdrawal. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh - it's about even support- and hey, seeing what people think of me can't hurt ... I'm not going to run from the community, but rather hopefully follow them - regardless of whether I am promoted or not - I mean you obviously need to lead by example, but even then you're following in the footprints that the community has layed down in policy.--danielfolsom 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral, I cannot oppose with such good answers to the questions (especially 4 and 5d), but I also believe strongly in looking at recent behavior as the best indicator. There isn't enough recent editing to make a valid determination one way or the other there, but I would see no reason not to support in a couple of months if the current trend continues. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral - I've always thought that quality is more important than quantity (despite my slight case of Editcountitis when it comes to vandalism, but I digress) and I believe that his edits are truly helpful to Wikipedia, especially his contributions to templates. However, his creation of the template "Obnoxious," I feel, was not only redundant, but also felt quite severely written and may cause further problems, rather than fixing them. Also, he hasn't been very active recently, and I'd like to see at least another month of this kind of fantastic editing before I say "yes." Besides that, I think he's a fine candidate.Miquonranger03 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral - While reading over this RfA and paging through Daniel's contribs I found myself coming to the conclusion that I was going to oppose this candidate. But after reviewing his answers to the questions, I can't. I think all that is needed here is more time and experience, and getting that is easy! Tiptoety talk 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Neutral Based on the excellent answers above the Rfa seemed like a slam dunk, but then I saw the previous RFA! I would still lean toward support but my gut tells me you should give it a few more months. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danielfolsom_2&oldid=1086344385"