Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:48, 10 April 2007

This page is for bureaucrat discussion of Danny's RFA. Any comments on this page by a non-bureaucrat will be removed.

• This is of couse not your normal nomination. Danny has served in a position that required the utmost of trust and that has led to substantial support and recognition of his service from many in opposition. There is a significant amount of opposition. Some comments in both the support and opposition sections are certainly not helpful. So far as I see it discounting those positions still leads to a nomination below the traditional promotion threshhold. However, I haven't had time to analyze thoroughly for sockpuppets of which I am confident there are some. Failing finding a substantially greater number of sockpuppets among the opposition I believe the correct decision would be to declare no consensus to promote for this nomination. Analyzing will take some time and I request that everyone be patient and polite. I can't stress enough that writing an encyclopedia is the most important thing. I'd prefer if some other bureaucrats offered their opinions on the closing, but if no one has after I've finished my analysis, I'll make the call. Thanks everyone. - Taxman 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've voted so ethically I shouldn't have any part to play in this. However I don't see how we can count opposition to WP:OFFICE and other employee related activity as valid opposition. Secretlondon 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearly those are unhelpful. Those were among the one's I mentioned. - Taxman 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one. The stated purpose of RFA is to identify trustworthy people and, given his former employment by the foundation, I don't think even Danny's worst critic would allege he is not trustworthy (I didn't see any of that in the RFA). He's done an incredible amount of good work in the time he's contributed to Misplaced Pages - so much so that many of the newer users are ignorant because much of it was done before they got here. At the same time, a number of people have found other things to criticize about his behavior. Yes, Danny has a (raw) 68% support, but that 32% opposition is over 120 oppose votes. I find it difficult to call this consensus. So like I said - I'm on the fence about this one. Raul654 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the tough part. Good point that no one is alleging he's untrustworthy. Also note the support percentage declined nearly monotonically. - Taxman 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

PS - people were still supporting and opposing at Danny's RFA, so with my red-tapey bureaucratic powers I've protected that page pending a decision here. Raul654 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I can't see this as a possibility for promotion. For me, the number of opposes isn't that important - sure, 120-ish is a lot, but if it were weighed against 500 supports, I wouldn't see any question but that he should be given adminship. However, there is a raw 32% opposition, and over the week, the proportion of those in opposition who have given Danny's office actions as their primary reason for objecting has decreased to a small proportion - definitely less than 10%. Whether we personally think that he has contributed a lot and would make a good admin (and I do) isn't the question; it's determining whether there is consensus to make him an admin - and I don't see one. Warofdreams talk 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly inclined to promote Danny. I wrote up the following comment to accompany the promotion:

I would have left this decision to Taxman, but that he seems to have disappeared following his above request for comments. A timely resolution of this issue is clearly in the interest of the project.

This RFA is numerically in the questionable zone; at this point a bureaucrat is expected to exercise his discretion. I have read the entire dialogue, with a slight prejudice against promoting because the percentage is on the low end. I have, however, not given undue attention to this fact; Dmcdevit and others have drawn attention to possible sockpuppetry, so the numbers may not be quite as they seem.

His supporters cite a particular few qualities in his favor, but my concern has been primarily with the objections, as there is no risk to the project in not promoting him. The opposers give more various justifications. Those most frequently mentioned are his brusque attitude to questions, history of newbie-biting, and aggressive deletion habits, but other editors have objected on the grounds that: the resignation of adminship last month shows a lack of devotion; he has not explained his reasons for resigning from his Foundation positions; Cyde nominated him; his actions as a bureaucrat have been questionable; many trustworthy users have opposed him; WP:OFFICE is contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages and Danny's role in its implementation reflects a similar attitude. These latter few rationales (after the colon) I find irrelevant to the matter at hand: whether he should be trusted with the powers of an administrator.

The nearness of the count coupled with the slight bias in Danny's favor discovered by sockpuppet checks leave the matter numerically indeterminate. On consideration of the rationales for supporting and opposing, I believe it is in the project's interest to promote Danny. I have not exceeded the role which the community has defined for a bureaucrat: I have done no more than my job. I trust even those who disagree with my decision will respect that fact.

I further hope it is quite clear that I am not myself judging the candidate (my own experience with him is miniscule; I have seen neither his great successes nor his great failures, as presented by supporters and opposers) but rather making sense of the community's judgment of the candidate. I have read all arguments presented, regardless of the source. My decision was informed by the numbers only insofar as the numbers have told me that the community has no clear opinion on this issue. (here ends proposed comment)

Comments? — Dan | talk 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support promotion on the basis of Dan's reasoning. Raul654 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan, what was the raw count of sockpuppets for and against you'd throw out based on what you saw? - Taxman 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I made no raw count -- as I said, I am not interested in making a perfectly numerical judgment. — Dan | talk 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading everything on that RfA since yesterday. I've taken the time to look into pretty much everyone whose name I had never seen anywhere else. By this I mean I looked over their contribs, talk page, user page, the usual places. I believe that the sockpuppetry has already been identified, and that we are not going to uncover anything else substantial in that aspect. I also agree with what Raul has said about the ratio of support. If we were to look at it exclusively, which we won't, it could be said that, given Danny's history with the project, and given existing precedents, it would be possible to at least consider promotion at a somewhat lower ratio of support. But in this RfA there's the unusual aspect that the c. 30% opposition are represented by +100 people — although it also brings up the fact that if 120 users are ammounting to "just" 30% of the participants, then the support is also extraordinary.
This brings me to what I would consider the key to making a call on this one: the rationales and the people who gave them (or failed to give one). First, I'm finding that there's a considerable amount of people who opposed for reasons that are less than convincing, and it is not limited to those who opposed based on Danny's work related to WP:OFFICE — an example: at least two people cited his decision as Bureaucrat to promote Essjay to Bureaucratship as indication of his alleged "lack of judgement". First, that'd be judging him for exercising discretion in a position completely different then the one he is nominated to; Second, while that decision was difficult, it is inevitable to conclude that Danny's judgment in promoting Essjay in a close-call RfB (which it was) is being questioned only in retrospective to Essjay having lost all his privileges almost a year later. However Essjay was not removed for abusing Bureaucrat tools, or any other restricted tool. Consensus in Essjay's RfB was at 89,9% with 16 opposers. Danny made a call that was within his mandate as a Bureaucrat, even if it was debatable (which it was, and I personally would not have promoted Essjay in that RfB). But to question his trustworthyness or competence to perform as an Administrator citing his decision as a Bureaucrat to promote Essjay in those circumstances is a non sequitur —. I'm not about to disregard anyone's input because I don't agree with them, but it is also our job not to allow unrelated grudges, personal dislikes and the like to interfere with what is really the purpose of a RfA. And those cases are there, and it's not just one or two of them — Dan has just exposed them. Of course, there's also a lot of supporters who didn't give a reason for their support, some only signed their names. While this is less than ideal in any RfA, we are, it must be noted, dealing with a very unusual circumstance: Danny is about as visible and well-known as it gets. I find it only natural that some people didn't see a need to expand on what they thought that Danny should be made an admin again.
Second, I've identified several users amid the opposers that had not edited for a long time, sometimes months, and came back solely to oppose Danny. They didn't have a problematic history for the most part, but this attitude goes to motivation. I find it problematic to see people who were not active and suddenly came back just to oppose Danny. Canvassing is highly likely in such situations. How were they not active but knew when Danny had been put up for adminship. There are about 5 people in that situation.
All that said, I must say that despite what the bots are showing, the actual support ratio, taking everything I mentioned into account, is probably closer to somewhere between 74% and 76%. That doesn't mean we should necessarily promote though. There is substantial valid opposition, and the sheer number of opposers is remarkable. However at the moment I'm also inclined to promote. Redux 02:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)