Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:41, 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)