Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/xDanielx

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

Final: (52/10/1); ended 08:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

xDanielx (talk · contribs) - I registered my account this past July, and have been fairly active since. My primary interests are analytic philosophy and computer science, but I like to edit outside of those areas as well. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 expect that most of my administrative work would fall into the "miscellaneous" category. When I see a lengthy backlog that needs work, I'll get working on it. That said, I do have some particulars in mind:

• I would like to work with protected templates without having to bother with {{editprotected}}. I see a lot of templates that use redundant code, use inflexible code, or need a bit of copyediting. I have a relatively firm handle on "wikimarkup" (using the term skeptically since it's really more than markup) and while I make mistakes now and then, I'm always careful to preview/test my work and correct any flaws promptly.
• I would like access to Special:Undelete for the purpose of viewing deleted content. This comes up rather often in my experience, and I'm sure certain admins are getting tired of my email requests.
• Page moves and similar forms of housekeeping. I think I've reached a point where I don't need the involvement of another sysop in the majority of cases. If I come across an issue that I don't have adequate experience to handle (a close WP:UFAA, for example), then I'll let someone else take it, but I think those cases would be infrequent.

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

A: I used to believe strongly in the importance of XfD discussions, so a lot of my early contributions fell into that category, but my views have changed somewhat and I now focus my activities on the mainspace. I've started a handful of articles, listed on my user page (link), which I'm fairly proud of overall. I've done a lot of cleanup and expansion on list articles; some of it was straightforward (see e.g. list of ethics topics), while some of it was rather mind-boggling (organizing list of fallacies, for example). I've done quite a bit of article assessment, primarily for the philosophy WikiProject. Recently, I've been working on saving Ludwig from cruel and unusual treatment. (Actually I think the FA review was a good idea, but I'm confident that we can fix the issues.)

I'm also working on The Edit Counter to End All Edit Counters on the toolserver; I'm sure you can guess what that's about. :) Off-wiki, I do my best to uphold Wikipedia's image by encouraging others to participate and showing them how to get the most out of it.

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: I was involved in some content disputes over eComXpo, which almost escalated to formal mediation (see: [1]), but I managed to stay out of the heat there so to speak. Apart from that, I've been active in several controversial deletion debates, some of which I probably took too seriously. The most recent quarrel I was involved in was the ban of User:A.Z., which unlike any other Wikipedia affairs did involve a lot of personal stress. Truthfully I still regard the outcome there with dissatisfaction, but after speaking with A.Z. some, I've concluded that it's a decision I'll have to accept.

Optional questions from Balloonman

4. Prior to nominating yourself for RfA, what did you do in preparation for it?

A: I think my experience in administrative areas is relatively broad, but there are a few areas like WP:AIV in which I've never been very involved. In preparation for RfA, I made an effort to round out my experience more by getting my feet a bit wet in areas that I'd previously neglected. On a similar note, I revisited some policies that I hadn't read for a long time or hadn't read carefully enough, like WP:UN. And I cooked up some hotdogs to hand out to supporters. :-)

5. There are four key policies related to article content. What are they and why are they important?

A: Look out, here comes an elephant!

• WP:NPOV - I like to think of this as two separate but related principles. The first is that claims which might be contentious should be presented with appropriate attribution and other qualifications . The second is that editors should strive to avoid overrepresenting or underrepresenting particular viewpoints, arguments or evidence. Global warming is good example: if we selectively presented the strong evidence of one side while leaving out that of the other, we could be qualifying everything properly, but we wouldn't have a neutral article. The standard explanation for NPOV is that understanding disagreement over an issue is key to a comprehensive understanding, especially when it's not clear which side is right. On a more practical level, I think the policy is also extremely valuable in that it prevents us from having to pursue questions we can't plausibly resolve, like whether creationism is correct.
• WP:V - In brief, claims should be given reliable sources when there's reasonable doubt about their validity. Any editor questioning information in good faith is generally taken as an indication of reasonable doubt. (Not that editors should wait for such challenges before supplying sources!) Sometimes there's disagreement over how much aggressiveness is appropriate in challenging information; I think we just have to go with WP:SENSE in those cases. I think it's important for a few reasons: partly because it helps guard against misinformation (or misrepresentation, half-truths, etc.) on the editorial side of things, but also because it gives readers an easy way of fact-checking information and assessing validity.
• WP:NOR - Wikipedia is for reproducing verifiable information in a (hopefully) more organized, comprehensive, and/or accessible form, not for publishing information fabricated by us editors or drawn from unreliable sources. I think NOR is somewhat fuzzier than the other three (Allegations of ___ apartheid being a good example of a case that fell roughly into the gray area of WP:SYN), but equally important for the same reasons that WP:V is important.
• WP:BLP - Given Wikipedia's high search engine rankings and widespread use, it has a lot of potential to cause defamation if we're not careful to avoid it. Whether defamation legally applies to groups and the like is a complex issue (varies by state; I'm not sure what the situation is in Florida), but in both the legal and general sense, it's especially pertinent when dealing with individuals. My understanding is that the WMF is unlikely to see any defamation suits in the forseeable future based on various laws and precedents, but that we should be careful anyway, especially considering the danger that individual editors can put themselves in. And of course, legality aside, we should make reasonable attempts to not detriment the lives of real people (while at the same time keeping in mind WP:NOT#CENSORED). So, the main idea I'd say is that we should err heavily on the side of removing (or at least carefully qualifying) negative claims about living persons when there's any doubt about the validity or neutrality of those claims.

6. One of the primary tools of an admin is the ability to delete articles, can you talk about your experience with Speedy Deletion and/or XfDs?

A: When I first gained some insight into the deletion process, I was a bit dismayed by how easy it was to delete significant amounts of information. In an email DGG told me something along the lines of "I think your opinions will change somewhat when you see what kind of stuff gets by on Wikipedia." I still hold generally inclusionist views, but I can certainly understand deletionist viewpoints better now, particularly after seeing so many important core articles in poor shape. If you want something a little more concrete, I can say that I favor applying WP:CONSENSUS in deletion debates more strongly than some others would -- I feel that there's a lot of deviation among administrators with regard to standards for deletion, so while I think it's fine for a closer to exercise some discretion, I favor the if you don't like where it's going, join in the discussion, don't close it the other way doctrine. (Of course, in cases when SPAs or what not are involved, I think more discretion is entirely appropriate.) I think it's best that I avoid closing controversial XfDs in the near future so that I don't become the next Eyrian. (Not to condemn him -- I just think he was known for having divisive opinions, which inspired some level of hostility around his administrative actions.)

7. Looks like you had some drama with a user about a deletion review on Akatsuki. During the other users comments, he indicated that you were involved with Canvassing for !votes. Can you discuss the situation and explain what the other user was talking about?

A: I talked to Xoloz a bit afterward, and in hindsight I'd say it wasn't a good decision (the canvassing, that is, not the conversation). As I see it, the AfD saw a relatively keep-happy crowd (if we count numbers, it was 32 keep and 3 delete), while the DRV was met with a more happy-to-endorse crowd; I canvassed in an attempt to mix the two because I was very surprised and dissatisfied with the direction the DRV was going. I think technically I was acting within the WP:CANVASS guidelines, but it wasn't worth the brouhaha it could have caused, and Xoloz was right to close it, slightly early as it was. I learned a lot from that and a handful of other AfD/DRV debates, namely that I was being too ardent. When I participate in deletion debates now (which is much less frequent), I try to be more accepting of others' views. It's also become easier now that my own views have moderated somewhat.

• See xDanielx's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for xDanielx: XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

1. Sure. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support per looking through your contributions! (Plus looking pretty good with a mop ;)) Jack?! 09:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. A little low on mainspace contributions, but then so was I. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Hmm...why not? :) — Rudget _{contributions} 15:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support Excellent, thoughtful fellow -- great addition to the mop-closet. Xoloz 15:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. He offered me a hotdog Support I like the answersBalloonman 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Very good user, will certainly make a very good admin. PeaceNT 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support It is plain that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 18:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Seems you would be a good admin. --Kaaveh 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Support At first encounter, sincerely thought you were an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.131.166 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Indenting, IP can't vote. If you have an account and you forgot to login, please vote again. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Support - I can't see how the community won't benefit from giving him the tools. PookeyMaster (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. I read the opposition's DRV, and though it showed a lot of bias against deletion of articles, I think I can trust you to not abuse the tools, and act with a NPOV when dealing with further DRV's. Good luck. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, a good candidate. I was initially neutral, but I've switched because the opposers are citing events from August, nearly four months ago. Candidate says he's learned his lesson and avoided that area, so no reason to oppose now. Redrocketboy 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Sure, why not? "Oppose" diffs are from months ago, user has demonstrated that they've learned since then. No indication that xDanielx will explode the site if he gets tools. ♠PMC♠ 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support because I like the response to the first oppose vote and regret that none of the opposers changed their vote in reply. — Sebastian 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (If anyone sees a reason to change my vote, please let me know on my talk page. I'm not voting to do the candidate a favor, but because I think it's the right decision for Wikipedia. Therefore, please refrain from thanking me on my talk page, unless you have a really original or funny idea.)[reply]
15. Strong Support while we never agree with each other, he is calm, civil, and was thinking about nominating him. This is a Secret ^account 00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. xDanielx has made valuable contributions that would be even more valuable with the tools. SorryGuy 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Sensible fellow. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - not entirely sure I'd trust him to close contentious deletion discussions immediately, as his judgement has been a bit wonky in the past, but on the whole, no major concerns. Neil ☎ 11:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support An excellent user. No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - even though it's against my personnal rules to support a user with less than 6 months of experiance. Od Mishehu 16:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. This nomination initially gave me mild reservations. However, I have encountered this user many times at AfD and DRV, and, although I often disagree with his opinions, he does remain civil and is definitely familiar with Wikipedia policy. His answer to question 6 does demonstrate honest introspection, which is a good safeguard against going too far out of bounds with the tools. — TKD::Talk 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Weak Support. Total pain, but a civil one, we often disagree here at WP:RFA and also at WP:AFD. We certainly could use his experience. I'd be glad to keep on eye on this one, and to mentor as a newbie sysop. Decent, detailed answers to questions above. No glaring issues or concerns. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Haven't seen any problems with his comments on various talk and Wikipedia: pages. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support for now. I've looked carefully at the info on XfD and DRV issues presented by the first two oppose commenters. If I see more examples, I may reconsider. For now, however, I note that this user got out-of-the-shoot strong support from Xoloz, the very admin who closely analyzed and then closed the very contentious Chinese Apartheid DRV cited below. (Xoloz did not mince words about the inappropriate rhetoric in that DRV either). Second, I believe the XfD issues arose while Daniel was still very new here. Whatever he did then, I'll bet I did something dumber. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support per A. B.'s argument. XFD/DRV is a bit concerning, but it was a while ago. This user's made quite a lot of positive contributions, and they won't blow up the 'pedia. GlassCobra 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Seems ready for the bit. semper fictilis 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - Carlos brings up a valid question concerning XfD, but it was a few months back and most everything else looks fine. I'd suggest reviewing deletion procedure and the admin reading list before getting involved in that area - a refresher wouldn't hurt. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Strong contributor. More important than making mistakes is learning from them which this user has done early in his Wikicareer, and having seen some of his work in various places I've got no concerns about this candidate's future use of the mop. Orderinchaos 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support -- @pple complain 03:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Seems like a good, trustworthy user to me. Emc² • contact me 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. You look sexy with a mop. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 06:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support, trustworthy. I'm sure Daniel is prepared to learn as he goes. Spebi 09:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. The opposes don't worry me. While XfD is not a vote, it's also true that XfD closures should not completely ignore the weight of numbers, and should not simply be closed according to the closing admin's personal opinion on whether the article should be deleted. Furthermore, the default in closing an XfD is always to Keep; if a large minority of users make sound, rational, policy-based objections to deletion, then the result should be Keep or No consensus, not Delete. So from what I've seen, I trust Daniel's judgment where AfD and DRV are concerned. Walton^One 11:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, seems trustworthy, civil, smart, etc :) SQL^{Query me!} 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. I'm not worried, I think you'll be okay. Acalamari 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Change to support based on satisfactory responses to concerns. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. User seems to be trustworthy; has given considerable thought to the questions and has appropriately clarified the concerns below regarding consensus and vote counting. I see no reason to oppose. -JodyB _talk 22:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. I share some of the concerns raised below, but all in all I reckon xDanielx is well qualified and has the right stuff to handle the <sarcasm>exciting and rewarding</sarcasm> janitorial tasks on Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. support I think he will follow consensus--just as with me, with similarly broad views on inclusion--he will not take admin action where his views are not in accord with consensus. I expect he will do as I, argue as an ordinary editor in cases like that. My request for adminship was based in large part on my desire to more effectively participate in Deletion Review, and it was almost unanimous, & I don't think I've abused it. In context, many of the oppose votes here are people who simply disagree with his positions, and that should not be a consideration. I've !voted for many people of a deletionist tendency here, and by and large they've played fair too. DGG (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support I think xDanielx will have no problems as an administrator. Captain panda 16:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - not only to prove I haven't got Editcountidis, but he seems like the right material, and ready now. Greswik (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support I couldn't say it any better than DGG just above. --JayHenry (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. I am confident that xDanielx will not abuse the tools. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Believe will not abuse the tools, not persuaded by opposes. Davewild (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support, and the oppose votes are not convincing. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support He is a good editor. And, oppose votes are not that convincing. I hope he will do a great job as an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Unlikely to abuse tools and has shown that he can learn from mistakes made early on; I don't believe that mistakes made in the first month of editing should be held against an editor forever. Shell ^babelfish 11:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support: Seen him around, does good work. Wizardman 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support I've spent time going through this, and watched it unveil over the last few days. My end impression is that, although I respect the opposers, the net benefit to this candidate having the tools will be positive, and not cause additional workload to other admins but instead remove some. So, yes. Yes please. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Seen him enough at DRV that the name is familiar. I've reviewed all of his DRV contributions for October and November, and I do not see anything concerning in them. I closed the first DRV that Carlossuarez46 refers to below; that one really came down to the wire and almost resulted in an overturn (which was xDanielx's position, albeit poorly argued for, as so many DRV nominations are). The Chinese allegations DRV was pretty clearly nobody on Wikipedia's finest day; that a then new editor made poor comments is unsurprising. (I disregard his former account's total three edits in November 2006 and January 2007.) I can tell his voice at DRV will continue to be different to mine - often opining in discussions I don't care a fig about is a major example - but it won't be disruptive, and I'm not worried about giving him the tools. GRBerry 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Wow, great user, pleased to support. Auroranorth (!) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose this editor views XFDs as votes and makes DRV nominations with reference to the result not matching the vote outcome, and requiring certain percentages of deletion votes required to delete at XFD. For example, [2].Carlossuarez46 18:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Let me expand a bit, because (1) every oppose comment gets a third-degree of prove this or that, and (2) I was the deleting editor in the above-cited DRV. I have seen this editor at numerous DRV's and some of the other troublesome statements I can find involve those in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid (I didn't participate in that one) where certain comments appear to be personal attacks against the deleting admin. There are other times, in DRV that I recall use of percentages, etc. indicating an unfamiliarity with WP's deletion criteria or process. Carlossuarez46 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope you'll be forgiving of any blunders I may have made then, since I had only joined the 'pedia 3 or 4 weeks prior. To be honest I've grown very tired of the hostility surrounding those DRV debates (some of which was my fault), and intend to stay away from it as much as possible. I hope you'll believe that, if I once had an agenda to pursue with regard to content deletion, I've become completely detached and have no intention of rejoining any moral crusades. I don't mean to suggest that my opinions have changed radically -- I'm sure you would still find my views on the relation between WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTVOTE at least slightly distasteful -- but I have no intention of using administrative tools to advance those views. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Absolutely agree with Carlossuarrez. There is plenty of room for different interpretation of deletion criteria and I'm generally in favour of giving everyone who is a regular at DRV the tools to read deleted articles but this user is constantly off the scale with regard to their opposition to deleting anything. I seriously fear that granting them the tools would be a recipe of constant reviews of poor xFD closes and unnecessary drama. Just in case anyone thinks that I'm being mean, I would like to point out that I supported BDJ for adminship even though I never agreed with his view of deletion debates. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Spartaz, if you can point me to any particular examples, it would be helpful. DRVs and no-consensus XfDs often turn on gray area interpretations and I'd like to see the context for your concerns. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to let you know that I'm currently away on a buisness trip and I'm not sure when I will have time to deal with this. Hopefully something soonish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand -- I travel, too. If you get the chance, that's great; if not, it's OK. Happy trails, --A. B. ^(talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose — While this user has demonstrated an excellent understanding of what should and should not be deleted, I cannot overlook the fact that this is a self-nom. As always, I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Is the self-nom the only reason you choose to oppose this candidate? Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As in past RfAs, Kmweber's usually sole reason for opposition is frivolous accusations of power hunger. B'crats will give his opinion its due weight, if any. —Kurykh 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please refrain from referring to a position based on years of observation of human behavior, both on Wikipedia and off, as "frivolous." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I respectfully decline to do so in this case, given the pressing need to air a collective sentiment as demonstrated in numerous other forums. —Kurykh 05:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose, reluctantly agree with Carlossuarrez and Spartaz above. While I know that people are certainly capable of reforming themselves, I hope that if this user is promoted, then they will take these votes as reminders to tread very lightly in such situations. Lankiveil (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
5. I'm a bit troubled by Carlossuarez46's arguments. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weak oppose per MaxSem. NHRHS2010 talk 22:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. I do not feel that xDanielx has good enough judgement. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. The AFD diff that Carlossuarez46 brought up spoke for itself. Based on that and other contributions to processes, I'm a bit concerned about judgement. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 03:55, 07 December 2007 (GMT)
9. Reluctant oppose; xDanielx is a valued contributor, but a solid understanding what what consensus really means on Wikipedia is critical to use the tools properly. I have no doubt that this editor would not turn rogue, but I also have sufficient worry about his misunderstanding of the XfD process that I cannot support. — Coren ^(talk) 08:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry but I must concur with Carlossuarez46. Your statements at DRV bring your judgment into question. In short, I would worry about your deletion decisions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Changing to support based on response below. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose per attitude towards voting rather than solid arguments shown by the DRV comments. — Ocatecir^T 18:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    General response to the WP:VOTE concern. I don't think AfD discussions should be determined by numbers, but I do think administrators should strive to enforce the community's views (with possible exceptions for e.g. complex legal or technical issues). Essentially, I agree with evaluating strength of argument when "strength of argument" is a measure of adherence to communal norms and values, but not when it's a more idiosyncratic assessment of what's good for the 'pedia. After all, editors in good standing disagree over the latter all the time. I see numerical statistics as rough, imperfect reflections of where the community stands. I think we should give weight to numbers insofar as they reflect general community consensus — if we have reason to believe otherwise (low participation, canvassing, SPA/sock involvement, and unusual results are some of the more obvious signs), than we should act accordingly. If an admin considers some particular rationale to be spurious but other editors in good standing disagree, I think s/he should join in the discussion and attempt to work out disagreements instead of closing and disregarding the argument in question.

    That said, it would be most hypocritical for me to attempt to uphold consensus by wielding the mop in a way that the community deems improper. If I'm given the bit I'll do my best to conform to the community standards in making any keep/delete decisions, or at least not deviate far from it. I think my XfD/DRV participation gave me a good idea of where the community stands on the issue (of course there's WP:DGFA, but it's understandably a bit vague), but of course any pointers would be welcome. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (ach, what the heck) Tough call, but since "not now" doesn't mean "never", I oppose, hoping for the concerns to be addressed. Again: No prejudice against another RfA in due time. I dorftrottel I talk I 07:06, December 11, 2007

#Neutral Honestly can't decide, opposers bring up good points, but it's not enough for me to oppose. Good luck anyway Daniel. Redrocketboy 23:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Switch to support. Redrocketboy 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral Good editor, but Carlos does bring up a good point... Jmlk17 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.