THC Science

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

Dane

Final (74/56/13); ended 19:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC) -- Dane ^talk 19:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC) - Withdrawn by Candidate. -- Dane ^talk 19:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Dane (talk · contribs) – Administrators need be proficient editors who we can trust not to abuse the tools; they must operate with unbiased judgement, a level-head, and the ability to listen and learn from constructive criticism. Dane has shown that he more than fits the bill. I’ve observed Dane judiciously closing discussions over at Articles for deletion, for a while now. But, the first real close-up encounter I had with Dane was during the handling of a confidential request for the Wikimedia Foundation (which I had been notified of due to a later issue) some time ago. Dane, while not an OTRS volunteer, was delegated by an OTRS admin to handle a sensitive issue. Without much knowledge of this arena, I saw him calm and assure a bemused and stressed individual like an expert mediator. His professionalism was beyond outstanding, as it has continued to be in every other interaction that I’ve observed since.

Since he decided to join our wonderfully free knowledge emporium over 10 years ago, he’s amassed over 12,000 edits to the site. But, don’t let that fool you, most of those have accrued over the last 10 months. When he’s active, he’s definitely active. What I see is honest dedication, and a user whose access to the tool will, without a doubt, be a beneficial addition to the administrative community. As he sails through my criteria for adminship with flying colours, I see no reason to withhold the mop from him any longer. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

Dane (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to co-nominate Dane for this RfA.

There's no doubt that Wikipedia has the need for Administrators, but more-so we need Administrators who: are clueful with policy and procedures, dedicated to the project, welcome and help new users and treat them with complete respect, communicate well with others and never resort to uncivil or unprofessional conduct towards anyone, keep absolutely cool and remain level-headed and calm when things get extremely stressful, know when to ask questions and get second opinions and input from others, and err on the side of caution and good judgment instead of erring on the side of "take action first, ask questions second". These are traits that wise and level-headed editors who are respected by the community demonstrate proficiency and consistency with on a regular basis; they separate the experienced from the new, make leaders out of followers, and are critical skills that I look for in candidates (among other things as well).

I believe that Dane demonstrates these skills well and that he will make an awesome administrator. His positive and enthusiastic attitude is an asset to this project, and having admin tools will only carry more weight and shine this rare and much-needed trait much more brightly. I really hope that the community feels the same way as I do. Please give him your support. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ~~I accept this nomination and thank Coffee and Oshwah for the opportunity to serve. -- Dane ^talk 15:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

I withdraw this nomination and would like to thank the community for their open and honest participation in this RfA. We cannot build this encyclopedia without an open process and dialogue back and forth. I know that the feedback provided throughout this will be instrumental in making me a better editor. I would also like to once again thank my nominators Coffee and Oshwah for their nomination. And on one final note, i'd like to address a common concern from the Neutral section about future RfA nominees: Do not let this discourage you from running. If you are considering a run for adminship, I highly recommend you use the Optional RfA Candidate Poll and remember that although the process can be stressful, the community vets each individual candidate based on their individual qualifications and competence. -- Dane ^talk 19:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I intend to deal with anti-vandalism work as well as continue my work at AfD, Requested Moves and SPI. As I spend a great deal of time per day on Wikipedia, I look forward to being able to help clear backlogs at AIV, RPP and UAA. I would also like to provide undeletions at WP:REFUND. I am not afraid to ask for a second opinion in situations where I may be unsure. I will likely be cautious with using the tools during my first few months as I learn things from situations I may not have encountered in the past. While I have been a registered user for over 10 years, I admit I am not the typical candidate (with 10 months of consecutive editing and sporadic editing before that). I feel we have a need for responsible individuals to help tackle the backlogs and I believe my contributions speak well about my judgement.

Added April 12, 2017: I would like to expand on this answer a bit as there are concerns with how i've handled speedy deletions in the past. This is not an area I intend to be very active in for quite some time as it is not one of my strong skills. I have made mistakes, many of them right when I began editing heavily and occasionally I still make a mistake, review it and learn from it. Before I take part in any regular CSD work, I would want to have close mentorship with an admin who is successful in this area. Additionally, I will offer recall criteria if this RfA succeeds that allows a bureaucrat to remove the admin flag if 10 editors in good standing feel it is necessary.

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

A: I think some of my best contributions to Wikipedia include my anti-vandalism work to ensure that the encyclopedia stays factual and free of issues. I also am very proud of the work i've done at ACC - helping to bring a backlog of over 500 requests down to 0 and working every day on it to maintain a backlog free experience for our newest editors. I am very active on IRC and will give input and advice to users when they request it. In terms of content work, I have created 7 articles and i'm very proud of my contributions to the Shooting of Philando Castile article, my work on sockpuppet investigations as well as the collaborative effort I have had with new users.

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 in a major conflict last year regarding an infobox on the Noël Coward article. Throughout the process, I remained respectful and objective. This experience taught me a lot about how infoboxes are a contentious topic and how civility can affect a situation. I urge people to bring errors to my attention (I am human after all) and am always open to hearing others opinions. I try to take my personal opinion out of the matter as much as possible and review a situation objectively (This is a good example of me making a mistake, owning up to it, re-evaluating and fixing it.)

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Gerda Arendt

4. What do you think about User:Gerda Arendt/User talk before you block? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: It is absolutely essential to talk to users directly before blocking them and to consult with other admins when in doubt. Wikipedia is here for the content and as an administrator, I would not want to block someone who contributes positively unless absolutely necessary to prevent disruption to the project. Obviously, there are some clear exceptions like serious BLP violations, but in general I believe there should always be dialogue and a block should be a last resort. I would be willing to develop recall criteria as well if this RfA passes to ensure that I am held accountable for any of my blocking actions.

Additional question from Vanamonde93

5. Hi there, and thanks for offering your services. On 15 January, a new user created the page Geoff Cottrill, with their third edit. At this point, the page looked like this. Two minutes later, you tagged it for WP:CSD#A1. Was this tag appropriate? If so, why? If not, why not? Vanamonde (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: Per WP:CSD, "Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice.". Under CSD:A1 and CSD:A3, we also have "Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created." This is one of those occasions where I did a simple Google search and determined that the sourcing I found did not show notability, which is why I tagged so quickly. The tag itself was inappropriate as I used A1 instead of A3 (I was aiming for content (A3), not context (A1)), which was correctly swapped in by another editor.

Additional question from TParis

6. Have you ever been coached, either publicly or privately, on how to pass this RfA or otherwise manipulate the outcome?

A: I do not believe I have been coached (unless you consider my ORCP to be coaching).

I do not believe receiving feedback is the same as coaching. Thank you for your honesty, though.--v/r - T P 18:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ad Orientem

7. Thank you for your offer to serve. Do you believe it is ever appropriate for an admin to unilaterally delete an article or page without it first being tagged for CSD or some other form of deletion? If so, under what circumstances?

A: I believe it is appropriate for administrators to delete pages unilaterally without it being tagged first only if they're eligible for speedy deletion or oversight. Personally, I would not unilaterally delete pages unless they are already tagged for CSD criteria or if they were obvious copyright violations, BLP violations or oversightable material.

Reply- Since I asked the question I think it only fair I should give my own view which is close to yours. The one area where I would disagree is that I do not think admins should unilaterally delete a page because they think it meets CSD criteria. But you saved yourself in the next sentence when you said you would not do that except in some narrow circumstances. There have been instances where I have nominated a page for CSD and the reviewing admin spotted something I missed. Otherwise your answer was good. (Extra points for mentioning oversight - suppression which in my ten years on Wikipedia I have probably given all of 30 seconds of thought to.) My general rule is that I only delete unilaterally in cases of gross and naked vandalism of the sort that no reasonable person could look at it and think it was anything else. G10 attack pages directed at living persons would fall under this heading along with serious threats of harm etc. Pretty much anything else, I want another set of eyes on it before it goes away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Amortias

8. You come across an article that may be a copyright issue, you delete the article as there are reasonable grounds for it being copyvio based on review of the possible source and it appearing off site before it appeared on wiki. The user who originally wrote it requests a copy of the article is sent to them via e-mail so they can work on a copy offline. How would you respond to such a request.

A: As in this scenario copyright violation with reasonable grounds, I would deny it per WP:REFUND - "Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all." I would invite the editor to create the article from sources that comply with our reliable sourcing policy.

9.An editor who you have been in several previous lengthy disputes is edit warring on an article by including content that it in breech of BLP, the issue has been ongoing for over two hours and appears to have not yet attracted another admins attention. The information being included includes private information with regards to the persons life that is not readily available in the public domain. How would you respond? Amortias (T)(C) 19:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: Assuming that by "private information" you're referring to oversightable private material, this is one of those cases where I would overlook WP:INVOLVED and revert the edits with the BLP violations and revision delete under criteria #4 until oversight handles the suppression.

Additional question from Ivanvector

10. At WP:ANI you see a report about a user, "Bufens10", who created their account one month ago and has made a dozen or so edits each day in a variety of topics. A more experienced editor, "Ambecardabi", complains that the user is "too familiar with wiki-markup to be a newbie". Several more experienced editors have agreed the newer user is "suspicious", and two have insisted that the user must reveal the name of their former account. Bufens10 hasn't responded, but two days ago they blanked their talk page with the edit summary "Stop erasing my edits! LEAVE ME ALONE!" and then stopped editing. Reviewing further you discover that Ambecardabi has reverted 6 of Bufens10's edits all on different pages with the edit summary "rv sock" and has left four {{uw-vandal4im}} warnings on Bufens10's talk page, prior to it being blanked. You cannot determine what about the reverted edits is improper, and no other information is available. As an administrator, how would you respond?

A: Simply being familiar with wikimarkup is not sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry. As this is taking place on WP:ANI, I would advise the group that a sockpuppet investigation with sufficient diffs pointing out the signs of sockpuppetry is required to prove that this is a sock. I would also warn Ambecardabi regarding their wikihounding of Bufens10's edits and talk page, giving them a warning that their disruptive bitey behavior needs to stop.

10b. Same question, except this time you see that three of Bufens10's edits restore edits made six weeks ago by JRR Trollkien. How would you respond with this new information?

A: Assuming that the three edits were on different pages and exactly the same as JRR Trollkien, I would assume good faith and ask Bufens10 for an explanation of this behavior. As the edits were within 6 weeks and checkuser data would be available, I would also consider asking a CheckUser to perform a check as the behavior is sufficient evidence of potential sockpuppetry. If there was further evidence that passed the duck test, I would block at that point as a sock. I would remind Ambecardabi that multiple level 4 warnings are unnecessary and disruptive.

Additional question from Glrx

11. Please comment on WP:ORCP#Dane: April 6, 2017 that you closed after less than 72 hours when they often run for a week or more. What did you expect and what did you take away from it?

A: I expected to primarily see some concerns regarding the length of my editing history, which is what I did encounter and I was looking to find out how that would impact a potential RfA run. As I became very active on the encyclopedia, I noticed my need for the tools increased greatly. I also am aware of the communities overall need to have more administrators. Adminship is a toolset that will allow me to contribute better to the encyclopedia and I have the competence to be a net positive to the administrative team.

Additional questions from BU Rob13: 12. In the following situations, explain why we can or can't host the content on the English Wikipedia. If we can host the content on the English Wikipedia, explain why we can or can't transfer it to the Wikimedia Commons. For simplicity, ignore potential non-free use.

I take a picture of a new sculpture created by one of the best living artists in the United States. I want to offer it under this license.
I find the following logo online and want to upload it to Wikipedia. [1]
I hand my phone to a friend and have them take a picture of me. I want to offer it under this license.
I take a picture of a building recently created in Iran. I want to offer it under this license.
I take a selfie of some trees in Central Park. In the distant background is a billboard with a picture of Pikachu on it. I want to offer it under a license I wrote myself which states anyone may re-use the picture, including in derivative works and commercially, so long as they attribute it to BU Rob13. I also state that I may not revoke the license.

A: Answers below. I would consult with another admin familiar with copyrights and licensing to ensure my understanding and interpretation is correct before taking action with photos as I ease into file copyrights.

Freedom of Panorama does not apply to sculptures created in the United States and since it's a living artist/recent sculpture, it's not in the public domain. We therefore could not allow this on either English Wikipedia or Commons.
That logo may be uploaded to both English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as it falls below the Threshold of Originality required for copyright.
Copyright licensing for an image belongs to the creator (in this case your friend) because they took the photo. Therefore, this cannot upload it under CC0 and it cannot be used on English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.
Freedom of Panorama does not exist in Iran, therefore this image cannot be uploaded to either English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.
De Minimis is the policy in play with the selfie. As long as the Pikachu is small and inconsequential, this file is safe for both English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.

13. Assessing consensus requires one to weigh supports and opposes. What goes into such weighting when there are policies and guidelines which directly apply? What goes into such weighting when opinions are more subjective?

A: The strongest weight is given to arguments that are supported by policy and guidelines, whether they are for or against the subject. If policies and guidelines conflict with each other, consensus is built by the subjective interpretation of which policy overrides the other. In cases where no policy is cited and it is all opinion, consensus is formed by the quality of the arguments made by the parties.

@Dane: As a follow-up, could you expand on what defines "quality of the arguments"? Is this the closer's opinion of which argument is better or something else? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the arguments is determined by the closer at their discretion and judgement. It becomes a question of which argument fits with the standards and policies best. The decision should be strong and able to withstand scrutiny of the community as a whole.

Additional question from Bigpoliticsfan: 14. Here comes the infamous UAA question: You see the following usernames, none of which have edited yet. What do you do?

BushdidKatrina
1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043
Steve Bannon must die
New York University Langone Medical Center
Eat kitties all day every day!!!!!!!LOL HAHA YOLO
Ritchie334
Chad Duell

A: A list full of problematic usernames! A large majority of these seem disruptive although "New York University Lagone Medical Center" is definitely a shared username, which should be discussed on the talk page with the user. The address is a strange one for sure but not a clear username policy violation, so I would leave that one alone. Ritchie334 appears to be an attempt at impersonating Ritchie333 so that would earn a block pretty quickly although i'd discuss with the user on their talk page. Chad Duell is a notable living person and I would check to see if they have a note about this stating they are unrelated to the person...if not, block per UPOL and request additional verification through OTRS.

Additional question from Snuge purveyor

15. Reflecting on this six-month-old ANI filing you opened, what would you say you learned, both from the actions leading up to the report and from the discussion and events that ensued? If you elect not to answer this optional question, that decision will not influence my support or opposition. Sorry for adding to an already stressful process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuge purveyor (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: This discussion taught me that in cases where collaboration has been difficult with an editor, it's always best to engage using the talk page rather than revert an edit. Although my actions were taken in good faith, there's no doubt that the prior interactions lit a fire that I didn't expect. Dropping the stick is key in situations that go in circles and there is nothing to be gained by replying with emotion.

Additional question from J947

16a. Do you believe that treating newbies carefully is important? Explain your answer.

A: I believe that treating newbies carefully is very important. If a newcomer has a bad experience, they are unlikely to stick around and contribute positively to the encyclopedia. I think the teahouse and adopt a user program are great resources and I utilize them as tools when helping on the Wikipedia IRC channel.

Additional question from J947

16b. How have you treated newbies? Please provide some diffs.

A: I believe I treat newbies well. I give them guidance and resources to grow such as this new editor that I helped at the teahouse with examples of reliable sources. I also provided a link to our reliable sourcing policy in an attempt to help them familiarize themselves with our policy on that as well. In this case I provided the user with information about the usurp process for their account. I have learned from this mistake and no longer use only warning templates in anything but extreme cases as this can dissuade newbies from the encyclopedia, especially if mis-identified as a vandal.

Thanks for the answers. As a rule of thumb, when blanking sections or such I normally go lvl1 warning, and full blanking lvl2. Also WP:TWA is a good resource. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 06:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from User:That man from Nantucket

17. In order to gauge your understanding on Wikipedia best practices regarding notability, would you consider a political discussion web forum comprised of aonymous users, to be a "media organization", and (assuming no other criteria for notability being met) thus notable per WP:NMEDIA?

A: The notability is determined by whether or not it has significant coverage in reliable sources. These sources must refer to it as a media organization for it to be called a media organization in the article.

Additional question from Exemplo347

18. You come across a redirect tagged for Speedy Deletion under WP:R3 entitled "Fred smith" that points to "Fred Smith" - the redirect is a few minutes old, as is the target article. How do you proceed?

A: I would delete the redirect as "exact capitalization of the article's title does not affect Wikipedia search, so it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links" per WP:OTHERNAMES and leave a message on the creators talk page indicating why I deleted the redirect. As for the target article, as long as it wasn't a BLP or oversightable, I would watch it for a while to see how it develops.

In terms of my CSD tagging overall, I have made mistakes with it in the past for sure, however I have decreased the amount of mistaken tags as time moves on. CSD is not one of my intended main areas for the tools (see Q3) and i'd be cautious with any speedys that I do delete.

Thanks for that - your response is aligned with policy and the most recent consensus. I've seen admins and certain editors stumble over this precise type of scenario, and then they've been over-ruled by admins more familiar with things - which clearly isn't ideal. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from John Cline

19. If an AIV report alleges an account is being used for vandalism only, and said account has a total of 5 edits, all being blatant vandalism, but no warnings were ever posted on their talk page, what action, if any, would you take on said report?--John Cline (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: As the user has not been warned at all, I would hesitate to block immediately. I would assume good faith and decline the AIV report as insufficiently warned. I would then warn the user myself with the hope that they would stop vandalizing since they would be aware of the consequences of continuing. I would closely be monitoring that accounts contributions for any further vandalism and evaluate a block to prevent disruption if their vandal activities continued.

Additional question from FriyMan

20 Do you think, that blocking a user, who is making personal attacks to other users is the best solution to the problem, if not please provide alternatives. --Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 15:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: I believe that it is important to evaluate the personal attack and whether or not the user has been sufficiently warned. Personal attacks are quite disruptive to the encyclopedia as they can discourage participation and cause undue stress on an individual. I would only issue a block for a personal attack if proper warning was given to the attacker. I would also encourage them to refactor their statement to remove the personal attacks. If the user continued, I would then block to prevent further disruption.

In the rare event of a severe personal attack like a death threat, there would be no warning and I would immediately block the editor and follow the procedures in the responding to threats of harm policy to ensure the foundation is aware.

Additional question from EdChem

21. I note your answer to J947's question about newbies, and would like your comments on two recent cases with you were involved.
Case 1: You recently rejected this draft article by 24hubs, leaving only the standard boilerplate advice which had been left when the article was previously rejected. 24hubs came to your user talk page two days ago for help and advice, and your response, whilst polite and accurate, strikes me as providing little more help than did the boilerplate advice at the draft. A review of the history of the draft article shows a clear attempt to address the referencing issue since the earlier rejection, though with flaws which are obvious to an experienced Wikipedian. Would you please reflect on your handling of 24hubs' draft article and request and comment?
Case 2: IP editor 209.149.113.5 made this edit turning a redirect for an actor named Malcolm Dixon into the start of an article. You reverted one minute later, posted to the IP's user talk page that the edit did not appear to be constructive. You and the IP editor had this discussion on your user talk page over a half-hour period shortly afterwards. In it, you stated that "The wikipedia movie pages I checked did not reference him". You made four Huggle edits in the minute when the IP posted the material that you reverted. Did you really check whether Malcolm Dixon appeared in any of the movies the IP listed, either by looking at the Wikipedia articles, or elsewhere? Did you check whether this IP has a history of contributing to Wikipedia (mostly at reference desks)? Did you check outside of Wikipedia? I ask because IMDB lists him, in the same movies the IP listed, so the IPs edit (while unsourced) looks like an earnest attempt to be constructive to me, and your actions appear bitey to me. Any comments?
Related to case 2, I note you did 15 reverts + user talk posting of a comment or warning in a 9 minute period yesterday (case 2 was one of these 15). Also in that run was this revert (of edits that appear well-intentioned to me) that you met with a level 3 vandalism warning, yet this reversion of puerile comments added in three separate edits about gay sexual activities alleged to have taken place in the shopping centre and which named alleged participants received a message that they "did not appear constructive." My concern is that you are going so fast that you are making mistakes, and biting people in the process, and also that this is all recent (last few days). What do you think?

A: In case #1, I gave the newbie links to the appropriate policies, as I took their "point me in the right direction" quite literally. When I declined the draft, I had ensured that they were invited to the teahouse for additional help on their article as I knew I had RfA and would be unusually unavailable. In case #2, I launched this outside of huggle and indeed opened a sampling of the movie pages listed in the table and searched for the actors full name as well as just part of his name. I did not find any reference to this actor which is why I reverted. As IMDB is user generated content, I did not look there or google further on this. While they did receive a "warning", I do not perceive this is bitey because their initial efforts could reasonably be seen as vandalism or test editing. Additionally, when the user came to my talk page, I explained my rationale and suggested they use draft space for development of the article and offered to move it into place upon completion. Regarding the final reverts you mention, "Revert+Warn" in Huggle will determine the last warning level the user was given and escalate to the next one when used.

21(a) – Follow Up:

You followed up this revert at the Kinver article with a level 3 vandalism warning. Are the edits which you undid with this revert vandalism? Please explain.
Are the additions undone in this reversion, which you described as appearing to be not constructive, vandalism? Is there a BLP issue here? Was the warning you chose appropriate, on reflection? Please explain.
You have described this reversion relating to actor Malcolm Dixon as an effort that "could reasonably be seen as vandalism or test editing" (emphasis in original). Please explain.
I'm also concerned with the speed you are making decisions and whether it is possible to adequately complete the checks that you describe (and I'm asking in part also thinking of comments in Mendaliv's oppose and in part as your response above did not touch on this area of concern). In the minute in which the Dixon addition was made and your subsequent reversion and warning in the next minute, you made 6 edits with Huggle (3 revert + warn pairs – the other two being an entirely clear cut example of unconstructive / test editing and the above Kinver revert) yet also apparently conducted searches on the actor's full name and the name in truncated form, and checked whether the page was linked in WP articles of "a sampling of the movie pages listed in the table" plus whatever checks you made on the other reverts, all in a 60 to 120 second period. I also note that the minute before had 4 reverts, one of which you chose not to follow with a warning, suggesting to me that you are customising settings on Huggle as you go (I'm guessing – I've never used Huggle). Would you please comment on the pace of your work and the adequacy of additional searches / checks you make in non-clear cut cases?

A:

Additional question from Eggishorn

22. I think it's non-controversial to say that deletion is a major responsibility of admins, particularly those that intend to assist in anti-vandal work, as you've done in the past. In reviewing your AfD participation, I see that your judgment on an article is highly-correlated to the outcome. This is definitely encouraging. In contrast, your [CSD Log] and your [PROD Log] show a high proportion of blue-linked articles. Limited spot-checking shows that some of these blue-linked articles were improved after you tagged them and are not evidence of any issue. I see many, however, that seem to be insignificantly different from their state when you tagged them. Instead of grilling you on individual cases, I'd rather ask: A; What you believe is the proper reason for bypassing the standard deletion process (i.e., AfD)? and B; Do you believe that you've been generally correct in applying that reason to the articles you tag for prod and speedy? Thank for your response. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: Not at all a controversial thing to say. Deletion is definitely a part of the admin responsibilities, which is why I would like to start my deletion related admin duties in AFD, where I have a firmer understanding of closing per consensus. For my PRODs, I will say that i've looked back on them and a lot of times the concerns have been improved which is why the tag was removed. Another tag that was a non-deletion tag may be just as effective, but in general if theres already a stale tag (on top of my concerns or with my concerns and a couple years old) my rationale was to PROD.

As I said before, any CSD work that I would participate in would be extremely cautious as it is one of my weaker areas. I believe that it is fine to bypass AfD and use a speedy tag if it meets the criteria. A lot of people struggle with CSD A7, which is one area I continue to work on and have improved greatly if you look at my log. The article can have a claim of notability and still go under A7 if the claim is not credible. It's no secret that in the beginning my CSD skills were terrible, and people like to gravitate towards Nura Woodson Ulreich (which I now understand why it was wrong to nom). This was my very first speedy deletion nomination and I don't think it's quite fair to expect it to be correct. We're all human and we have to learn somewhere and I think i've improved my skills to a reasonable level for the tags I leave. They're not perfect and I will make mistakes but I do not believe administrators must be perfect as long as they're willing to learn.

Thank you for the honest and informative response.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Tigraan

23. I skimmed through your (impressive) AfD record and found two "speedy delete" !votes in AfDs that end up closing as delete. In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biokinesis (a few days ago), you wrote WP:FRINGE material that doesn't belong here. No third party reliable source.. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julius Papp (2nd nomination) (five months ago), you wrote this is clearly A7 material.. For both cases, do you still think speedy deletion was warranted at the time you !voted, and if yes, can you clarify based on which policy?

A: Biokinesis should have been CSD A7. At the time that I evaluated Biokinesis the article made a claim of significance, but the claim was not credible as no reasonable person would say that it's plausible. In terms of the Julius Papp article, I would have defaulted to AfD if presented with the article today. If I recall correctly there was a claim of significance and although he is mentioned in third party sources, all of his coverage that i've found appears to be passing mentions.

Optional follow-up: I registered an oppose below, and to be frank I am not likely to switch, but there is some discussion of A7, below, at Ivanvector's support. You say biokinesis (some fringe theory) should have been A7, but A7 states the subject should be a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event. Do you still maintain the article should have been A7-ed, despite its apparent ineligibility? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Followup: I have read and reviewed the A7 criteria again and understand it is not in the criteria, however as Ivanvector pointed out, the criteria is not perfect and the community norms have been rather loose in regards to A7 (in that it's treated as a catch all at times for obvious things that don't belong). This is why a lot of my A7 tags are redlinked, especially if you look past the first two months where I had just started tagging. They may have been deleted through other tags or processes but in the end they weren't suitable for the encyclopedia. In regards to this specific question again, A11 is the next closest criteria but it doesn't meet this in even a stretch because it wasn't claiming to be or obviously "invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally." A custom tag wouldn't work because it has the same restrictions as the other tags. By current policy, no, A7 should not apply but ignore all rules makes sense in the case of this specific article. (The speedy deletion rules of A7 would have prevented an obvious improvement to the encyclopedia by removing information that is a fringe theory without credible significance and verifiable sources)

Additional question from TheMagikCow

24. Sort of following on from your answer to question (4). An experienced editor creates a serious BLP violation, by creating an attack page on a person. They claim a personal experience and dealing with them has led this page to be created. What do you do? Would your response be different here with a new editor?

A: The intent of a block is to prevent further disruption, not to punish a user. Losing any editor who contributes positively to the encyclopedia would be the last thing that I would want to do. In this situation and assuming this is a brand new page with no safe revert point, I would delete the page under CSD G10 and notify oversight if the attack contained information that needed suppression. I would give the editor a single warning advising them that this is not acceptable behavior (referencing BLP) and ask them to refrain, letting them know that a block would be the next step to prevent further disruption and violations of the BLP policy. My response for this situation would be exactly the same for a new editor and an existing editor.

Additional question from Hobit

25. Sorry to pile on here. I was looking over some of your edits and ran across this: [2]. It looked like there was a lot of moving/removing/adding this section. Your edit summary didn't seem on point but I'm honestly not sure what was going on here. Could you explain?

A: No need to apologize, I would like everyone to ask questions if they have concerns. It's the only way to properly vet me and make an informed decision. I was reverting this where the editor had placed a duplicate copy of the table. This was likely a misclick on the reason in the Huggle menu.

Additional question from Timothyjosephwood: 26. Your most edited article is The Conjuring 2, basically all of your contributions seem to be reversions, and you have all of 16 articles created, nearly half of which were deleted, and all but one of which seem to be no better than start class, even in some cases, over ten years since their creation. Why should I have any expectation at all that if you have to arbitrate between editors in conflict who each have hundreds of contributions to an article, that you will be able to empathize with them in a way that resolves the issue which doesn't involve obvious sanctions, given that you don't really seem to have even moderate experience in content creation.

A: I definitely think there are ways to resolve disputes without sanctions. The main thing is to maintain the peace between the participants and to get a thorough understanding of what the dispute is about. Writing an article is hard work and although some of mine are short, I obsessed over wording and referencing. I understand that it feels like editors spend hours on their creations and that makes it very easy to get angry if their hard work is reverted. In resolving a dispute, I would focus on how to compromise in order to get the content in and acceptable to both parties. Through experience and observation, i've seen that copy editing the content is frequently all that is needed in order to resolve the conflict and still include both editors' content.

Additional question from The Bounder: 27. Could you talk through your actions and thinking from a couple of days ago regarding your talk page thread User talk:Dane#Malcom Dixon (actor)? Would you have done anything different if you were an admin? Thank you. – The Bounder (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: While patrolling, I noticed the suspicious edit changing a redirect into an article which is why I took it out of Huggle for closer examination, assuming good faith. It didn't take more than a few moments for this examination as the changes were adding one line of text ("Malcolm Dixon is an actor.") and a Filmography section with a table referencing films that I checked (using my browsers Find function and the actors name in two variations) and did not find reference to this actor in. When the user came to my talk page, I explained this reasoning as well as provided a link to a Draft space where it could be created/worked on as I felt this was a more appropriate place to develop the article. I offered to move it over the redirect when complete if it was up to article standards. My answer would have been the same as an administrator however I do regret that I did not use softer phrasing in my response as I could see this being perceived roughly which was not my intent.

Thank you, although unfortunately you have reinforced my oppose: linking to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources while using a search of Wikipedia to prove notability are in fundamental opposition to one another, particularly as most of the information the IP added can be found on one webpage. I will add an extended comment on my oppose (number 17), if you want to see where you erred on a basic point that an editor should know, not just someone with their finger on the delete button. (Your comment that you should have used softer phrasing is accurate, but to deal quite so bluntly with a newbie does also go against the fine words you used in your answer to 16A: "I believe that treating newbies carefully is very important" (your emphasis). – The Bounder (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Perhaps my interpretation is wrong and I should have done the research to find reliable sourcing, but my understanding based on a recent experience I had was that an editor who wishes to include something is the one who should provide the verifiable, reliable sourcing. At the time I wrote the comment back to the IP I was trying to be helpful, I didn't perceive it as potentially rough and only after re-reading it later do I think theres a chance that it could be taken that way. Thanks for your clarifications, I do appreciate your feedback and honesty and will take it under advisement.

Perhaps if you had told the IP that in the first place, that may have been OK, but you didn't. You gave misleading and incorrect advice to someone who now has the wrong grasp of our policies. It's all very well and good to make the right call after a. you told something to the IP; b. I gave you the opportunity to explain and ask if you had done something different; and c. finally come up with a vaguely correct if unsatisfactory response after I had elucidated the problem. No-one expects admins to be perfect first time round, but you gave incorrect information to a potentially constructive IP, and removed information on someone who may or not be notable: you've not yet ascertained whether Malcolm Dixon is notable. You went to the extent of searching to check notability: if you had done that properly and found the BFI source, then adding that would have taken just the same amount of time as searching the non-reliable source of WP and re-directing the page. To say I am unimpressed that this is an action of administrator standard is something of an understatement. - The Bounder (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also this comment from EdChem on the effect your words and actions had on the editor. The reference desk thread he links to shows a very different approach to the editor, and a very different judgement on Malcolm Dixon's notability. - The Bounder (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

Support

Support never been the first support before, but more than happy to be here! Great editor and Coffee and Oshwah say it better than I could. Also, echoing Nick below, Dane as a whole is very level-headed and his response to having a close of his taken to move review shows the level-headedness and thoughtfulness we need in an admin when someone asks them a question about their actions. I see the reasoning behind Ritchie's oppose, but I am not convinced. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support super duper support Dane is incredibly level-headed and has a well rounded Wiki-career, despite his shorter active tenure. Dane is always courteous and welcoming to people and is able to efficiently communicate with other editors, which I believe is a key in fulfilling admin duties. The combo anti-vandalism, ACC and content creation work really just seals the deal for me too. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen Dane on IRC many times, and he's a very good editor and will be a very good admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm very much familiar with the candidate and have no significant concerns with their behaviour, knowledge or temperament. I expect them to make an excellent administrator, should this request pass. I would also add that Coffee has been editing and administrator-ing for a very long time and knows what's what, so for them to co-nominate is an indicator of an excellent candidate. Richie333's Oppose is generally unconvincing - either a candidate should have learned from a controversial incident and then be suitable of becoming an admin, or they should have to wait a very long time, this short, pointless and arbitrary six month 'wait period' does nothing. I also worry slightly that we're starting to focus on candidates who have avoided any sort of controversy and who we have no idea how they'll behave, rather than giving candidates who have been a little controversial, and who have learned from their faux pas, a fair hearing. Nick (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's only one facet - the other is for reasons documented in User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
just some evidence that a candidate can evaluate multiple sources and write prose around it. Christopher Kerze, Philips Hue and Murder of Alayna Ertl (looking at the last edits made when Dane was the only contributor) would seem to show that Dane is perfectly capable of evaluating multiple sources and writing (good) prose around it. Nick (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Net positive to the project, yes I would like to see some more content creation, however I believe Dane would make a capable administrator on this project. He has the right temperament and his work at AFD, Requested Moves, and SPI are laudable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no concerns. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's very promising to see us returning to more compelling candidates. I support 100% especially since we need more skilled admins to work at Afd. His access to the tools will be a positive to the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support He showed willing when I chided him about the state of Gopher Ordnance Works and has actually created several articles like this. This looks good compared to the last candidate and so natural justice applies. While his record is not perfect, this and other examples show that he doesn't dig in and is sensibly ready to correct himself. "It’s only those who do nothing that make no mistakes". Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely no concerns, level-headed user, all my interactions with them have been nothing but positive. Penskins (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-nominator. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, like - answer to my question - how you request comments --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ive seen Dane around and I am confident he'll make a good admin Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this candidate is qualified and also to counteract oppose below from an editor who no longer contributes to this community but who magically reappeared to attempt to influence community proceedings on the basis of a personal vendetta. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a solid candidate, opposes are utterly unconvincing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support His answers here show judiciousness and intelligence, and the fact of not one but two nominators is impressive. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ~~No problems.~~ -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strike my earlier rationale. The incorrect CSD tagging is an issue, but it does seem like Dane has been better lately. If this passes, I implore you to be careful with deletions and if there's any doubt, to take it to the appropriate non-speedy forum. However, my support still stands because there's a lot of great stuff that Dane does that more than cancels that issue out. I have faith that he won't break Wikipedia, rather use the mop to improve it where necessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid candidate with a good record. Dane checks pretty much all of the boxes on my criteria list. Reasonable answer to my question. Looks like a net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, cool-headed candidate with good judgement and contributions. Sn1per (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although Dane usually doesn't do much content creation, he is certainly amazing with MoS compliance, and very helpful in cleaning up the prose for FACs. Also, he has a good record with CSDs and AfD voting record—93% of his votes match the outcome, although that is a low number, as some of the AfDs he has voted on have not closed yet. Additionally, Dane is very helpful to newcomers on his talk page and has good non-mainspace participation. Overall, I think that Dane has a good knowledge of policy and the correct temper to be admin. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a good candidate, clean blocklog, nice mix of defending the wiki and improving it, some good deletions in the deleted edits. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~No qualms. — foxj 22:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
Those in opposition make points that are difficult to ignore. I'm unfortunately going to withdraw this support. — foxj 07:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I said it at WP:OCRP [3] and I'll say it here - I've seen Dane pretty much everywhere and they always like to muck in and help with whatever they can, I'm also impressed with their answers here and IMHO this is the perfect candidate for the mop, Content creation although important isn't the be all and end all of the site - We have various other important things on the site, The Opposes are all unconvincing and quite frankly laughable, Anyway no concerns, Good luck. –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dane has always been helpful in understanding Wiki. I think that Dane has a good knowledge of policies and the perfect temperment to be admin. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 22:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I went into Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 2 expecting to see something egregious based on the sole substantive oppose below, but came away with exactly the opposite impression. By all accounts, Dane kept a level head, didn't make any personal attacks, and handled themselves well. I don't know the merits of an infobox debate (I think it's pretty darn silly for anyone to get too heated about something like that), but I see nothing alarming whatsoever. To the contrary-- based on the candidate's strong answers above and their positive track-record thus far, I think there's a good case to promote them and hand them the mop. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No issues overall and good luck with the mop! KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (Moved to neutral)[reply]

Support. The main reason I remember Dane is because he helped me help a new user who was being harrased by an IP sock. The case ended up being taken to ANI. Anyone who can go to ANI and not lose their head is a net positive in my book. (I'll expand my response when I'm not on mobile.) — Gestrid (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Neutral. See my reasoning there. — Gestrid (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The archive of the ANI discussion can be found here, though the discussion surrounding it happened on various user talk pages, including Dane's mine, and a few admin users' pages. Basically, the short version of what happened is, if I recall correctly (this was last November, so I hope you'll forgive me if I get some details wrong), I was anti-vandal patrolling with Huggle and ran into an IP editor claiming to revert a sock. I wanted to double-check their claim, so I investigated and eventually found out that the IP editor had been harassing the user for five months without anyone noticing. I asked for help with the problem on IRC and Dane (then Dane2007) was able to help me throughout the entire situation until we were able to get an admin involved. Throughout the situation, Dane was able to keep their cool and calm down the user. That user is still a semi-active editor on Wikipedia, even after threatening to leave a few times, thanks in part to Dane. Feel free to correct me if I got something wrong. — Gestrid (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, no worries. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Support for a long-tenured (indicating perspective) candidate who is a net positive. Good temperament for adminship, although he may be starting to wonder what the hell he let himself in for. Candidates don't have to be perfect, and neither do their nominators (if any). Just when I thought RfA was starting to settle down, it goes arse over teacup again. Miniapolis 23:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, precisely per nom. bd2412 T 23:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't understand why Ritche333 called Dane out for this. If anything, Schrocat and Cassianto were more at fault. Other oppose rationales are even worse. Who opposes a RfA based on who the co-nominators are anyway? That's like opposing a RfA "because _____ supported it, and _____ is my mortal enemy". Neil916's objection is more concerning, but not enough to make me neutral / oppose. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There've been a few more oppose rationales. SoWhy's oppose is not trivial, but it's also not too concerning for me since it should be something that's pretty-easily fixable. SagaciousPhil's oppose is much more serious. However having looked at the ANI thread and Arbcom request, I'm unconvinced that they show temperament issues. Getting into disputes is very much the norm on Wikipedia, and seeking dispute resolution is not per se wrong. Again, if anything, Schrocat and Cassianto were more at fault; Dane actually conducted himself / herself quite well given the circumstances, in my opinion. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now, pending more detail on the answer to question #13 and a chance to review more in-depth. First of all, if anything, the discussion brought up by Ritchie lends toward a support from me. Dane's participation there was near spotless. Some of the established editors there made uncivil comments and Dane did not respond. We can't blame Dane for merely existing alongside editors who are unable to be civil. Dane's answer to my question #12 was quite good. There's only one mistake; Dane, the United States applies its own freedom of panorama law when determining whether something is eligible for the exemption or not. For the picture of a building from Iran, that image is fine in the United States, as buildings are eligible for freedom of panorama here. This means we can upload it to the English Wikipedia under a suitable free license, but we can't transfer it to Commons, which requires freedom from copyright issues in the source country as well. Still, the ability to figure out the copyright issues was well above-average. Based on everything I've seen brought up and the answers to questions, I'm defaulting to support pending a chance to dig deeper later this week. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the IRC logs, as I was idle in the channel at the time. They contain nothing illicit and no direct or indirect communications specifically with Gestrid or any opposers. Someone mentioned their opinion, and that was it. I'm quite confused where all this is coming from. Most importantly, it doesn't speak to the candidate himself whatsoever, so it doesn't impact my support. (On the other hand, I'm less than pleased with the follow-up answer to my second question, but it isn't enough to move me to oppose or neutral.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support productive and reasonable, no concerns. FWIW, I agree with Kudpung's comments in the neutral section that placing much weight on a candidate's OCRP participation kinda defeats its purpose as a lightweight feedback mechanism. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contrary to some assertions otherwise, we do need more admins, and this guy seems like he would be a net positive to the project. Seems dedicated and reasonably level headed. I don't expect admin candidates to have never gotten into disputes, those that have not often just avoid disputes altogether, and we need admins who are willing to jump into a hornets nest when necessary. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support- As explained by co-nominator ~Oshwah~. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support User contributes positively to the project and has enough experience. Drama is a reality of Wikipedia and I'm unconvinced that the incident described below is a part of a pattern of behaviour. Additionally I'm not a fan of the content creation argument, I judge candidates based on what they have done, not what they haven't, and what Dane has done is positive for the project. —Frosty ☃ 02:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Frosty. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Well-qualified. Good answers to the questions, especially copyright. I didn't find the oppose arguments convincing. My own check of some recent contributions by Dane didn't turn up anything of concern. At ANI he is helpful and his reports to the 3RR board are reasonable. If you want to search for his comments on noticeboards you may have to look for Dane2007 as well as Dane. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The incident mentioned by Ritchie is unconvincing; I think any reasonable editor would have gotten a bit annoyed at the behavior others displayed there. --Rs chen7754 02:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, if you can convince at least one arbitrator to vote to accept a request for arbitration, then it is certainly a reasonable request. Dane convinced four. --Rs chen7754 06:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty much completely per Nick. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The CSD concerns don't bother me all that much; they were quite a while ago in the grand scheme of things, and seem to have been mostly resolved since. I would trust the candidate going forward to correctly apply all the criteria, so still support pretty much per Nick. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - When I saw this RfA was only at 84% support, I figured this must be a fairly mediocre candidate. How wrong was I?! The answers to the deluge of questions clearly show a masterful, admin-level knowledge of policy. I doubt all of the opposers have such a good grasp on policy themselves. CSD tagging looks fine. Otherwise checks all the boxes in my RfA criteria. Experienced in a wide variety of areas. Opposers present nothing troubling, in fact they can't seem to find anything serious at all. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- strong candidate; thoughtful and well reasoned answers to questions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no reason to suspect that the candidate will be anything other than a net positive. The arguments about ORCP and about one of the candidate's nominators are silly, and should carry no weight. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Participation at SPI, UAA, RfPP, and AIV are evidenced by the record; AfD stats look good following a bit of a bumpy start, and are not "gamed" by showing up late and !voting with the majority, at least according to my arbitrary sampling. Decent answers, particularly to User:BU Rob13's relatively arcane copyright question at #12. With great respect to User:Ritchie333 at oppose #1, I would characterise the candidate's actions during the Noël Coward 2nd infobox RfC as unproblematic and indeed barely there: although it was undoubtedly a dramafest, by my reading almost the entirety of the drama was brought by a single editor, who was not the candidate. We cannot attribute the departure of Tim riley, which took place during the RfC, to the candidate having opened it (see WP:OWB§2). To be perfectly transparent, my motive behind optional question 15 was to give the candidate space to expound upon events shortly after the infobox battle where he really did go hammer and tongs, which seemed quite possible to arise as an issue of intemperance. I do approve of the answer the candidate furnished, and it was over half a year ago. I also commend the candidate for their quick reply although I made it clear I was in no hurry for an answer. The remarks leading to User:Neil916's oppose at #4 are somewhat more worrying, being only a week or so old. I would characterise the candidate's suggestion as overly harsh, but not rising to the level of an oppose. I feel that six months of high activity is enough experience, and experience can be gained more quickly than temperament can be altered. Demonstrated need for the tools rounds out the reasoning of my !vote. Snuge purveyor (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took part in the RFC that Ritchie brings up in oppose number one and while Dane could probably have handled things better, he was nowhere near the worst participant in that discussion. If we disqualify everyone who has had a vigourous disagreement with another editor and done so in a relatively calm manner we would have no admins left. Or at least no admins with any experience or willingness in dealing with conflict. As a side note one of the first things I look at when deciding on a RFA is the rational of the oppose !votes, so when editors don't feel the need to explain their opposes it makes it impossible for me (or anyone else) to decide if they have any merit. AIRcorn (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good track record, a content creator, shows a level head and cool demeanor. Strong support. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
#Support Per the answers to the questions above. Seems like a strong candidate who is level headed and would make a great administrator.SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 10:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC) moved to oppose. 13:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues. I have seen Dane working around here and have no problems with them being given the mop. Nördic Nightfury 11:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problems with this candidate. They are level headed and mature, and they can be trusted with the mop for sure. The only drama I can see right now is with the !voters of this RFA. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a good well-rounded candidate. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support some of the opposes are plain silly so a vote here is a good counterbalance, fwiw pinging is most Certainly canvassing, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am supporting this candidate, because we need more admins like him. If he is supported by Coffee and Oshwah, there is no doubt, that the user has the need, will and courage to become admin. I am putting my hope into this user. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 15:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen Dane in action over the last few months and I have no issue with this editor becoming an Admin. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dane has a sound knowledge of policy, experience in working in areas that need admin intervention such as Username policy blocks through his work at WP:ACC and the creation (or declining) of usernames in violation of policy. Find me an admin who has never gone hammer and tongs at something, everyone gets drawn in to something and and loses perspective on occasion, theres a reason everything can be undone and I would struggle to find someone who hasnt had something on site cause them to act of out character. Amortias (T)(C) 16:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for speaking his mind, when needed. In the linked RfC, SchroCat and Cassianto fully bludgeoned the topic (leading to numerous discussions on ANI about their conduct; take a look at Cassianto's block log) and IMO, Dane is completely justified in his comment- the RfC established a firm consensus, and unlike the hilarity that ensued when Cassianto and SchroCat didn't get the result they wanted and launched a new RfC, called all their friends to it and declared a new consensus literally the second after all these friends voted, Dane accepted the result when his RfC didn't go his way. I am sure in an administrative capacity he will understand the boundaries, but we can't expect cyborg administrators, what they believe outside of their role as an administrator is up to them, and having administrators that are passionate about upholding the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia and not allowing a few individuals to bludgeon a discussion to get the consensus they want can only be a good thing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I find the oppose arguments singularly unpersuasive, and far too tainted by secondary agendas. This editor's strengths far outweigh any issues, and procedures can be learned; at most this is a training or mentorship issue, not a reason to oppose a strong candidate. --Drmargi (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Like others, I find Dane level-headed, competent, and an overall good contributor. I believe he will use the admin tools well, and given his work so far, I believe that him having the tools will allow him to improve the encyclopedia more effectively. Waggie (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: We need more admins and this editor is qualified. Jonathunder (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The misapplication of A7 is an editor retention issue. It drives away bad editors. So keep it up. Also, Jcc raises good points above. I'd much rather an administrator who, in his/her words, is "passionate about upholding the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia" than "cyborg administrators" of whom we have far too many. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that admins should actively drive away new editors who create less-than-perfect articles about valid subjects? Regards So Why 06:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute "less-than-perfect" for "crock-of-shit" - which you full well know is more a more accurate description of just about anything near A7 - and the answer is an obvious "yes". --Mkativerata (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. And I don't believe this accurately describes either all of the articles this candidate has nominated for A7 deletion (see below) or all of the articles nominated for A7 in general. But thanks for clarifying. Regards So Why 08:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with Ritchie, whom I'm ignoring because of his disgraceful partisan campaigning and canvassing on this RfA) Just to take three examples from the examples you gave below. This is clearly an unacceptable "article" and is still in an unacceptable state today. Sure, G11 would have been better than A7 but who gives a shit. It should have been deleted and its continued presence today harms Wikipedia. This is similar: promotional rubbish that should have been deleted. And for stuff like this, either someone needs to take responsibility for fixing the English or it should be deleted. Moreover, in none of these three cases should we worry about crying over any lost editors. The candidate should be applauded for identifying this crap and trying to get rid of it. We should turn our scrutiny instead to the deficiencies in our processes that permitted these monstrosities to remain on Wikipedia with next to no improvements. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you point out how Daniel Bogado, Maurice Gaffney and Hannah Beachler are all "a crock-of-shit". The editors who put those three articles through the DYK process to hit the main page don't appear to agree with that. (I realise Dane did not tag these three articles, but I'm addressing the general principle here). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On "his disgraceful partisan campaigning on this RfA" - are you referring to when I said "However, I have recently said that I think you will pass with support roughly in the 70% range, and I stand by that.", when I said "Your AfD stats are pretty good and we could always do with some extra hands with closing the more tricky debates." or something else? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely qualified, we need people who are willing to do the work and he is certainly active enough. --Charitwo ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dane has shown that he is of suitable temperament, experienced, and willing to help in admin areas. epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a qualified nominee who deserves a shot at adminship. Daphne Lantier 22:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm kinda surprised he wasn't already an admin with all of the widespread help and patience he spreads. Great mentor and would be a great admin. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The candidate participates in WP:ACC, closes RMs, and correctly reverts lots of vandalism using Huggle. He can be trusted as an admin. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've seen no serious issue that the candidate may have in the areas that they are interested in helping out in. I also trust that their judgement will be to gain assistance in areas where they are uncertain. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 23:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never been so on the fence with a candidate before, but their recent responses have persuaded me to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are aware of their areas for improvement and willing to both avoid admin actions in those areas and to pursue the necessary improvements. I still believe that WP:DEAL means something and therefore feel any close case should go to supporting the candidate. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great editor. So informed has my !vote §CopernicusAD ^(u) (t) :) 01:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good degree of activity. Not seeing anything that rises to sufficient concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support -- Only thing that gives me pause is SoWhy's oppose below, but am happy enough with answers to Q22 and Q23 to support. -- Shudde ^talk 07:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have seen this user around and seems to do good work. I assume Dane will take concerns raised here into account and be careful when performing admin actions. feminist 10:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per SoWhy's oppose and the many opposes echoing it. The community's (and admin corps') confusion and inconsistent application of the WP:A7 and WP:A9 speedy deletion criteria, and ongoing stubborn failure to clarify the definition of a credible claim of significance, are not this candidate's fault. They're bad speedy criteria, that's all there is to it. The speedy criteria are supposed to be for bright-line black-and-white cases so that if an article definitely ticks the various boxes, it gets deleted, but A7 and A9 are open to far too much interpretation and judgement to be fairly and consistently applied across all article creations. Again, that is not the candidate's fault. An administrator therefore has two options: ignore all A7 and A9 tagging (like myself) or push stubbonly forward with their own guess as to what the community intended by creating these criteria. In addition, this candidate has been peppered with a barrage of complicated questioning to the point of what we used to call badgering, and a more hotly-contested RFA than we've seen in some time which is obviously a result of the most recent 'crat chat and many editors venting their frustrations at an innocent editor. The candidate has responded to this unfortunate situation with poise, and has responded to the many questions not only thoughtfully and reasonably, but promptly and concisely. These are all excellent qualities in an administrator candidate. I'm especially impressed by the response to my own question 10, a hypothetical situation involving new users, sockpuppetry, and various forms of harassment; the candidate identified and addressed all of these points in their response. Looking over several other complex questions and detailed answers shows one of the better admin candidates we've seen in some time: knowledge in a breadth of administrative issues, thoughtfulness and responsiveness, and willingness to seek help when they don't have the answer. It's a real shame this candidate is getting the "shit on the candidate because RFA is broken" treatment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, A7/A9 have some issues with what constitutes a credible claim of significance or importance and with some admins who misapply it consistently. However, there is clear consensus on three things: 1) A7 is limited to certain subjects and all other subjects cannot be deleted under it. 2) If a subject is notable, it cannot be speedy-deleted as A7. And 3) If a page was previously discussed and there is consensus for it to exist, A7 cannot apply. The candidate's taggings I mentioned oftentimes fail these clear requirements, which is why I (and others) opposed. I agree with you that standards should exist to allow editors to consistently apply A7 (and I invite you to help with WP:CCSI, an essay which tries to compile consensus on various claims and whether they are sufficient). However, the lack of such standards does not mean the policy, which is clear in the parts I just named, can be ignored. Regards So Why 12:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy, you've just demonstrated Ivan's point; If a subject is notable, it cannot be speedy-deleted as A7.. That is not the A7 criterion. A7 is no claim to ~~notablity~~ significance. Whether a subject is or is not notable is irrelevant for A7, what is important is whether it claims to be ~~notable~~ significant. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't. I'm well aware of the requirements for A7 and especially that significance or importance is intentionally a lower bar than notability. My point was this: If a subject meets the notability criteria, it definitely meets the lower threshold of A7. And yet this candidate has tagged clearly notable topics (with almost a dozen sources in one instance) as A7. Or, to put it another way: If Significant/important => Fail A7 and Notable > significant/important, then notable => Fail A7, yet the candidate's taggings seem to indicate he thinks notable => A7. Sorry if my comment was confusing in this regard. Regards So Why 12:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. I thought you had made the all too common mistake of raising the A7 bar higher than it actually is. Yes, if it is notable then it is certainly going to be significant or making a claim to significance. For that matter I made the exact mistake of raising the A7 bar in my previous comment, I put claim to notability and then later realized it's actually claim to signficance but by that point Ivan had already pointed it out. Thanks for clarifying. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is another nuance here... there can be subjects which are unambiguously notable but with a sub-stub article where no credible claim of even significance or importance is made. Imagine a new sub-stub article that said "Albert Einstein was German." Now, anyone who knows who Einstein was would say he is notable, but an editor not knowing who he was and assessing this sub-stub based solely on its content could reasonably argue that no claim of importance or significance is made. Of course, in Einstein's case, five seconds of research would provide evidence of notability, but what if the name was not internationally known and the nationality was a non-English speaking country in Africa, so that finding evidence of notability in English-language sources on Google is non-trivial? None of this is to say that slapping an A7 on the sub-stub is the best approach, talking to a newbie editor who created a sub-stub and asking that something be added indicating why the person is notable / important, preferably with evidence, is likely a slower but more friendly fist step... but the idea that notability necessarily prevents an A7 tagging / deletion hinges on that notability being known / recognised or asserted (and I realise that even just asserting significance is meant to be enough to avoid A7). EdChem (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... actually no, it's whether it claims to be significant. Whether or not an article makes a claim of significance, and whether or not such a claim is credible, are demonstrably open to a wide variety of interpretations. I mean, we can't even agree on the nomenclature. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and any argument for deletion which is open to being interpreted differently by different editors should be discussed at WP:AFD. That makes A7/A9 lousy speedy criteria. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... AND ((edit conflict), sorry I'm ranting now) if you need the WP:CCS essay to define a point in your speedy deletion criterion, AND you need ANOTHER essay WP:CCSI to clarify the FIRST essay, your criterion is broken. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was just about to fix that. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A7 is limited to certain subjects and all other subjects cannot be deleted under it. And several of those "consensuses" were reached 5-10 years ago and may not be the same consensus today for the same reason consensus is ignored for a G4 deletion when the AfD is old. And a lot of that supposed consensus about A7 in general is based off of personal essays that people cite as actual consensus that was never actually reached. But I couldn't have said it any better than Ivan did *slow claps*. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There might be consensus to change A7 to include subjects like schools, geographical locations, products etc. that are currently not included. But when the candidate made those taggings, A7 clearly excluded such subjects. Imho, we shouldn't choose admins who act on what consensus might be instead of what it objectively is. Regards So Why 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But that is objectively not what consensus is regarding A7. Applying A7 to articles which merit deletion for other reasons is one of the most common errors made by new page patrollers, and even experienced users and some administrators make this error. A7 is literally being used as a catch-all for deletion where notability is asserted but sourcing is inadequate, or articles of poor quality, or deletion where an editor (or admin) thinks the result is obvious and just wants to bypass AFD, in good faith. As you know, none of these are within the letter or the spirit of the criterion, but this is what's actually happening. Consensus is not static: if the way that the community currently implements a guideline (as evidenced by all the erroneous A7 tagging) is contrary to the outcome of discussions that happened years ago, then consensus has changed. In fact it is very much to our benefit to select administrators who can recognize the difference. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "credible claim of significance" part leaves a lot of wiggle room that might be exceeded compared to the spirit or letter of the CSD; call that de facto consensus, WP:IAR or CSD abuse, but for sure it exists; so, one could defend a view of A7 as a "catch-all non-notable eligible subjects", although at the end of the current CSD admin spectrum. But the "people, animal, organization" etc. part is as objective as it could ever be, it is written in the policy in bold and multiple times. If you say there is also some leeway in the CSD application regarding the eligibility, I am going to ask for proof. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only admins will be able to see these, but from the last 500 deletions (YMMV):
- WITNESS, a software package (a specific product, not an organization or website), article made a claim of significance and had 3 sources, deleted A7 without being tagged
- Rainbow six seige tachanka, a character in a video game (not a real person, organization, animal, etc.) deleted A7 without being tagged
- Prefabrik, an article not in English; when run through Google Translate seems to be about prefabricated construction, which could be significant and anyway is not a real person, animal, organization etc.
- Annie Christmas, a short article about a mythological figure, not a real person, etc.
- Sa Tan, article purportedly about a real person with a credible claim of significance, though likely a hoax from the prose (A7 is the wrong criterion for this)
- Team-DkS, article about a team in a supposedly notable video game tournament; is this definitely not significant? (article has been recreated and CSD tagged again as of this edit)
- EKart, "India's largest logistics and supply chain company" is a credible claim of significance (deleted A7/G11, the G11 was no doubt correct)
- 1city1run, "a running charity project held across 400 cities in the world" is a credible claim of significance (has twice been deleted A7)
- Wikipedia:Skriv en ny artikel, a page not in article space, A7 only applies to articles
These are only articles which were actually deleted. I don't know of a good way to search for articles which were tagged but had the tags removed. I'm not saying that some of these articles should definitely not have been deleted, only demonstrating that the stated restrictions on A7 are not being observed, in particular by administrators (the ones who deleted these articles). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point: the candidate's CSD log lists 49 A7 listings. Of these, 36 are currently redlinks and 2 more are redirects. They're a little bit worse than 4 out of 5 on these, and as previously noted the errors are from early in their log. Whether or not all of these tags are correct with respect to the CSD guideline, they're apparently mostly correct with respect to the way that A7 is actually implemented by the community at this point in time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the A7 elegibility: fair enough - I think that is a problem and the eligibility criteria should be enforced or dropped, but it cannot be held against the candidate. (However, if such was their reasoning, they should have said so in the numerous A7-related questions they were asked.)

For the CSD log: the red-to-blue ratio is insignificant. There could be a blue article, which was correctly tagged A7 even when there are no google hits, but someone found multiple sources from the 11th-century Arabic literature that support notability. More often, there are cases where the article was speedied but under another CSD, or had to go to AfD, in which case the tagging was incorrect. The first five A7 from the CSD log are one AfD, one expired PROD, another AfD (there was a previous A7 that passed though), an A7 and an A10 (duplicate of a bluelinked article). So that's one or two out of five; that is the start of the CSD log and later entries are probably better, but 5 is already a significant fraction of 49. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, some were deleted through other processes, but if A7 is being used as a catch-all for "this probably isn't notable" (which I have suggested it is) and the articles that the candidate tagged "A7 this probably isn't notable" were subsequently deleted, then the candidate is reflecting community norms by tagging these articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to have a solid grasp of policy, with a calm, level head. I understand the objections based on speedy criteria, but feel that have no ground. Credible claim of significance is no nuanced and ambiguous that editors have their own interpretations of the policy. It does not mean one is right or wrong; it merely indicates that such a core policy governing speedy deletion needs clarifying. In the same way that judges dissent, it does not mean that one interpretation of the wording is correct. Whilst I do not always agree with the way the candidate has applied this policy, I can see that their rationale and argument is as valid as mine. This leads me to ignore the A7/9 tagging, and judge on the other (wholly positive) factors. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate how for example tagging schools as A7 is a valid interpretation of the policy that says "don't use A7 for schools"? Regards So Why 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No but we should be encouraging users who have the aptitude, temperament and ability to see that Wikipedia is not black and white to run. This isn't just about tagging a school as A7 but the overall conversation regarding A7. There was one example of a school and that was clearly a mistake on his part, he should have tagged that article G11, since that's what it was. Ps: It's 2017 and the school still isn't open and the article still doesn't have references. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The school tagging would be a major issue if it didn't happen six months ago. I'm not convinced by the CSD arguments, because while I have recently been swayed more to SoWhy's viewpoint on CSD (largely per Ivanvector's support: if something is unclear, discussion is good), the examples shown were old, and I'm sure after this RfA if it passes Dane will be very careful before engaging in CSD work. Temperment is what I support/oppose on, and from what I have seen, Dane would be open to discussing his choices, and if someone challenged him on a CSD would be able to explain it or reverse it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Chrissymad here. I am sure that everybody has made some tagging mistakes in the past, in one form of another. Making one mistake is no grounds for an oppose !vote from me. The conversation is about the overall application of A7, and some of your examples of mistagging can be interpreted as following the guidelines. Let's look at the overall picture and not a few examples. Further, this happened 6 months ago, and you have admitted that the tagging has got far better. There would be an issue if this application was 6 months ago, but its not 6 months ago anymore and I feel that the deletion record in the past few months is fine. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good knowledge of policy, excellent attitude, and willing to work. Bradv 13:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. You've conducted yourself well in this RfA. I'm impressed, because a contentious RfA isn't a pleasant experience. Your answers to the questions show that you have a decent grasp of policy, and opening yourself up to recall in response to concerns shows that you're an honourable person trying to do the right thing. This is unfortunately a weak support, because the opposers have shown that you perhaps lack the practical experience of the implementation of policy (cf. the CSD tagging) and that you have caused unnecessary drama in the relatively recent past by wading into a situation without fully understanding the background and considering the situation (cf. the Noel Coward omnishambles). Had you waited six months, this might well have been a strong support. If this fails (it's at 63% as I write, so neither a pass nor a fail are out of the question), dust yourself off, lengthen your track record of calm and sensible decision-making, work on your CSD tagging, then come back in a few months; I'd be happy to nominate or co-nom with Coffee. If it passes, ease into admin work gently and don't be afraid to ask for advice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems like a good enough editor. EditSafe (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You are ready for the role. CLCStudent (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Total Support You have helped me and now I want to help you(in becoming an Admin:))-barrelroll.dev (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per nom. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose You still don't meet WP:WRITE in my view; your most edited article, The Conjuring 2 only seems to have reverts and minor template-based edits. The drama-fest that was Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 2, where you went hammer and tongs with Cassianto and SchroCat is just still too recent, and I need to see more distance put between you and that. Very specifically, your comment under the "Collapsible infobox" : "I couldn't roll my eyes any harder at your comment. Opening an RfC is hardly damaging to the community, you should be more grateful that I was bold enough to get us to a firm conclusion. Notice the consensus above and the fact that I didn't "challenge it". I wish that could be said for the people who immediately challenged the first closure because it didn't go their way. Clearly some editors have issues with collaboration". If you have the block button and write that, you will raise a complete and utter can of worms. I don't mind you raising an ORCP to gain feedback, but going straight from that into an RfA shows an over-eagerness that just leaves me uncomfortable. You should have left this RfA for about six months at least, in my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I would also add that Coffee has been editing and administrator-ing for a very long time and knows what's what" I would also add that over the past fortnight, I have had to deal with four incidents on the noticeboards that have had Coffee right at the centre of them, including the block on Winkelvi, blocking Mlpearc for trivial edit-warring, and reverting some constructive advice from me with a comment of "take your cute replies elsewhere", so as far as a nominator goes, it's a poor choice in my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm left struggling to understand if you're opposing the candidate based on a fair appraisal of their editing and suitability for the role, or simply because of who one of their co-nominees is. I would appreciate some re-assurance in this respect. Nick (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're opposing because Oshwah and myself found him to be more than capable of taking on the sysop responsibilities, after he asked the community for such input at the place designed to do so (an OCRP that had zero impact on my original inclination)? And I hardly think a singular article dispute totalling a grand total of four comments from the candidate themselves (6 months ago) can be called a "drama-fest". Of course I can hardly bring myself to think how you "have had to deal" with any of the noticeboard issues you just brought up either, considering you weren't a party to them... and considering my administrative actions have yet to be reversed, I'd suggest you take your problems with me elsewhere. Your behavior simply is not fair to this candidate. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to deal with four incidents on the noticeboards that have had Coffee right at the centre of them This is probably a good time to remember that even being an admin is a volunteer position, like every other editor (exception being WMF staff) and it should cause you no hardship as you willingly participate with every edit you make and are not contractually bound or otherwise obligated to do anything. That being said, I'm pretty sure this isn't an RFA for Coffee and if you have doubts or questions about Coffee's competency or ability as an admin, this certainly isn't the place for it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's early, and I've only scratched the surface of this nomination, but I'm a little confused about your ORCP over-eagerness concerns. From the first line of that page, This is an optional polling page available for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges in the near future. Many of the polls are archived because the user received positive feedback and decided to initiate the real thing. Do you believe that there should always be a six-month interval between ORCP and RfA, or just for this candidate? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, applicants regularly go from ORCP to RfA and I do not recall Ritchie ever employing this rationale in their oppose prior to this. Ritchie, frankly, you should have stopped two sentences before you did in your first post and never made the second. It is obvious to me that the meat of your oppose is because of the altercations Dane has had with Cassianto and Schrocat, both of whom have now retired. The argument you made up to that point was ... sufficient enough on its own and was centred around temperament. I've seen one of the Coffee embroiled messes, but, the community not only endorsed Coffee's block of Winkelvi, but, very nearly escalated it to an indef and instead put a 0RR restriction to be applied at the moment of the blocks expiry. I am fully aware that you were opposed to Winkelvi's block, but, the portrayal of Coffee here is ... unfair at least with respect to the Winkelvi mess. Further, it's not relevant or fair to the candidate. You're assessing Dane here, not Coffee. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious counterpoint is that nominees have a choice of who nominates them. If they don't pick a good nominator, that does say something about them. (Note: this should not be read as casting aspersions about this particular RfA.) Anyone want to move this discussion to the talk page? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ritchie. I don't discuss my votes so don't bother asking me to elaborate any further. Cassianto ^Talk 18:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, don't expect your ~~unexplained~~ poorly supported oppose to carry ~~any~~ much weight either then. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) edited, he did in fact give at least a semblance of a rationale, but coming into a discussion and declaring you won't be discussing anything, and then discussing that kinda chaps my hide nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He already knows. Let's just avoid giving him attention this time.--v/r - T P 18:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you were canvassed (via ping) to vote here, I don't think anyone needs elaboration. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Match, meet gasoline.--v/r - T P 19:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is well established policy, as far as I can recall, that pinging is not canvassing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "well established" I imagine you will have no trouble providing us all with an actual link to where this establishment has occurred. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are all community norms written in policy? Many of our norms are de facto.--v/r - T P 20:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph did explicitly say "well established policy." Lepricavark (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is true that the candidate registered ten years ago, but they started editing actively since June 2016. I believe more editing experience is needed to become an admin.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jetstreamer have you seen the last RfA? That editor's experience was not considered big enough of an issue; I think Dane's shouldn't be either, especially since Dane has five times more edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: I opposed to that nomination for exactly the same reasons. I'm not influenced by bureaucrat decisions. I'd like people to first become an experienced editor, and then become an admin.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jetstreamer While I disagree, I respect that you have come to an unbiased conclusion. Just saying, I also opposed the last RfA based on the lack of experience so I understand where you were coming from.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the circumstances around this discussion, the whole thread is archived here. When an editor went to ANI to seek an independent review of another administrator's actions, Dane proposed that he be blocked with a WP:BOOMERANG block for raising the complaint. I don't find much merit in the editor's complaint, but I don't think he was being disruptive or out of line, even after his thread was repeatedly closed in a pretty dismissive manner by other editors. The editor had a complaint, wanted some independent review of what went down, and was told that he'd be blocked if he complained about how he was treated. After a full reading of the various threads, I just don't trust Dane with the block button. Neil916 (Talk) 19:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very convincing oppose rationale. Care to elaborate? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not, certainly not in public. I understand that oppose votes without discussion doesn't seem to count, but look at all my past RFA votes. I don't think I've opposed too many. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that opposes without rationales don't "seem" to count, they actually don't count edit:(at least as far as myself and large portions of the community are concerned, though individual 'crafts may feel differently). This isn't a vote, if you don't give a reason then your opposition has no weight. If there is something compelling that should prevent this user form being an admin that you can't share publicly, you should immediately contact WP:ARBCOM about it. If it's just that you'd rather not say, that's your problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is your purpose in making people justify their oppose !votes? You may think it's genius to dismiss me with dickish summaries like this, but the fact is nobody has to justify anything to the likes of you and Coffee. But in the interests of impartiality, maybe you'd like to irritate those who leave one-word "support" votes as well. Cassianto ^Talk 21:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will grant that there is at least the pretext of an explanation in your oppose as you cited another user. This person has cited "I have a reason and I'm not going to tell you what it is". It isn't that they have to explain it to "the likes of me" (but thanks for getting all condescending about it) it's that they have to explain it to the community. As I am sure you already know, it has long been held that simple supports at RFA are acceptable as they are seen as endorsing the nomination, while opposes are expected to have a rationale of some sort, and dark hints at some unspeakable problem are not sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One word support !votes can just as easily be disregarded without comment. It's not as if anyone is asking the pressing question of "is there a reason you're supporting that the community isn't aware of?" That's not the case with opposes, and if there is some compelling reason to question the editor's judgement that hasn't been brought to light, then it's fairly consequential whether that happens. Whether that happens to be to an ARB or directly here is less so. TimothyJosephWood 21:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may think it's acceptable to grant these powerful tools to just about every Tom, Dick and Harry, but frankly, I don't; we have enough bad admins as it is, that is why I like to see why people think it's justified to support. I'll grant you one answer to my !vote inasmuch that I gave my rationale in "per Ritchie" as I happened to agree with everything he said. You, however, dismissed it as irrelevant rubbish. No wonder people leave this godforsaken place. Cassianto ^Talk 22:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have missed something, I could swear you explicitly said, right up the page here, that you did not want to discuss this? Is that not exactly what you said? Did you not in fact thank me for what you now call a "dickish edit summary"? (hint, yes you did [4]) Was that just trolling with the "thank" feature? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You missed nothing. So, because I refuse to be questioned on my !vote, that gives you carte blanche permission to be belittling and dismissive of it? What I am discussing is the biased bullshit you seem to be adopting here that one rule does not fit all. It does. Oh, and yes I did thank your reversion of my TP message as I took it as acknowledgement that you had actually read it and considered it; just like I did to Coffee and his inane response. Sorry, was I supposed to be embarrassed that you've linked to my thank log? I'm wholly surprised that we've got this far into the thread that you've not brought my block log up. I always enjoy seeing that in lights. Look, I'm clearly conversing with someone who loves the drama, but I'm supposed to be retired, so I'll bid you a good day and let you get on with whatever it is that you do around here. Cassianto ^Talk 06:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Ritchie. I'd rather not see any more drama in the admin corps, we have enough already. We need peacemakers. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Not enough experience. No substantial time on Wikipedia until June 2016. Wikipedia is complex and I think more consistent time on the site is necessary for editors to have an overarching sense of the place. Its that experience that can make the difference between a fair and an unfair decision.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose When I first reviewed this RfA, I expected to support and I did not find the current oppose !votes convincing at all, mainly for the reasons I laid out at WP:CANCC. However, after reviewing the candidate's deletion-related work, I - at this point in time - do not trust him with the delete button. Contrary to Swarm's support above, the speedy deletion work does not seem correct and only a few months ago the candidate tagged pages incorrectly in a staggering rate. These are solely examples of incorrect A7 taggings within the last nine months: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Those examples include multiple articles that are not eligible for A7 (schools and roads) as well as articles with clear claims of significance/importance and even an article where a DRV that explicitly allowed recreation because notability has been proven (and thus contained 11 reliable sources). While the error rate seems to have decreased in the last three months, there is no indication that the candidate has actually understood the difference between notability and the lower threshold A7 sets. Additionally, AfD nominations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Windham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaharsree, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitter Harvest (upcoming film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neel Madhav demonstrate that the candidate either has never heard of WP:BEFORE or thinks AfD is cleanup. We don't need more admins who thinks an article can be deleted because it has issues that can be fixed by editing. That said, if the candidate demonstrates that they have learned of their aforementioned mistakes and are able to fix articles instead of nominating them for deletion, I'd be happy to support their next RfA if this one fails. And if it succeeds, I strongly encourage the candidate to review their approach to deletion as an admin. Regards So Why 07:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh jeez, how silly of me. -_- This is awkward. For some reason, rather than using an edit summary search to sort out CSD tagging, I only reviewed their deleted contributions. As a result I didn't actually see any declined CSD tagging.. That was a mistake on my part. I will re-assess my position when I get a chance. Swarm ♠ 10:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit silly to challenge that handful of incorrect tags (though I agree quite a few should have been deleted) and AfDs from 6 months ago. It's clear based on AfD stats that your application and thoughts on deletion criteria do not coincide with the community consensus, with an accuracy rate of 75%, whereas Dane is sitting at 97.3%. Don't get me wrong, stats don't mean everything but it's clear to me that there is a wide gap between your perception of the criteria and the actual consensus from the community, which are supported by policies and guidelines. Sometimes people are wrong, even admins. percentages based on last 200 for both of you CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AfD and CSD are completely different procedures resting on completely different policies. CSD is objective, and there should be no (or virtually no) disagreement among editors who understand the CSD criteria whether any given article meets any given criterion. AfDs, on the other hand, almost all rest on WP:N, and a great deal of these involve subjective analysis of online sources that reasonable minds can, and very often do, disagree on. AfDs that end in delete, which I note make up the vast majority of AfDs where Dane has !voted, are particularly susceptible to re-analysis because of the very low quality WP:BEFORE searches being done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Mendaliv said. I will not dispute that my AfD !votes have at times been erring more on the side on inclusion (which is actually support by policy btw, namely WP:PRESERVE). Chrissymad Why you are citing an AfD that was explicitly a procedural nomination as an example of being wrong is not clear to me, so please explain. As for the other one, that was clearly a mistake, one I have never and in fact have admitted to publicly on the same AfD when withdrawing the nomination. But as Mendaliv points out in his very eloquently written !vote below, nobody has to be perfect but good editors, especially admins, should be able to admit when they made a mistake and not try to defend their actions in the face of evidence to the contrary. But contrary to what you seem to believe, it's a difference whether one !votes against the consensus or whether one nominates articles that should not have been nominated per our policies. PS: Percentages can often be misleading, My "low" AfD percentage is clear because while I have closed my share of AfDs, I was never often a participant and oftentimes those were AfDs where my !vote was a reasonable outcome, even if consensus was different. I invite you to actually read those AfDs instead of relying on such numbers. I can easily get a 99% score by !voting only in crystal-clear AfDs with no opposition but what would be the point of that?

As for the CSD taggings, again, Mendaliv has summed it up nicely: speedy deletion is much more objective. They specify a set of criteria that are narrow on purpose and explicitly bar deletions for other reasons. !voting to keep an article that ends up being deleted is usually a matter of disagreeing whether sufficient sources exist etc. Nominating an article about a school for speedy deletion when the criterion in question explicitly says "schools are exempt" is an objective mistake. And since non-admins cannot delete articles, their taggings are the closest thing we have to an indicator how they would handle deletions. So no, I don't think it's "silly" to expect someone who wishes to be able to delete articles to have shown that they understand when certain speedy deletion criteria apply and when they don't. According to his log and his deleted contributions, Dane has tagged about 64 articles for A7 deletion. If 12 of them are mistakes (see above), that's an error rate of 18,75%. While this is acceptable at AfD for the reasons mentioned above, it's not for a process that has strict and clear rules. Regards So Why 20:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per User:SoWhy's analysis; I had previously noticed a couple of aberations in the CSD log, but not on the scale or breadth that they have indicated. These are bizarre errors of judgement for a would-be admin. candidate to be making, so close to filing their RfA. It is unfortunate, but I can hardly support a candidate who- just possibly- might end up actually creating more work for his colleagues at, e.g. WP:DRV. I also, in passing, note that some 'support'ers seem to be suggesting that the last RfA lowered the bar on a candidate's required experience; actually, it did no such thing. The only reason that that candidature passed was the strength of the candidate's responses to the community's questions, which were deemed of such quality that they provided the necessary reassurances. No such nuanced testament towards their understanding of our policies, or such quality of reassurance, has so far been demonstrated here. I do, of course, wish the candidate the best luck in future, however. — O Fortuna^{velut luna} 09:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SoWhy's examples of incorrect understanding of speedy criteria. Incorrect speedy deletion is a huge but largely invisible issue, and a major cause of editor retention problems. --Laser brain (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I expect admins to have the ability to calm heated situations not inflame them further: the candidate only became active in June/July last year and within a few weeks was fanning the flames at Talk:Noël Coward, he then proceeded to follow (and revert) an editor he was in dispute with, raised an ANI complaint demanding a block, then filed a misguided ArbCom request causing yet another time consuming drama fest. As highlighted and linked by Neil916 in his oppose (currently #4), even within the last week the candidate unnecessarily demands blocks be issued on ANI. When these incidents are coupled with the long list of errors indicated by SoWhy in oppose #8 above, I feel the candidate does not demonstrate the character, maturity, ability or experience to be trusted with the admin tools. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the concerns brought up by SoWhy and Sagaciousphil, candidate seems to lack the maturity required of an admin and I do not trust him with the block and delete buttons.SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 13:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The candidate's wobbly input and the surplus number of cases involving poor editorial judgment and drama-stirring (as cited by previous editors in this section) weighs against advancement to administrator status at this point in time. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SoWhy - insufficient understanding of CSD criteria.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The constant misapplication of A7 as outlined above by SoWhy is fairly alarming. One or two instances is one thing, but there just does not seem to be a nuanced understanding of our deletion policy. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 14:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Temperamentally unsuited per Sagaciousphil and other concerns per SoWhy. J3Mrs (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ritchie, SoWhy and Neil. Also feel this candidate is temperamentally unsuited. All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification from my point re: question 27. You re-imposed the redirect on the basis of "spot checking the filmography list I did not see him in those films". You subsequently clarified that "The wikipedia movie pages I checked did not reference him, which is why reliable sourcing is needed to establish notability]]. I have two problems with this. Firstly you actually linked to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which contains the guideline most people know or should know: "most wikis including Wikipedia" are "generally unacceptable". This makes Wikipedia a spectacularly poor basis on which to judge notability: you need to actually use reliable sources. Secondly, the BFI—something that is a reliable source—back up most of the information on the page in their listing; there are a couple of other sites I could suggest that would fill in some of the gaps. I am not saying that Dixon is notable enough for his own page (possibly not, given the 2-minute search I did to confirm the IP was largely right in what they wrote), but giving flawed rationales is not the standard I would expect from someone who will have the power to delete articles (it's not a great standard for an ordinary editor either, come to that). – The Bounder (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: SoWhy's analysis sealed it for me, as it identifies not only troubling instances of policy misapplication directly related to an administrative task, but tends to show a pattern of such misapplication. On that basis, I went back and reexamined the issues that had pushed me towards wanting to oppose last night. I find Dane's answer to Q5 seriously concerning, especially in light of SoWhy's rationale. In that answer, while Dane properly identifies that his rapid CSD tagging was improper, his statement in mitigation—that he had run a rapid Google search on the topic prior to tagging to check for notability—misses one of the big reasons why rapid tagging is discouraged, suggests poor depth of understanding of CSD, and defies the facts. I will explain each:
WP:A1 and WP:A3 both caution editors not to tag under those criteria within the first few minutes of article creation. The reason stated in footnote 7 of the CSD policy page has to do with the possibility that the page is still being developed by the creator. How I've always understood this policy is that it is rooted in WP:BITE: Few experienced editors place a page under development in articlespace, and those who do usually make a point of either tagging the page as under construction, or ensure there is enough information to get past A1, A3 and A7. Furthermore, the types of users most aggrieved by the edit conflict that would result from the CSD tag during active development are new users, who frequently manage not to copy and paste their progress out of the edit conflict warning. Moreover, because A1/A3 tags are so obvious when they're properly subject to either criterion, admins who evaluate CSD noms tend to speed through those categories and then more slowly wade through the A7s. So a quick-tagged A1/A3 article won't stay up long, and the creator who is actively developing the page gets a much nastier surprise when he or she tries to save changes than an edit conflict. That Dane didn't recognize and address the WP:BITE issue in his response, I find troubling.
A major issue is Dane's statement in mitigation of the rapid A1/A3 tagging, that he had run a Google search on the subject and determined the available sources would not support notability. This explanation shows a misunderstanding of one of the fundamental principles behind A1, A3 and A7: Eligibility for these types of speedy deletion is based solely on what is within the four corners of the article, without reference to extrinsic factors. Using A7 as an example, an article is eligible when it fails to make a "credible claim of significance". Many inexperienced editors seem to try applying A7 to articles that provide no sourced claim of significance, or that an A7 tagging should be answered by finding sources. From an eligibility standpoint, what matters with A1, A3 and A7 is not what the sources say, but what words are in the article, and with A7, whether those words contain a credible claim of significance. While it is nice as a practical matter or aspirational goal to seek out sources to try and rescue articles that are A3- or A7-eligible, especially if you're on patrol, the availability of sources to fix an article bears no relevance to the applicability of the criteria. This is not a purely academic distinction, either. A common issue for these sorts of admins is getting confused messages from inexperienced article creators wondering what they did wrong. The advice to such editors should not be "You need more sources", or to wave them to WP:GNG, but making clear that the problem with the article was the failure to satisfy the formal requirements of A1/A3/A7 and that (under most circumstances) they're welcome to try again.
Finally, it defies the facts that Dane performed a Google search that was adequate for the claim he makes because the timeline does not fit and the sources available in such a search should have given him pause. The article was created at 01:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC). At the time, Dane was operating Huggle, apparently starting around 01:15. In the five minutes from 01:19 to 01:23, Dane made at least 15 contribs, virtually all tagged as Huggle edits. In the two-minute period from the time the article was created to when Dane tagged it, he had done at least two reverts with Huggle. I question the ability to perform an adequate search in this compressed timeframe, on this person with an uncommon name, that would have indicated non-notability. I checked Google myself: One of the top, first page Google hits for "Geoff Cottrill" is a May 17, 2016 article specifically about him in Forbes (i.e., the article existed at the time and should have had high search ranking). Though half the article is interview, there's enough edited article there that those portions qualify it as secondary. This should have triggered a lot more Google searching if Dane saw it and was working towards rescuing the article.
I was also unimpressed with another aspect of Dane's response to Q5. One of the big issues I look for with admins is the ability not only to admit fault when necessary, but to own one's mistakes. The question asked whether Dane's tagging of that article was improper. For me, an admin should step right up to that question and affirmatively recognize having made a mistake. The phrase "I was wrong" comes to mind. Dane's response, after a fairly long inline quote explaining the policy for A1/A3 rapid tagging, was "The tag itself was inappropriate". I'm reminded of Mistakes were made. Following up on that, Dane's final explanation of why the tag was inappropriate was simply that he applied A1 when he should have applied A3. As I discuss above, the issue is more on the propriety of rapid A1/A3 tagging, and I do not believe Dane addressed that issue adequately. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will also preemptively respond, in preparation for the inevitable counterargument that Dane's CSD performance doesn't matter because he's not intending to work there. First, I only pointed to the CSD issues in Q5 because that was, in my mind, one of the most egregious problems I had with the candidate. There is much more, particularly based on the other questions, to give me pause. Second, the CSD issues discussed above reflect two other problems, which are far more serious: WP:BITE issues, and the general ability to interpret and apply policy. The latter, in particular, is a serious problem here. CSD criteria are hard and fast, and should leave little room for disagreement between editors. So problems in applying those policies properly and deficiencies in understanding them suggests that interpreting and applying more subjective policies, such as ones involving civility and behavior, or most of the WP:N series of guidelines would prove even more difficult for the candidate. This issue also undermines the significance of Dane's AfD rate as a proxy for his comprehension of policy, suggesting that the high rate results more from abstaining from the more difficult cases. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same concerns as you, 6 months ago. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee, I say this with the best of intentions: you should take this page off your watchlist. Getting frustrated here is not going to increase the chances of Dane becoming an admin. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But probably will lead to more edit-summaries such as this one. TheEd's advice is good. — O Fortuna^{velut luna} 17:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty obvious tu quoque, not to mention ad hominem, @Coffee:. Even for a nominator, it is not a good place for an admin to be. I urge you to rephrase it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe Coffee raises a valid point, however. If we all focused nearly exclusively on behavior and tendencies that are from months ago, a substantial proportion of RfA's would be unsuccessful, and the community would miss out on good administrators. Penskins (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but Coffee's the nominator of this RFA, and I'm pretty sure they'd naturally want to see how this RFA turns out, right? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: Please take a closer look at my oppose, on the whole. While, yes, the subject matter of Question 5 was a case that happened in January, my concern is in response to Dane's response to the question and evidencing his current grasp of policy. To summarize: In responding to Question 5, Dane argued that A1/A3 tagging a two-minute-old article by a one-hour-old editor was acceptable because a Google search found no indication the subject is notable. I pointed out that (1) the claim that early A1/A3 tagging was justified because he searched for evidence of notability is incorrect because the rationale underlying the policy against early A1/A3 tagging is that the creator is presumed to still be working on the article, and by extension, to prevent WP:BITEing; (2) the claim that searching for evidence of notability has some bearing on whether an article, as written, is subject to deletion under A1/A3/A7 is incorrect because such articles are subject to deletion due to deficiencies of the writing rather than issues of WP:N-type notability; and (3) Dane appeared to be operating Huggle at the times immediately surrounding the creation and tagging of the article, and one of the first ghits on the subject was a very strong indicator of notability. These are all criticisms about Dane's present capability rather than past issues in that Dane's response is based on his current knowledge of Wikipedia policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - and it's been years since I last opposed a candidate, especially considering my fairly lax standards for RfA. First off, there's the drama incited at Talk:Noël_Coward/Archive_2 recently. Then there's the whole victim-blaming this month. I can't get over the recent adding of speeding deletion tags where they don't belong, such as high schools and a clearly notable female artist. I am very sorry. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreeing with multiple editors above, same as before, just barely past a weak oppose. —JJ Bers 20:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per SoWhy's concerns with CSD tagging - and I know I've removed incorrect CSD tags placed by this user, which erodes trust in candidate's application of policy/guidelines. To be frank, I see minimal signs of improvement either - just less A7 tagging overall in the last few months. If there was a pattern of more clueful CSD tagging in the future, I'd be inclined to support. Appable (talk | contributions) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, largely per Berian and Sagacious Phil. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Per the problematic CSD taggings and just becoming active recently on top of that. However, I doubt that I would vote oppose if there is another RFA in the future with more accuracy in tagging articles for speedy deletion. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the answer to my question, but I'm going to oppose mostly over CSD issues and partly that it feels like there are a number of fairly minor errors when doing page patrolling which I imagine could cause confusion (picking the wrong CSD criteria likely falls into that). I do want to voice thanks for the patrol work you've been doing and note that I'm likely to support in the future (3-6 months?) if you can do better with CSD tagging and generally not rush quite so much through huggle. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I feel this is WP:TOOSOON per the concerns outlined by Sagacious Phil, and also I'm worried about the answer to Question 5. But I'm sure the considerable discussion of that answer has been useful to the candidate, and altogether, I would be likely to welcome them back in a few more (maybe 6 or so) months. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose A few instances of bad A7's I can overlook, but not the misuse of db-reason that SoWhy found above which indicates lack of understanding of the limits of CSD. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, regretfully as this is the first time I find myself here. But Ritchie333's and SoWhy's opposes force me here, with their careful analyses. Double sharp (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per answer to Q2, Q20 ,and especially answer to Q4, support from RileyBugz, opposes from Neil916 and And Adoil Descended, and above all opposes from SoWhy, Mendaliv, Laser brain and SagaciousPhil. I don't usually set much store by the questions at RFA or their answers, which are usually a bunch of obsessives demanding to know the candidate's stance on whatever their pet issue happens to be and of little use in demonstrating how the candidate will behave as an admin (except in the meta-sense of illustrating how the candidate reacts to the kind of stupid-but-good-faith questions with which every active admin is bombarded), but to my mind this is something of an object lesson in how not to approach an RFA. I came expecting either to sit it out or to support, but this has convinced me to oppose.
Some of Wikipedia's most deep-rooted problems stem from over-zealous deletion and a lack of engagement with people who've submitted unsuitable material in good faith; editors who treat the Manual of Style as some kind of holy writ which needs to be enforced, rather than as the intentionally vague set of suggestions it was intended to be; on-wiki actions being determined by off-wiki discussion outside the very limited set of circumstances in which they have to be; and pot-stirring editors who can't resist the urge to try to reignite arguments which have been settled, often with great difficulty. Reading your answers, and the support and oppose sections, has convinced me that you manage to check every one of these boxes.
I know it sounds bizarre to say about someone who's been on Wikipedia for as long as you (albeit your contribution history is somewhat front-loaded), but I get the impression that you really don't understand either the purpose of Wikipedia or how it functions. It's no secret that we've had serious problems recently with admins causing (sometimes severe) problems through an overly literal application of the letter of the rules rather than the spirit in which they were written, and I get the strong impression that you'd fall into this group. Couple that with the general incompetence regarding deletion - an area in which you specifically say you want to use admin tools - and the general spite and lack of empathy which, as Bearian points out, you were still demonstrating recently rather than a phase you went through in the distant past, and this gets a rare strong oppose from me. – iridescent 2 02:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the analysis by User:SoWhy and User:Sagaciousphil, and because of the evidence (revealed in some of the questions) that Dane races around performing edits, reverts, etc, at breakneck pace that cannot possibly involve the degree of thoughtful consideration that those actions should sometimes require. That sort of thoughtless editing/deleting/reverting etc is precisely the kind of behavior (which I see from supposedly experienced users, judging from the barnstars etc on their user pages) that makes a relatively new user like me question whether I really want to continue participating here. In general, I do not get the sense from his answers that Dane has the right temperament to be a good admin. Gpc62 (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... and what User:Iridescent 2 just said ahead of me. Gpc62 (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the candidate's attitude towards new editors and their dreadful use of CSD. Take Q5, concerning an article that he tagged for A1 2 minutes after it was created. In his response, Dane says he tagged the page so quickly because he believed it "didn't have notability". Notability has nothing to do with A1 and CSD tags are not a catch-all for articles you don't like. A few minutes after this the article's author expands it quite considerably, and what does Dane do? Immediately swaps the tag to A7. It's worth pointing out that the article still exists and apparently is notable. Far worse for me is his response to a newbie editor who came to his talk page asking for advice. Dane's response was simply restating the generic "more sources" AfC rejection template; it's worth noting that this editor has not edited since. Laurdecl ^talk 03:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I wasn't too sure about the CSD thing, so I asked Q23, the answer to which is disappointing. I realize that a set of 26 (and counting) multi-part questions is hard to answer especially if you want to do it reasonably fast, but there is really a deal-killer for me there: biokinesis (some pseudoscience theory) is not a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event, so WP:A7 does not apply. (Also, for the second part of the question, it was a while ago but a relevant bit of information that is still available seems to have been missed: that was the second AfD for the subject, the first ended up with keep with multiple sources etc. invoked, so it should have been at least acknowledged.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Staying there after the answer to Q23 follow-up, where the candidate doubles-down. Assuming that answer is not post-fact rationalization, it boils down to "should be deleted quickly, so WP:IAR A7". Well, CSD are intentionally strict and I do not think this would have been a correct IAR call, but more importantly, if it was an IAR call it should have been labelled as such; neither in the !vote nor in the original RfA answer was this written. I had "trust issues" before based on a general feeling, but this reinforces it, even as it partially alleviates the CSD issues. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but that's the wrong answer in basically every way:
- I definitely think there are ways to resolve disputes without sanctions. No, the correct answer is that almost every way to resolve a conflict is one which doesn't involve sanctions.
- I obsessed over wording and referencing Which is not at all backed up by the latest article from two months ago, which includes things like this and this as reliable sources, and for some reason actually includes a section entitled "Miscellaneous", which is such a fantastic example that it may actually be useful for improving WP:TRIVIA. Honestly, right now the editor pretty resoundingly doesn't even qualify for autopatrolled.
- it feels like editors spend hours on their creations ...no, they actually do spend hours. I'm not entirely sure how you hang out here for ten years and don't, but "it's a problem of perception" is not only a wrong answer, but contradicts the core presumption of the question.
- copy editing the content is frequently all that is needed in order to resolve the conflict and still include both editors' content Besides the condescending wikilink to Copy editing, I...don't know that I've ever come across an actual conflict (i.e., escalating through DRN and noticeboards) where this resolves it. If I have and forgotten about it, it is certainly not a general rule. TimothyJosephWood 09:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the correct answer is that almost every way to resolve a conflict is one which doesn't involve sanctions. I fail to see how this differs significantly from the answer the candidate gave. It also ignores what the candidate says right after: The main thing is to maintain the peace between the participants and to get a thorough understanding of what the dispute is about. Penskins (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there are ways to resolve disputes without sanctions shouldn't need to be said, and that goes generally, and besides the fact that it was assumed in the question in order to rule out any exceptionally non-nuanced hypothetical where the behavior in the disagreement would make the solution obvious. And for the rest of it, well, honestly I was going to add a final comment about how the remainder of the response is so generic it should come with a watermark, but it was early, someone was hungry at 3:30am, and I couldn't remember how to format my way back to the default indent without screwing up the numbering. When someone asks essentially "how to you maintain the peace," replying "the main thing is to maintain the peace" isn't an answer; it's a tautology. TimothyJosephWood 13:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The areas where this editor excels are those which do not require the administrators tools; the areas where this editor has been found wanting are those where the tools could be both damaging and create the most drama. More maturity required in my view. Poltair (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The misuse of CSD tags, as already explained at length e.g. by SoWhy, above, is concerning. It might be overlooked if Dane's more recent CSD tagging had notably improved, and if the candidate's answers to questions on CSD were good, but Dane has only tagged four articles with A7, A3, or A1 since Geoff Cottrill, which was tagged with A1 only two minutes after creation, against the instructions for the use of that tag; and the answers to Qs 5 and 23 do not inspire me with confidence that Dane's understanding of those criteria is any better now than it was then. I'm also not overly impressed with the answer to question 26. It's not that I "feel like" I spend hours on some of the articles I work on: I literally do spend hours; and in my (relatively limited!) experience there are many conflicts over content where mere copyediting is not enough to solve them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm afraid. I've been mulling over this for a while; initially I was probably a "weak support", but now several issues have come to light which individually would not be terrible, but together are too much for me to support at this time. First, I am unhappy with the level of content work. Ritchie and Timothy above mention concerns that I will not rehash; in addition, when I looked through their content work, I found Murder of Alayna Ertl. This is a decent stub, all said and done; but when I find that Dane added a source whose headline is that a man was arrested for murder, but the article does not at any point mention arrest, I begin to wonder how seriously they are taking their content work. (I am NOT opposing over the fact that they left some information out, but over a triviality which bears out a larger pattern of slapdash editing, mentioned by many folks) Second, there are the CSD issues. SoWhy has raised a number of issues, and I am not too happy with the answer to my question. Two minutes is far too soon, even if the search had been adequate, which, it has been shown above, it cannot have been. Even so I'd have been okay if Dane said "yeah you know what, that was too soon, I'll be waiting longer next time" but they doubled down on their position. Finally, across their new pages patrolling, their ANI posts, and their responses here, I'm seeing a tendency to supply boilerplate in place of well thought out answers, which suggests both a bureaucratic mindset, and a tendency towards hat-collecting. And just in case folks read this and say "hey those are all trivial issues": in short, I'm saying "insufficient content understanding, CSD tagging issues, tendency to bite, and hesitation over temperament." I wish the candidate well, and am certainly not precluding supporting in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The candidate's attitude and comments here Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 2 are a cause of grave concern that the extra buttons will be misused. Graham Beards (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for a number of reasons, and reluctantly. First, for the issues Mendaliv points out. Second for reasons that Iridescent articulates so well above. I also find it concerning that an admin-candidate can say "it feels like editors spend hours on their creations" and "copy editing the content is frequently all that is needed in order to resolve the conflict and still include both editors' content". Uh, "feels like editors spend hours" - no. Editors SHOULD spend hours on their content, otherwise it's probably not very well researched and written content. And, no, copy editing is very often the worst approach to a conflict... what if the conflict is over whether something is WP:FRINGE or not? Or if reliable sources differ wildly over what happened? Or what if someone tries to use a clearly unsuitable source - do we just "copy edit" in the unreliable sourced content? I leave it to others to evaluate the CSD issue - I know enough to know I don't know enough on that subject to judge. And the ANI approach early this month is also not encouraging. This leaves aside the whole "leaping into something before doing full research" that happened at Noel Coward... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too soon, sorry. I see many mistakes, all already mentioned in the opposes above, too recently. I strongly believe Dane should get more familiar with the rules and guidelines first. Work on that and come back in a few months. Yintan 14:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iridescent, but also because of the appalling attitude displayed at the Noel Coward fracas, which was mainly caused by Dane. His reaction to very productive editors leaving the project because of that shambles was "No one forced them to go", and when another editor pointed out that this would be detrimental to the encyclopedia, his response was "I couldn't roll my eyes any harder at your comment". Not now, and never with that attitude, thanks. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—per above, as the user doesn't have the necessary maturity for me to be comfortable with him having the block button. —MartinZ (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Little content creation and only started editing Wikipedia actively since last June. - TheMagnificentist 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am perplexed that you sought feedback at an ORCP to ultimately ignore the good counsel the feedback gave. You were cautioned that many would assess you as a candidate with only ten months of editing experience and advised that ten months is not generally viewed as sufficient tenure for an admin hopeful. Consensus was that you should wait some time before transcluding your RFA, to gain strength in areas where need for improvement was shown. Imagine if you had followed that advice instead!
Notwithstanding the aforementioned lapse, several red flags were raised in various opposing rationales. Neil916's link showing your very recent mistreatment of MonsterHunter32 in an ANI thread engenders serious concern! To me, you appeared to use hyperbole to intimidate MH32, and condescension to dismiss his or her concerns as disruption. I feel it reflects negatively on your temperament and suitability for adminship at this time.
Also, SoWhy demonstrated that your CSD clue is below the minimum level of competence expected of a candidate for adminship, (irrespective of intent to administer speedy deletions or not); especially considering your answer to Q7, where you said: "it is appropriate for administrators to delete pages unilaterally without it being tagged first only if they're eligible for speedy deletion ...".
I share the concerns of those who were not satisfied with your answers to the optional questions asked. In particular, the answers for Q4, Q5, Q7, Q8, Q11, Q19, Q20, Q21, and Q23 each beg a rebuttal, and diminish confidence in your knowledge and competence. You'll generally find no quarter for incomplete or ambiguous answers especially considering the expectation that you would consult the readily available "open book" as you developed your answers.
The brightest red flag, which moves me to oppose, (regrettably), is that many of the woes found come from your recent editing activities. My earnest hope is that you take the criticism proffered by all participants in this RFA to not only better yourself as an editor, but also to help you succeed if you're inclined to, one day, request adminship again. I suggest you return as a candidate one year from now. I believe, at that time, not only will you meet my criteria for supporting an RFA, but also you'll find that you meet your own criteria as well, (based on comments you've made, paraphrased below, when commenting in other candidate's RFAs). You'll find that you've been measured by nearly the same rule.
* I am concerned with low edit counts. * WP:NOTQUITEYET for lacking the fundamental basics required for adminship. * We are here to build an encyclopedia. * If you are trying to become an admin, you should, at least, be contributing to namespaces where administrators monitor. * I respect the candidate's desire to work on the main page, but it is not enough to sway my vote to support. * Candidate has a low level of participation in the "Wikipedia" namespace. * Activity level seems sporadic, (less than 500 edits per month since May 2016). * If participation increases in vandal fighting and wikipedia namespaces, I could support in a few months. * His CSD Log is mostly red. * His answer more than satisfied my concerns regarding his activity. * His activity levels have been lower than I'd like for an admin candidate. * I will not oppose on a single concern alone when he has shown good judgement in everything else. * After analysis of this editor's posts and his responses to the questions, I am offering my support. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Black Kite, regarding attitude. The example at Noel Coward is similar to several others mentioned throughout the question and oppose sections, that show more attention must be paid toward showing empathy and care when responding to contentious situations. Admins especially must help mediate, rather than inflame, situations. A few more months of relatively drama-free behavior and my opinion would likely tip toward support. Mamyles (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In less than ten minutes I was able to find ten sources demonstrating the notability of the folklore character Annie Christmas and write a decent stub article about her. Obviously one mistake like this shouldn't be a problem, in itself but it seems to me that it points to a wider problem with lack of article work and a resulting lack of understanding of how the article creation process works and how an administrator may best contribute to it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus: Dane had nothing to do with Annie Christmas. It was created by Edgy DC and then tagged for A7 by Comatmebro and deleted by Alexf. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I misunderstood that. I strike my vote then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, too soon. But also largely as per User:Timothyjosephwood and User:Black Kite. RfA can be a frightfully perilous place, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - only active since July 2016 (far less than the two year minimum I look for), doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of A7. A7 is not for articles with definite claims of notability, and A1 and A3 are also not supposed to be tagged only a couple of minutes after creation as many users make their edits as a series. Either way, WP:NOTQUITEYET. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 22:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough recent experience, and of that weak understanding of key admin functions (CSD, etc.) as noted above.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ritchie, Mendaliv and SoWhy. I don't feel good that this candidate would have access to the delete button and I don't think they've demonstrated enough levelheadedness. Catrìona (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons similar to what Ealdgyth has expressed at oppose #37. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry. I yield to others when it comes to judging CSD, and my sense of the above is the skill has issues even if some criteria are troublesome. There's a lot of good in the candidate, and some of the questions have been answered well. With no Q1 claim about working in image copyright, Q12 is far afield, but the answer is spot on. Such responses make it harder for me to oppose, but RfA is not a pass-the-written-exam-and-collect-the-mop affair. When AfD is stated in Q1, then I need to see depth in content, and following the user page links to some articles isn't enough. A Q1 AfD claim puts CSD performance on the table. Fast tags and inappropriate tags do damage, and I prefer that admins experience the receiving end. I laud efforts such as the number of AIV reports, but there are other, more subtle, issues about temperament, approach and perspective. I get the sense of a brash rather than a reserved candidate. Good in some areas but missing bits in others and quick to act. I'll second John Cline's oppose. I want admins to have focus. I posed the introspective Q11, and the response is a disappointment. The first sentence is on point, but the remaining three sentences have wandered off the topic and into blow-my-horn territory. The candidate is too self-assured about his own skills. Q2 apparently overclaims contributions at Shooting of Philando Castle. Q3 shows there has been conflict, but I'm uncertain about conflict lessons being learned. Glrx (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Concerns with temperament and policy knowledge. -FASTILY 04:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Black Kite. Not ready to have the tools, as I see it. Jus dafax 06:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am seeing too many red flags with compelling rationales raised by respected members of the community to comfortably support. Irondome (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: based upon review, yes. as stated just above. This is an absolute trainwreck. If I iterated in words how much I oppose, it would be "too long, did not read". Here are a few, since opposers are supposed to name names. You do not have the temperament and that is always my only real issue. Your dog fights are just too recent and this request seems like a rush to judgment. I also do not like your duplicating badge collecting by having not only topicons, but also userboxes to proudly proclaim your same user rights. (on both talk and user pages?) (In full disclosure, yes I have topicons and yes I have userboxes and yes, I have meowing cats. which is okay with at least some admins). I would be in tears if I encountered you in an administrative action and yes, you are hasty in your reactions and have been proven to not know / or research policies. And since my dearest administrator Ritchie333 (giver of cats) has opposed you and is now advising your surrender, I add my oppose to this list. Please wait and be better as an editor. You already have many rights.... Fylbecatulous talk 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I finally got around to seeing the whole Noël Coward kerfuffle and it's not as bad as I thought it would be. We all make mistakes and we all get carried away at times. What bothers me is that that candidate had a clear opportunity to introspect on the affair and what we get is throughout the process, I remained respectful and objective. Given that this was raised as a possible red flag in the ORCP (what was the point of that ORCP?), had Dane come up with an analysis that took some responsibility for the mess and some introspective thoughts on how they could have done things differently, I would definitely be in the support column, CSD errors notwithstanding.--regentspark (comment) 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Less than a year of solid experience. Also, from the various facts and data being brought up, I'm just not seeing the caliber of understanding and the caliber of editing that I expect in an admin or prospective admin. Softlavender (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. I prefer to stay out of this because it's fast becoming archetypical of the kind of RfA that discourages potential candidates of the right calibre from coming forward in the first place - and that's what the major problem of the RfA process is all about. I will say this though: a) The fact that I might recently have supported a candidate who possibly did not check all my boxes does not mean I have set a precedent for my future participation in RfAs. b) While I firmly believe that unqualified support votes are a clear endorsement of the nomination(s), unqualified oppose votes, for me at least, carry no weight. c) WP:ORCP is a purely informal, no-obligation process - IMO, what it does and/or what its outcomes are/were should probably not be topics of discussion in an actual RfA. It's nevertheless an excellent initiative and one which I very much support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A pretty good candidate for adminship. However, does not seem very experienced as substantial contributions began only a while ago. Also, some Articles for deletion have been closed prematurely. Needs to spend a little more time on Wikipedia. RoCo^(talk) 06:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While I stand by what I said in my original !vote supporting Dane, I feel I cannot ignore the CSD problem brought up in the "Oppose" votes. Even if Dane doesn't plan to work in CSD, there are times when an admin (for example, an admin pinged using the "!admin" command on IRC) is asked to do something they may not normally deal with, and CSD is likely a large part of that. In the future, once Dane has become more familiar with CSD and put a little more time between him and his past problems, I would be happy to once again give my Support !vote after having worked with him on quite a few occasions. — Gestrid (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked off-wiki to look further into the CSD stuff and I will when I have time to. — Gestrid (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
→ Extended discussion moved to talk page. Regards So Why 08:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral landing here per Laser brain, whose judgement I trust. Assuming, though, that Dane takes on the critique here and addresses it, I don't see a blocker for a second nom in four to six months. And if you need a nominator around then, don't hesitate to ping me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. could not make up my mind User:Tonton_Bernardo User talk: Tonton_Bernardo I'm so tired (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving from support to sit in this section instead. — foxj 07:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would oppose but, with all the drama I caused on the talk page, I'll land here. I'm was initially impressed with their abundance of integrity but that quickly faded. I don't know what I expect from the candidate, but the shit stinks and my concerns about willingness to get the mop at all costs haven't diminished in the few days I gave myself to cool off. Regardless, though, SoWhy's CSD concerns bother me. A review of WP:WIHSD would be a good idea for the candidate. However, since, I made such a stink over the issues with Coffee, I'll stick in the neutral section.--v/r - T P 12:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I've been mulling over this RFA for the last few hours, but parking it here. Given the questions regarding the candidate's aptitude to handle the mop, as well how the RFA itself has escalated in dramatic excitement, these issues are preventing me from being able to paint a clear picture in my mind of how the nominee may utilize the mop. Steel1943 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I usually don't oppose on CSD tagging, but SoWhy's analysis of his CSD tagging borderlining me to oppose. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: An editor should never return after a long break and vote on an RfA. And I do not have the time to follow every link to all of your contributions but I have read the arguments for and against your candidacy. I agree with Kudpung that this is the kind of RfA which makes reasonable potential candidates want to avoid the process at all costs. I'll just log a comment here to say that if you can read the opposes dispassionately, you'll see there are editors who say they would reconsider their oppose after a few months (or 6 months) have passed and you have more editing history upon which they can to base their judgment. So, if this RfA doesn't pass, I'd encourage you to keep up the good work, learn from the advice that is hidden here behind the opposes and reapply in the fall. If you go into the category of RfAs, you'll find that some of our best admins had more than one RfA and if you want to make a solid contribution to the project, you shouldn't let that stop you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I lean toward support; however, after reading through this page, I have come to the same conclusion as Kudpung above. For more info, please see User talk:Paine Ellsworth#RfA and be welcome to add your thoughts there. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 08:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I've been pondering this and I've decided that I'm not going to !vote either way now. But I do want to applaud Dane for the positive way they're taking this quite harsh RfA (which could be traumatic to one of less robust constitution), and to say I look forward to being able to support a future run. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to +1 Boing's comment. Dane has been both civil and composed for the duration of this difficult RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really don't like the misunderstanding of A7 ('significance' vs. 'notability') but Dane is trying to improve. Also don't like some of the confrontational tendencies he's shown. Like Steel1943, I can't get a read on how Dane would use the mop in the real world, but I can't quite bring myself to go firmly in the Oppose camp. Dane, keep working, take the comments here to heart and learn from them, regardless of the outcome of this particular discussion. Katie^talk 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

What I will call the "is a ping a canvass" discussion has been moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the back and forth among our respected admins, I'm hesitant to even vote. j/s ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atsme: I kind of felt the same way when I saw this RFA. I figured that the "neutral" section is the equivalent of a "recuse" in this case, so I put myself there. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this RfA has been used as an excuse to air everyone's grievances about CSD:A7. If I could be bothered with the drama, I'd start a Request for Comment discussion about replacing the words "credible claim of significance" with "credible claim of notability" in an attempt to drag the bar from its current stupidly low level up to something resembling an encyclopaedia, but... oh well. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created a plain and simple guide which side steps terms like notability and significance for something more tangible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been "essayed" to death at this point, it needs something formal to sort it out. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my comments here are meant only to highlight the absurdity of using one particular interpretation of an inconsistently-applied guideline to torpedo an RfA. I do have issues with the guideline but this isn't the appropriate forum to air that particular grievance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For same reasons as Kudpung I don't want to pile on. But there are clearly concerns about correct application of speedy deletion criteria. - Bri (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, it might have helped if the candidate didn't have those {{Not admin topicon}} icons at the top of his User and Talk pages since July last year... — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: One of the rare responses i'll make outside of the RfA questions, but I felt it was important to clarify this. I took this feedback and removed them just now. I saw your edit summary was "Is not an administrator and does not wish to be'...?!", which is not what I meant by those topicons. I recall being mistaken for an administrator and I had put these icons up there as a way to help prevent "mistaken identity", but I agree they're unhelpful as they could have the unintended consequence of making someone think I wouldn't want to help them. -- Dane ^talk 06:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the response, Dane :) it doesn't really matter- just a bit ironic, really. And, amongst all the other brouhaha, it doesn't look like anyone even noticed! Good luck, — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dane: In a recent answer to Bounder's question, you mentioned that the IP in the Malcolm Dixon (actor) case might have seen your actions / response as harsh. You can see how s/he actually felt in this reference desk thread. I don't think your intent is accurately reflected in the IP's view, but it may give you an idea of how your words can be taken.
Also, are you planning to reply to my follow up? It's your choice, of course, and I am sure that this RfA is a challenging time for you, but I've been holding off !voting waiting for a response. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2017 (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.