Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AmiDaniel

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

AmiDaniel

[edit]

Final (169/1/5) ended 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

AmiDaniel (talk · contribs) – I first came across AmiDaniel recently when I wanted the source code for VandalProof, and he was courteous in every way to me. A lot of people know him as the developer of VandalProof, a tool that is pretty commonly used to fight vandalism, but that's not all. He's been a member since February of this year, and has accumulated an astronomical 6311 edits since then, distributed amongst mainspace and user-talk mostly, but with some decent contributions to project-space. He probably needs the tools to edit his VandalProof checkpage, too. This user, I believe, can be trusted absolutely with the tools, and it's my pleasure to nominate him, WerdnaTc@bCmLt 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept, and I eagerly await the opinions and questions of the community. --AmiDaniel (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nominator Support WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support It would be a crime for me not to support this after getting my own special space in the answersheet. I feel so loved. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Easy choice. Kevin Baastalk 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support. Great user and would benefit the whole Wikipedia community, especially Vandal-Fighting.—G.He 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Granting admin abilities to this user can only result in good things. Good contributions too (VandalProof). Philip Gronowski Contribs 22:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support, one of the most helpful people I've met on Wikipedia thus far. DakPowers (Talk) 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support Very dedicated Wikipedia, who has contributed greatly to Wikipedia, and to whom Sysop powers would be well entrusted. --Wisden17 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yet another Rfa Cliché #1. RadioKirk talk to me 22:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Definitely. Sango123 (e) 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. A bit longwinded for my taste, I mean those question answers just go on and on and on. And VandalProof? piffle, I mean really, what is so great about making 340 vandal fighters more efficient? Developers shouldn't get a free pass to adminship. Plus he's too nice of a guy. oppose (whack) More candidates like this one please!TM Support Lar: t/c 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. DarthVader 23:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support per above abakharev 23:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. DVD R/W 23:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support. Helpful and courtious, will make a great admin. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Of course! --Siva1979Talk to me 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, where do I have to sign?!? Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Very good contributions, his only faults are not knowing the meaning of archiving his userpage of which it is not uncommen to see grow larger than 75KB before I remind him and that he is a wikiholic:-)Eagle talk 23:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, absolutely. Grateful for VandalProof. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, Must go to bed. Wallie 23:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, no question. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support. Great contributor. — TKD::Talk 23:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Definite support after the User:Marlon Fire Thunder issues. Nationalparks 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support JoshuaZ 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support DGX 00:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support would definitely make a good admin. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support helpful, amiable and trustworthy. Tyrenius 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support of course.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 00:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Rama's Arrow 00:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Great user. Will make a great admin. ForestH2
  31. Support Prodego talk 00:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, his contributions to Wikipedia have been simply impressive. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support I have no doubts that AmiDaniel being an admin will make Wikipedia a better place. Gwernol 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - definitely. - Richardcavell 00:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, yes! yes! AmiDaniel has demonstrated great commitment to the project and his VandalProof tool rocks! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support, Great user. Bart133 01:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Naconkantari 02:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Liked answer to question 1. And thanks for VandalProof :) Dlohcierekim 02:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Superstrong Support VandalProof is a monster. Even though my machine can't run it because of the bugs, I see it popping up everywhere, reverting vandalism extremely quickly. Props to AmiDaniel, and I hope I get the job of graphics designer. :P Master of Puppets That's hot. 02:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Who could oppose the Vandalproof developer. Kevin 02:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. WTF Support. I WANTED TO CO-NOM!!! -Mysekurity [m!] 02:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Going to have to go with Support on this one. Good answers to the questions (#1!) and tends to play well with others. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Why would we want to make life more difficult for the vandals? Never mind, make them suffer! Support. —CuiviénenT|C, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 @ 03:05 UTC
  44. Support of course. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support -- has the best interest of the project in mind. (Except for posting the same message to more than three people's talk pages, which seems to be the limit these days.) --Elkman - (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support great person, built a super-good vandal-fighting tool, and last of all, I didn't know he wasn't an admin! What a Cliché. PS: What does question 4 have to do with this RfA? ;-) Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 04:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Quite obviously dedicated to doing the job correctly. Ingoolemo talk 04:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support His promotion would benefit Wikipedia overall. GizzaChat © 04:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, for obvious reasons. Sarge Baldy 04:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per all of the above. -- DS1953 talk 04:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Insanely Strong Support An absolute no-brainer, this one. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support No question. Yanksox 04:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong support - one of the "must be" admins, no doubt about it. :p —Khoikhoi 05:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I was going to nominate so very very very strong support - 100%, AmiDaniel will become an admin -- Tawker 06:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support Computerjoe's talk 06:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support per Kevin hoopydinkConas tá tú? 06:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support ON WHEELS! I've come across this user many times; an exceptional editor. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support, everything points to a very able editor and excellent community member. Rockpocket (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support user using VandalProof would make Wikipedia a much better place --james °o 08:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Support - if anyone has ever made it clear they wouldn't abuse sysop right it's Daniel, nor is anyone more deserving. - Glen TC (Stollery) 08:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support --Terence Ong 10:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support- But I almost said Neutral Steveo2 11:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Never given any reason not to trust him. Rje 11:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Superlative, trustworthy contributor. I'm a little concerned about the issues raised by Ted's neutral vote, but I'm inclined to give AmiDaniel the chance. Kuzaar 13:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support--Jusjih 13:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Bandwagon support, I've seen him in discussions and he showed sound judgment and good sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support looks fine to me. --Tone 14:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Very smart and helpful user with his tools. Have him add the mop and the bucket to his toolkit. --Actown e 15:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Kukini 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, without reservation dewet|✉ 16:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong Support, Whadda ya mean 'e's not an admin yet!? --Mhking 16:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Joe I 17:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Definately. --Andy123 talk 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Will (E@) T 18:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support -- Masterjamie 18:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I'm breaking my no pile-on rule again here, mainly because I don't think anyone has yet specifically mentioned the rather impressive handling of the situation with User:Avillia as a support reason (AmiDaniel mentioned it in the answer to Q3 below). We sometimes need someone to stand up for those that all other admins want to just be rid of with an indef block. In other discussions as well- I can't claim to always agree with what he's said, but I can say that they've always positively added to the discussion. Of course there's also the usual reasons like won't abuse tools, would use them well etc... Petros471 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. SupportAmiDaniel has done a great job and by all accounts will continue to do so. Be well.--Eva db 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. support although I usually dislike all programs which only run under Windows, I love vandal fighting (and vandal fighters). --Bachrach44 21:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. I wanted to co-nom but nobody ever tells me anything anymore Support — Nathan (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. how else would I vote, support ILovePlankton ( L) 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, obviously. – Xolatron 22:17, 22 Telona 2006 (23 May) 22:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong support Can we get this to WP:200? Clearly has the judicious and pensive disposition required of an admin. Of course, cheering for Germany to win FIFA World Cup 2006 is like cheering for Willie on Wheels to become an admin, but we'll let him slide there. Joe 22:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Diamond-encrused mop, please! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. His ability to help the project as a vandal-patroller will be strengthened if he can block vandals. That justifies making him an admin. Bucketsofg✐ 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong Support. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 23:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support AmiDaniel, after Tawker, is one of the most important people when it comes to reverting vandalism. His tool, VandalProof amazes me every time I use it. I continue to work with him and I don't ever see that changing. Good luck man. --mboverload@ 00:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Very strong support. Great guy. 100% dedicated to Wikipedia. One of the most civil wikipedians I have encountered so far. I cannot believed he is not an admin yet! Asterion talk to me 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Strong support I'm suprised AmiDaniel is not already an admin. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. I thought AmiDaniel already had a mop! ~Chris {t|c|e|@} 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Pepsidrinka 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Hyper-über-support! unbelievably dedicated, and VandalProof is too awesome! And he really needs it for the checklist and for developing other admin tools. This has to get to WP:200. —Mets501talk 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support extraordinary helpful and knowledgable. Teke 02:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. It's mopping time! — xaosflux Talk 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support of course! -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Ding Dong Special Delivery from FedEx: A new mop! Ding Dong 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing Bureaucrat: this is the user's first edit. Master of Puppets That's hot. 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is extremely sad since it is obvious that AmiDaniel is the last person that needs an extra yes vote... --mboverload@ 03:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably that "Ding ding ding ding" idiot from a few days ago. --Rory096 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support, of course. --Rory096 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support with no reservations. -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 05:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Strong Support This guy has done so much good for wikipedia. --Alphachimp talk 05:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Wiki-programmers. --Cyde↔Weys 06:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Wide range of edits and user seems very ami-able. Chuck(척뉴넘) 09:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support -- Zaxem 11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support —Whouk (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Totally unnecessary pile-on support. Kusma (討論) 15:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support A very good user with a wide range of good quality edits. I feel, he would be extremely valuable as an Admin. Jordy 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Obvious candidate for the mop-and-flamethrower -- Avi 17:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support You created VandalProof. The only type of person to oppose you is a vandal. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (History of War) 18:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I think AmiDaniel would make a great admin. — Brendenhull 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Strongest possible support on WHEELS! Is a technical genius, kind, and will be a fantastic admin. Please promote ASAP. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 20:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support no question -- Deville (Talk) 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support definitely. — Scm83x hook 'em 22:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Jaranda wat's sup 23:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Jay(Reply) 23:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Merovingian {T C @} 00:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. The developer of VandalProof is not an admin? That's a darned shame... Royboycrashfan 04:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support I recall your name, but I can't quite place it. Did we ever interact? Oh well, whenever we did, I think you were a rather friendly one. --Shultz IV 06:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support development of VandalProof shows a strong commitment to the project, and user is unlikely to misuse admin tools. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Vandals have no chance to survive, make your time. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. A textbook candidate. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. We need more like Daniel moping Wikipedia. Agathoclea 12:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support As a user of Vandalproof, i feel that the creator of this great tool has contributed more than enough to deserve Adminship. Luckyherb 13:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support, of course. Rather than waiting for someone to officially hand him a "mop", he made his own. It's about time he gets the big ring of keys to go with it. Kafziel 17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. What? Hes not an admin Support Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Strong support I hope he develops the Vandal Proof to make some admin tasks easier.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Strong Support As already stated, easy choice. -- Shizane talkcontribs 19:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Too good to turn down, even with just four months of experience. Redux 20:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support, technical know-how and positive user interactions. Yamaguchi先生 01:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support I talked to him a few times. He's helpful, friendly, patient and nice. --Starionwolf 04:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Strong Support I believe this to be a no-brainer, if there ever was one. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 05:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. support: Ombudsman 06:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. support ambidaniel has shown to me that he can raionally discuss tough things AGF and i think hed make an excellent admin Benon 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - Excellent user. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support great job on your tool! Glad to have you in the project. ---J.S (t|c) 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Thanks-for-developing-VandalProof-Support – Gurch 17:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support valuable contributor. -Will Beback 18:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. Good stuff. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Bandwagon. --Golbez 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support, very nice and helpful even after I mistakenly put a speedy on his talk page because of being new to Vandalproof :). Definately a guy deserving of this adminship.--Jersey Devil 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support One of the greatest anti-vandals out there. Tarret 22:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support No reason not to. --Xyrael T 10:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Super - Super - Super - Super Support Support, and he is an admin on another Foundation Wiki. --GeorgeMoney T·C 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. 146th support, did a lot of great work fighting against vandalism --☆TBC☆ 20:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Even More Totally unnecessary pile-on Support. Who cares about 1FA? A decision on any RfA ought to be based on more than one criterion. I liked how AmiDaniel addressed the 1FA issue in his answers. Fluit 21:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Strong Support, He demonstrates everything about vandalism, also being nice in Wikipedia. Also, He created vandal proof to fight with vandalism. Therefore, I absolutely nominate him to be Administrator. Ahh, I have been wondering why he hasn't become an admin of Wikipedia. Anyways, He is one of best wikipedian as much as Naconkantari for fighting with vandalism. Daniel5127, 02:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. Is clearly worth of admin tools. Fetofs Hello!
  150. Very strong support He is very dedicated to Wikipedia. He created vandal proof as said above. He should already be an admin. We need more wikipedians like this! FellowWikipedian 02:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support like GeorgeMoney Above I cannot think of a single reason not to support such a great editor! ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support duh! If you've never used VP you've missed out on Wikipedia ;). Either that, or you have a Mac, like me. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 03:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. I see no reason not to. Nephron  T|C 05:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support - As per above. I can not think of a single reason not to endorse this either. Havok (T/C/c) 08:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Very Strong Support - a great asset to Wikipedia. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Undoubted commitment to the project, the tools will help him further his excellent VandalProof work. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. OMGSQUEE SUPPORT --digital_me(t/c) 15:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support One more day left for this. Make him an admin. FellowWikipedian 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC) duplicate vote - Tangotango 07:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Extremely Strong Support: I thought he was an admin already! Guess not. How is this user not an admin already? This user took lots of time away from his life to create VandalProof and keep it up and running. 100% support. WIKIPEEDIO 18:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support: No reason for not supporting. - Holy Ganga talk 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support Even though I don't use VandalProof. --M@thwiz2020 20:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Hmmmm. How do I put this? EVERY CLICHE IN THE BOOK SUPPORT! Keep up the good work. Omni ND 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Probably unnecessary support. Just felt like I had to express my admiration for this great editor. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Super Support: I'm going to use his VandalProof when I reach New York! --Slgrandson 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support -- Not to snowball, but the creation of the VandalProof tool is one of the most significant blows to vandalism in Wikipedia history. Well done, sir! -- MisterHand 00:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I thought that he was an admin already! That was whan I found out about VandalProof. Keep up the good work. FellowWikipedian 01:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC) another duplicate vote - Tangotango 07:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support per nominator; everything looks great. joturner 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support good user with good contributions, VP etc. feydey 17:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support -- quality editor whom I trust with administrative tools. - Longhair 01:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. You armed Wikipedia with a useful tool. But what good is it when you gave it away to vandals and trolls? Your approval criteria have loopholes. For instance, the current approval policy is like this: New users with fewer than 250 mainspace edits and users who have recently been involved in edit wars or have a recent history of vandalism will likely not be accepted. But, I can spot atleast one editor who is armed with your tool but involved in recurrent edit-revert wars and has recent block history. I don't know how many else are there without my knowledge? Inadvertently, you seem to have made Wikipedia a insecure place compromising the integrity of the articles therein. Sorry. Anwar 20:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment on that, AmiDaniel isn't the only one who approves users, its possible its a harmless mistake. I don't know how releasing VandalProof to some possibly undesired users compromises security and how it effects adminship status -- Tawker 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ONE person. Out of ~400 people, that's pretty damn good. AWB is a much more destructive tool (able to vandalize pages every 2 seconds with hacked source code). Using your arguement, they actually GIVE vandals the tools since they release their source code. I'm not going to go into specifics but it is very easy. Anyone can revert an edit almost just as fast using the godmode-light.js file. I can't begin to explain how much of a help VandalProof is and I regret you have that viewpoint. If there is anything you would like me to explain please let me know if it will change your vote. See AmiDaniel's response in the questions section --mboverload@ 00:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually AmiDaniel probably had never heard of that user, I approved Holy Ganga, not him, and VandalProof has done far more help then harm, with 300 some users using the tool, and only a very few have been found to be abusing it. Also at the time of approval Holy Ganga had never been blocked. Prodego talk 02:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And Holy Ganga hasn't done too much wrong apart from oppose Anwar's POV. See Talk:Anwar saadat. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Many members here know very well that Anwar can do anything to trap his opponents who are mostly Hindus and Indians because of his narrow ideology. He is a known vandal and already reported perfectly good Wikipedians for various exaggerated things. My warning was to an anonymous user, then why anwar reported me? I have already explained this here [1]. Anwar please, don't vote against AmiDaniel because of me. - Holy Ganga talk 18:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Clearly a hard worker and a solid member of the community. I'd call him an excellent copyeditor. But, that is all he is. I worry that he has very few edits in the namespace that are not copyediting or vandalism patrolling. I see no evidence of dealing with individuals over content disputes. I'm sure he can use the admin tools for these areas, but along with it comes closing AfDs and other duties that require some real experience in the namespace. I really wish I could support, but I can't. Sorry. Ted 05:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with only using your powers against vandalism? Why do we require admins to be jack of all trades? --mboverload@ 00:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, does not pass 1FA, but has significiant contributions to recent patrolling. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral has made a very solid start, but I don't feel he has been fully exposed to Wikipedia. I'd like to see more edits in the main namespace.--cj | talk 05:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per cj. SushiGeek 23:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per above. --Pilot|guy 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username AmiDaniel
Total edits 7506
Distinct pages edited 3880
Average edits/page 1.935
First edit 03:01, January 9, 2006
 
(main) 1737
Talk 95
User 984
User talk 4025
Image 21
Image talk 4
Template 32
Template talk 6
Help 1
Category 3
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 522
Wikipedia talk 73
Portal 2
 G.He 22:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Well, to start with the most obvious: I'm a freqent recent changes patroller and monitor of WP:AIV, and, as I often keep rather strange hours, I frequently come across tremendous backlogs on AIV and very persistent vandals who continue for upwards of thirty minutes without an administrator response. While I view blocking as an absolute last resort, there are definite times when it is the only solution to dealing with vandalism, and I believe that my having the ability to block ill-intentioned users would be of great benefit to Wikipedia. I honestly don't find the Rollback feature that superior to my current reversion technique, though I won't deny that it may also come in handy on RC patrol, especially if I were to return to using Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool. I'm actively involved in tagging articles for speedy deletion, and as an administrator, I would frequently monitor CAT:CSD, deleting the articles that clearly meet the criteria and retagging those that do not. I have quite a bit of experience with AfD's, including closing the occasional one that results in keep or merge, and with SysOp tools, I would also help to close those that end in delete. Nonetheless, I still feel that AfD is quite well-manned currently, and so I would probably spend more of my time helping to clear out the more excessive backlogs, such as that at WP:COPYVIO. I've also observed that only a handful of administrators help out with requests at WP:SPLICE, and I'd be glad to lend a hand there, as I for some reason seem to flourish on the complicated, tedious janitorial work that many seem to despise. Furthermore, a great deal of my time on Wikipedia is spent aiding confused new users, and often times they need help that I as a non-administrator cannot offer, such as userfying deleted content / deleting content that they accidentally created in the mainspace, moving pages on top of existing redirects, fixing copy and paste moves, etc., and I really wish that I could help them out in those respects. Anyway, in short, I've always been (and probably will always be) invloved in the administrative aspects of Wikipedia, and I think the tools could definitely help me out.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As far as articles go, I've certainly failed Mailer diablo's 1FA rule (insert link here), as I typically prefer to spread minor contributions among multiple articles, rather than focusing all my time on one. I'm probably most pleased with the work I do cleaning up the various articles I find on recent changes patrol and helping new users learn the ropes, including explaining how deletion and other processes work on Wikipedia. By far my most notable contribution, however, would have to be my VandalProof application, which currently as 340 users. I personally believe that the tool has done a lot not only in the way of reverting and removing vandalism, but also in encouraging the use of test templates, which I find very beneficial to the community as I think they help to answer a lot of questions that first-time users have, to show that, although although anyone can edit, there are indeed people keeping an eye out to ensure that the site remains reliable, and to clue other editors in on the degree of vandalism coming from a certain account. I currently have an account on test.wikipedia with SysOp rights and have been using it to develop simple administrative tools for VandalProof, but I believe that with a SysOp account on en, I may be able to come up with some great solutions to eliminate the tedium in certain tasks and to help in the effort to deal with vandalism quickly and effectively. An example of one such SysOp tool that I've developed is my Simple History Merge tool, and I hope that I can continue to build similar tools in the future.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I like to think of myself as a very non-confrontational individual; however, I have run into quite a few stressful situations and conflicts in the past, most of which I think I've handled quite well. The majority of my conflicts result from users outraged that their vanity articles have been deleted, in which cases I often try to explain how the deletion process works on Wikipedia and point them to administrators who will gladly userfy such content for them. I had a similar dispute with a user who's now named Marlon Fire Thunder, which began as a simple case of repeatedly creating vanity articles and soon escalated to complaints that his privacy had been violated because Google searches turned up information he had posted about himself on Wikipedia. In that case, despite the frustration the user had caused me, I did my best to find a feasible and reasonable solution to his complaints, and I think it all worked out pretty well in the long run. My most longstanding conflict has been with User:Avillia, a user who has notoriously caused a lot of stress for others. In short, he and I had a very lengthy dispute over VandalProof's licensing that posed serious threats to the project's survival; however, in the long run, we've actually managed to work out a lot of our issues to the point that I even defended him against a recently proposed indefinite ban. While we're by no means best buds, the hostility seems to have disipated, and I hope that we can continue to work together in a professional demeanor. I also had a very minor quarrel over a userbox of all things (the first ever userbox discussion I ever got involved it) that got a little bit ugly; however, I think I probably learned more from that dispute than any other, both about the importance of civility and respect for users with whom you disagree and about the unbelivable passion these userbox debates seem to bring out. Immediately following that debate, I decided that I didn't want anything to do with userboxes as I don't really have a strong opinion either way on the matter and I didn't enjoy the hostility that both sides presented. I dewatchlisted DRVU several weeks ago, and I never plan to return. Anyway, I think I covered every notable dispute I've had in this soliloquy of a response, but feel free to let me know if I forgot anything.
4. Who do you think will win the World Cup? Wallie 23:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Not a big soccer fan, but I think I'd have to root cheer for Germany. "My" team is probably 1. FC Köln.
Are you aware that in Australia, to "root", means to have sexual intercourse with? WerdnaTc@bCmLt 02:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I actually wasn't. But perhaps that's because, without the wikilink you provided, I wasn't aware of what Sexual intercourse was :-P. Better now? AmiDaniel (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie language is "special". I wouldn't worry. Wallie 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Anwar's oppose, can you tell us the approval/unapproval/rejection criteria for VandalProof? Feel free to leave anything related to me completely out of it. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thank you for your question, and I hope I may be able to address some of Anwar's concerns. Anyone who's been involved with the project will tell you that since day one I have been extremely concerned that the tool would be abused, and so I have created several methods through which to prevent abuse before it happens and to deal with it if it does occur. I have a team of 12 volunteer moderators who have the ability to modify the official approved user list and have their changes recognized by the program, and they are each experienced and well-trusted members of the community, some of whom have experience developing applications and some who do not. I've also done my best to ensure that there is always a moderator available around the clock by coordinating schedules around editing trends from each. When a user requests permission to use the tool, a moderator will check the user's contributions (to see that he has the required 250 mainspace edits, that none of those edits are particularly questionable, and that he is indeed involved in reverting obvious vandalism), block logs (no user with a recent history of blocks for vandalism or 3RR will be approved), and talk page (to see if the user has been involved in recent disputes). If the moderator believes the user has demonstrated himself to be trustworthy enough to use the tool, then he will be added to the list. Should a user be suspected of abusing the tool, he can be reported to User:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse, where other moderators and I will review the case and make the decision to either remove the user from the approved list or take no action at all. When any user downloads or requests permission to use VandalProof, s/he agrees to the terms set forth on the download page, and any violation of those terms will result in repercussions, including if the user is blocked for an offense that was committed without the aid of VandalProof. In the case of Avillia (I hope you don't mind, Avillia, if I bring in your specific case, but I do feel it is relevant.), there was some disagreement among the moderators, where one felt that he had demonstrated himself to be trustworthy; however, I and others disagreed, believing that his recent history of being blocked and trolling was all to recent, and so removed him from the approved user list the following day. In the case of User:Holy Ganga (mentioned above), the user had not been blocked for any offenses prior to his being approved, and the only block he did receive (on 8 May 06) went unreported until just now--had it been reported earlier, immediate action would have been taken. Nonetheless, I've started a discussion on the abuse page with the other moderators (and with anyone else interested in commenting), and action may or may not be taken. I'd also like to add that if any user does not wish to use the Report Abuse forum, he is always welcome to e-mail me (as was the case with concerns raised about Avillia using the tool), to post a message on any moderator's talk page, or to message a moderator on IRC; the forum is simply in place to encourage that abuse be reported. Anyway, that's it for another soliloquy from me. If you have any further questions about this process, please feel free to ask. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. What do you think motivates vandals to do what they do? --mboverload@ 04:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'll keep this one (relatively) short and sweet as my next answer is going to be much lengthier. I think there are really three types of "vandals": there's the simple once-or-twice "test-editor" who merely wants to see if it's true that he too can edit any article on the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." They don't bother me all, and I actually think I'd encourage new users to test around a bit in the article namespace (the sandbox really just doesn't cut it sometimes). Then there's the dumb middle-schooler vandal who thinks it's just oh-so-funny to add nonsense and bad jokes to articles, or to create articles about himself and his friends or things they thought up one day--though I personally feel that even individuals with exceptional technical brilliance and experience, such as WoW, often fall into this category (middle-schooler describes behavior, not age). Then, the third kind is the angry, beligerent, vengeful vandal taking out his rage on our poor encyclopedia, rage that often results either from being bitten the first time he tries to edit or from the lack of respect he faces in the real world (this would be the "I feel like I'm screaming at the top of my lungs, and no one even looks up" tragic poet vandal). In any case, the best way to deal with any of them is to be calm, quick, polite, and direct no matter how much frustration they cause you. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Assuming you become an admin =D will you work to add in admin-specific tools? What do you think of VandalProof-equiped administrators? Will you forget about user-only functions? =) --mboverload::@ 04:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Ironically, the reason I took so long to respond to your questions was that I was playing around on test.wikipedia with the new RSS feed functionally I just implemented into VandalProof, hopefully to be available in the next release. It's a little bit awkward right now, but I think I've got all the bugs (such as this monstrosity) knocked out of it. Anyway, to return to the question: Yes, I definitely plan to implement SysOp tools into VandalProof. As I mentioned above, I was able to throw together my simple history merge tool, which simplifies probably the most-bitched-about sysop chore, into a couple of keystrokes and mouse-clicks, in just a couple of hours with my account on the test wiki, and so I'd have to think that with an admin account on en that I use daily I'll not only have a million (slight hyperbole) ideas for new tools, but also the means through which to develop and test them. While I don't believe that the administrative rollback is more than 0.5s faster than VP's current reversion technique, it is sooo simple to implement that I can't imagine I won't incorporate it into VP (regardless of whether my RfA on en passes). My current method requires a routine to load and scrape page histories (for oldids, usernames, timestamps, etc.), convert ASCII-HTML and vice versa, and pass vars to control values of minor/watch checkboxes, edit summaries, and page contents between routines; however, with SysOp rollback they just stick a link on the diff that the app has to "click" and voila! rollback, so I'm sure we'll see that implemented very soon. I've also observed that many admins when they block users do not leave a message on the user's talk page notifying him that he's been blocked and why; I guess they just assume that the user will find out sooner or later when he goes to edit. My poor little alternate account was recently blocked (by two admins at the same time, nonetheless) as an imposter of me, and as they didn't leave me a note, I didn't find out until two weeks later when I was debugging VP with the account and accidentally hit a red-link, leading to an autoblock on my main account that took forever to correct. As I think that leaving messages when a user has been blocked is very important, I would likely implement a sort of "quick block," whereby an admin could click on one menu item that blocks the user with a relevant summary and posts a message on the user's talk page, much like VP currently does with reversions. But I could go on for hours about my plans with VP, so I guess I should probably address your real concern: that I would ignore requests for "regular user" tools, which I can assure you will not be the case at all! Administrators constitute something like 0.06% of the Wikipopulation, and they're already quite well armed to deal with vandalism, so simply arming them further while providing nothing for the common user wouldn't do much in the way of dealing with vandalism. I'm also starting to branch out and develop tools to aid in other aspects of building the encyclopedia, such as a recent tool I wrote to generate a list of alternate spellings for names with diacritics and create redirects for each, and very rarely are SysOp tools used to aid with such things. As the term "administrative tool" would suggest, SysOp tools aid with the administrative, behind-the-scenes aspects of Wikipedia, not with the "encyclopedic" elements that are visible to everyone else, and I personally find the latter much more important (though not nearly as much fun). Well, I suppose a monologue like this one should probably end with some deeply profound, philosophical statement, so, quoth Keenan, "Crucify the ego before it's far too late, / To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical, / And you will come to find that we are all one mind." AmiDaniel (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mr mboverload with all the questions that take your time away from improving VandalProof =) I have had a couple users comment on how just using a test template is impersonal and how the test templates...really aren't that great. Are you happy with the current test templates or their current tone? Sorry, not trying to sink your RfA, just thought I'd get your ideas while we're here =P --mboverload@ 09:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Woa, didn't even see there were questions here. It would obviously be ideal to leave a handcrafted message each time, but ideal doesn't seem to be an option. Frankly, a lot of people don't even go so far as to leave a template--I know that before I wrote VandalProof I rarely took the time--and so if the templates weren't around I doubt we'd ever see messages being left for reversions at all. Am I happy with them? Not entirely. I think we need a lot of expansion in the way of templates, to address more specific situations, and I find a lot of them, such as the bv set and the anon vandal, to be overly hostile. The bv's are slowly becoming the more popular set, and I think that all they really do is scare of good contributors or perhaps even encourage more vandalism. The test templates, in my opinion, are about the best form, because they abide by the WP:AGF philosophy while still making it known that big brother is watching you. I do wish they contained more encouragement to contact the posting user, though, much like the rv-ref template that VP appends to the end of messages, because everyone makes mistakes and the best way to avoid making mistakes in the future is to have someone contact you when you have. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. A very, very difficult topic right now are multiple users on the same IP-address being blocked because of one bad seed. How far should we go in trying to accomodate these good editors that are getting blocked for one person's crusade against Wikipedia? If you can easily simplify it, when does the vandalism of one user outweigh the good of the rest? --mboverload@ 10:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: As far as we possibly can. I've never been a believer that the vandalism of a few outweighs the good of many, especially when there are hundreds of people around the globe on RC patrol every day--no vandalism can't be undone. I earlier was a strong proponent of a policy to restrict anonymous editing by AOL users in the mainspace; however, after lengthy deliberation it became clear that the proposal would serve only to do what I hoped it would prevent--harm good editors. I am still a large fan of the secured server alternative to dealing with anons from shared IPs that Wiktionary has implemented--AOL users can only edit with a registered account or connected through an https server, where their IPs remain static; however, there are technical problems with implementing that on Wikipedia, but I hope we will one day see that solution. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. In some rare cases seperating a content dispute and vandalism can be difficult, especially when it comes to public servant's Wikipedia pages. Since these are such high-profile pages that are easy to get us into trouble with the press, how do you weigh our possibly bad press with a user who may be trying to do the right thing and feels attacked and that we are censoring him? I am dealing with such a user right now. --mboverload@ 10:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Wow, that's a tough question, and I'm a little of giving a general answer. It really is something you have to approach on a case-by-case basis; however, I think generally I'd say that the good of the encyclopedia outweighs the desires of one user. There's no need to attack the user, though I do understand how many often times feel attacked when really they are not, but I think the edits should be removed and taken to the article's talk page before deciding whether or not to implement the changes. It's just important in those cases to treat the user with respect and courtesy, and to make sure he understands that you are not criticizing him, but instead are concerned about certain elements of the article. New users are obviously some of the most difficult to deal with (at times at least), as most Wikipedians have grown used to repeated criticism everytime they edit anything. But anyway, as I said, you really have to take it on a case-by-case basis. If you'd like some input from me on this particular matter, drop me a note on my talk page or email me, and I'll be glad to share my thoughts. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank AmiDaniel for taking the time in answering my all my questions with long and well thought-out answers. I look forward for when he can ban me =D --mboverload@ 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11 Stupid quick question for your amusement: Which is better?
A. Free userboxen with every purchase of Wikipedia brand cereal
B. Harnessing the power of child labor to turn tagging articles and reverting vandalism into a first person shooter
C. Convincing high-schoolers that saying their principal is fat using the lab computers ISN'T a great use of the internet --mboverload@ 09:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As nice as it would be to have some child slaves working in my programming factory, I think I'll have to go with C =P. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. What are examples of articles to which you've contributed significant meaningful content, not just reverts? ShortJason 15:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, when I first came to Wikipedia, I intended to write articles, rather than doing what I'm doing now (which arose because I saw problems with the project that were more important than the number of or length of articles). My first article was Götter Auf Abruf, a stubby, little thing on an album by Letzte Instanz (Letzte Instanz was also an article that I did some work on, not too much additional content, but copyediting and adding in the table). I'm also about the only contributor to Sinzig, which began as a translation of de:Sinzig, and I then expanded it quite a bit (though the de one has also grown). I also worked on Medieval rock, again a stubby, poorly written article, but I did contribute a significant amount of its content. I also began the the translation of Origin of water on Earth, but it was soon taken over by Mark Lewis. I truly wish that I had more time to actually write articles, as I do find that to be the most important part of building an encyclopedia, and I hope that I'll be able to return to article-writing in the future. But as I said above, I tend to be much more of metapdedian, discussing the policies and procedures that govern the creation and deletion of content, rather than discussing the actual content itself. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sorry for taking so long to respond--I didn't see that there were questions waiting for me down here until just now. Let me start by saying that this is the first time I've ever even heard of the proposal or of User:ShootJar, and I typically do not comment on policy proposals until they've matured quite a bit, at least to the point that they can be moved into projectspace. But anyway, since you asked, I'd have to say that I rather strongly object to this proposal in its current form. On the one hand, there's the tremendous technical and bureaucratical demand of the proposal--creating separate degrees of user rights based upon editcount and different protection schemes to restrict the editing of each, as well as the demand upon administrators to apply different kinds of blocking to each user (and since administrators aren't capable of modifying user rights, this is likely a demand that would, contrary to the proposal, need to be leveled upon bureaucrats--as if they don't already have enough to do). A lot of the ideas in it also make me a little jumpy--protecting all policies from editing by users with fewer than 500 edits, regardless of whether or not the policy page is being vandalized, seems to completely go against the Wiki spirit. Restricting any user who has ever been blocked from editing policy pages and any page protected under "level 3" would have a lot of collateral damage--I might note that I've been, well not blocked but autoblocked, accidentally, and I can think of several respectable contributors and administrators who have also been blocked. The proposal seems to encourage more article protection, whilst I'm a proponent of protection being a last resort only. There are certain pages that need to be full-protected to end edit wars and prevent severe and highly-visible vandalism, and other pages must be s-protected to prevent unmanagable cases of vandalism. I think that suffices personally. It also seems as though the author of the proposal is frustrated about being unable to edit full-protected articles, but frankly I don't believe it appropriate for even administrators to edit full-protected articles without a strong consensus to do so, let alone non-administrators acting unilaterally. But as I said, this is my first reading of the proposal, and perhaps once it has some time to mature I may change my mind. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Is it true that you are an admin on another Foundation Wiki? --GeorgeMoney T·C 20:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Technically yes, but the way you phrased it makes it sound much more glorious than it actually is. I approached Rob Church a while ago about obtaining SysOp rights on the test wiki, a wiki used as a developer's playground and bot-testing arena, as I was interested in developing some administrator-friendly tools. There was no objection raised, and so I was sysopped there, but without going through any kind of formal process or even posting a request on m:WM:RfA. My work there has not been in any way comparable to actual administrator work; I'm merely playing around with admin tools and testing my other SysOp-oriented apps there. Those interested can see my log and contributions there, though I'll warn you that they're not particularly interesting. I should also add, as Rob Church has reminded me many times, that the test wiki is really meant as a developer's playground, and a few exceptions are made for bot-testing, trying out formatting, etc. It really doesn't have the server capacity that en does, and I almost always get the server time-out error when editing, so it's probably ideal to just stick to local sandboxes on en when possible. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Silly Question: Are you able to use a computer and access Wikipedia? --GeorgeMoney T·C 22:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he does. FellowWikipedian 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AmiDaniel&oldid=1145854291"