Dank (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) edit
- Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think the way you handle speedy deletion is weird, but otherwise I see no problems. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 12:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, considering I focus on speedy deletion these days, that's a problem :) So far, in response to questions I've asked at WP:AN and WT:CSD, there's more support than I was expecting for making some calls even when there's no consensus yet at AfD, so I'll keep looking for consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- hmmm. I'm going to have to do a little research for this review I think. Good admin., I have no questions there. The one thing that I have a vague impression of (perhaps unfairly), is that perhaps you're a bit unyielding at times. I'll have to look through the diffs to solidify that impression, so I'll just ask: do you give due consideration to other editors points of view? Note that I do generally agree with your stance on things, but I wonder if a more considered approach might work better at times. — Ched : ? 15:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Ched. I hope this isn't dodging, but I don't know yet how people are going to use this page. Is this like RFA, where it's better to rely on others to comment, or is this more like WP:ER or WP:TEA? I'm going to give this a few days to get a sense of how people want to use this process before I answer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's more like ER than it is RfA. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Ched. I hope this isn't dodging, but I don't know yet how people are going to use this page. Is this like RFA, where it's better to rely on others to comment, or is this more like WP:ER or WP:TEA? I'm going to give this a few days to get a sense of how people want to use this process before I answer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- yea, I guess it's whatever we make of it at this point. Sorry for the delay, and I did go back and look - I'm guessing that I was thinking of someone else as far as the "a bit unyielding at times" comment goes, cause I can't find a single post of yours that would even hint at that. Probably from my "just-getting-started" days when I didn't know who everyone was yet. Anyway, I like the calm cool approach you use at any of the AN discussions, and it looks to me like you're doing a fine job. Actually, this does remind me that I never got around to stopping by your talk page to express my appreciation of the WP:UPDATE work you do. That little gem has helped me a LOT!! thx. (by the way; WP:NOT should be fun to sort through this month .. lol). I know most of the folks coming here are looking for a "what can I do to improve" type of thing, but I really can't find anything Dan. You do good work - if I can ever find any reason to do some trout shopping, I'll be sure to let you know, but I just can't find anything right now. ;) — Ched : ? 16:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks kindly, Ched. Must have been my evil twin User:Dank55. This morning, when I was thinking about whether I'm too bossy, it occurred to me that there's a reason RFA works the way it does, with everyone talking at once; it's hard to know what to say when responding to criticism from one or two people. If I don't make an honest effort to change in response to the criticism, many people will take that to mean that I don't listen. If I do make changes, it gives a bit of an impression that I'm too interested in keeping everyone happy, and that I am vulnerable to manipulation ... and given that my focus is in deletion work now, giving an impression of "I'll do whatever people want" would conflict with the necessary fairness and impartiality. So my plan is to take these reviews one at a time, starting with Xeno, and I hope we'll get a lot of discussion, because I don't think it will work well unless we have a lot of discussion of each admin in turn. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- yea, I guess it's whatever we make of it at this point. Sorry for the delay, and I did go back and look - I'm guessing that I was thinking of someone else as far as the "a bit unyielding at times" comment goes, cause I can't find a single post of yours that would even hint at that. Probably from my "just-getting-started" days when I didn't know who everyone was yet. Anyway, I like the calm cool approach you use at any of the AN discussions, and it looks to me like you're doing a fine job. Actually, this does remind me that I never got around to stopping by your talk page to express my appreciation of the WP:UPDATE work you do. That little gem has helped me a LOT!! thx. (by the way; WP:NOT should be fun to sort through this month .. lol). I know most of the folks coming here are looking for a "what can I do to improve" type of thing, but I really can't find anything Dan. You do good work - if I can ever find any reason to do some trout shopping, I'll be sure to let you know, but I just can't find anything right now. ;) — Ched : ? 16:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think your approach to CSD is at all "weird", it's usually spot on. The only incident that really sticks out is Wallyboard, which was a mistake. However, I'm sure you won't do that again. I am a big fan of citing multiple criteria, that earns you extra credit in my book. Bringing cases to WT:CSD for discussion is also a good initiative, I think. decltype (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Dank has made a few indef blocks that I would not have done, but overall has done a good job moppping up messes. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I'm glad you brought this up. I only do indef blocks if the username obviously refers to the company or organization that they've promoted by creating an article, and even then, I use the mildest template message, the one with "This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username." I'm aware that I'm a little bit between a rock and a hard place here, because there are people who will grumble if I don't block under these circumstances when I'm deleting a db-spam article, and there are people who will grumble if I do. I was thinking that consensus was leaning strongly in favor of blocking, but if this requires a judgment call, then I should probably just get out of the username blocking business and focus on the deletion work. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- A good admin, and one who means well, but this was a little... impersonal. That said, a good decision. After checking your contributions, you're doing fine from what I can see! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent point. I'll do better in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If no one has anything else to add, I'll un-transclude so that others move up a spot, but I'll keep this review open in my userspace. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, I've just added MBisanz's handy {{administrator review}} to my userpage, maybe that will attract more comments. Btw, Matt, I had to remove the second sentence, it seems to point to the wrong link, for my review at least. Would you prefer that we move all the currently transcluded sections from our userspace to subpages of this page? Would it makes sense to redirect from one to the other? - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Me again. I'm going to bury myself in writing soon, and I want to see if there are any loose ends to tie up before I do. Anyone want me to do (or not) something I haven't (or have) been doing? - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Dank appears to conform to an Americentric world-view in his involvement of deletion issues. This is not a desirable attribute in an administrator. However, I am not sure if this is something this user is repeatedly conforming to, nor if, in itself, such attributes at all influence administration policy. The continued proliferation of issues with regards to 'limited geographic scope', and English-language-centric-ness, is not helped by an apparent conformity to a certain type of ideal that Denk appears to adhering to --jrleighton (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- The way you handle CSD, both in the management of these, the systematic feedback for declines but also the systematic review of anything potentially controversial at WT:CSD is definitely, in my eyes, the "Right Thing(tm)" to do, and an inspiring example. You're always willing to go the extra mile to ensure that this specific area is covered in the sanest, least bity and most balanced way possible. And I can't possibly figure what the preceding comment could possibly refer to. MLauba (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have nothing but respect for you, Dank. You sometimes disagree with me about username blocks, but you're always willing to back it up with a very well-reasoned argument. Even though you advocate blocking more often than I would -- as most people do -- I have never once seen a knee-jerk reaction or an assumption of bad faith from you. rspεεr (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks kindly. I think there may be ways we could keep the same level of quality control and block less, I'll explore that in about a week when I'm finished with the Update. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've encountered you many times, Dan, and I'd say that on the whole your work is good. From what I've seen, UAA decisions are solid and you seem to have a good feel about it. I don't agree with some of your decisions with speedies (I think you were expecting a bit of disagreement with others about CSD, because you're active in that area ;)), but usually pretty reasonable nonetheless - and like MLauba, I like your general approach on the matter. I wanted to let you know, though, that I just "overturned" (deleted) a CSD decline you made a few months ago. In my opinion, the decline rationale was not exactly valid; this article was in existence since Feb 2008, but frankly that should not be a reason to decline if the page is completely orphaned with only a few edits in the history.
- I can agree with you in theory, but IMO that case should have been deleted/stubified. It was very promotional ("our"/"we" terminology), and from my experience, copyright problems, vandalism, and spam can lay around articles for months or years. I come from a fairly strong standard against promotional content, so a few of your speedy declines are too inclusive for me, such as the one that I just mentioned. Still, you're willing to back actions with arguments, mostly sensible with block/delete decisions (my few disagreements are likely a matter of viewpoint, rather than the Right Opinion™), and I have a good deal of respect for you overall. Best, JamieS93 19:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Jamie, I've always been impressed with your work as well. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about that one. At the time, my theory was that, since the article had had 3 registered editors, had been around for 16 months, and didn't raise any G10, G12 or G3 red flags, that other options might be more appropriate, such as AfD. (I've done a lot of my G11 deletions on userspace pages that were tagged G11 for just that reason ... the fact that they weren't in articlespace meant we didn't have any presumption of the silent assent of the masses.) But I understand that that's a theoretical and somewhat formulaic approach; a judgment call based on the particulars is always better, and thanks for handling that (and also letting me know about the reversion). - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Since this AR is open, I'd like to bring this here instead of his talk page. This block is proabbly good, but should have been done for COI reasons rather than username since, despite the clear promotional implication, I didn't find any edits that suggested a connection. I was about to mark it as such when Dan blocked them and the bot removed it from the UAA page. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Daniel, but I think it's a judgment call because of the existence of MusicWatchEntertainment.com (I checked before I blocked). I'll allow "... Productions" and "... Entertainment" if it appears that it's just a fancy nickname, but I didn't get that sense from that site. My position is that I don't have to make a connection between that user and that website/company, since if the user isn't affiliated with that website, that's an even better reason to username-block. What's your take on this? - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's now become established practice at UAA to not block just because the name seems promotional or matches a website. The editing has to demonstrate a connection between the name and the promotion to justify a block. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm confused, I'm asking at Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator attention#Usernames_that_match_a_website. - Dank (push to talk) 05:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a permalink: UAA thread. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm confused, I'm asking at Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator attention#Usernames_that_match_a_website. - Dank (push to talk) 05:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's now become established practice at UAA to not block just because the name seems promotional or matches a website. The editing has to demonstrate a connection between the name and the promotion to justify a block. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)