Stewards/Elections 2021/Votes/DannyS712

The 2021 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

DannyS712

ContentsYes • No • Neutral

DannyS712 talk • contribs • accounts (stalktoy) • globalcontribs • confirm eligibility  — Translate: translation help, statement, template

• Languages: en, he-2, es-2, zh-2
• Personal info: (English)
  Hi. I'm DannyS712. I spend a lot of my time dealing with spambots and LTAs, both as a global sysop and as a local sysop on a number of wikis. If you want to know which wikis I have advanced rights on, see my user page here on meta, or my global account info (Special:CentralAuth/DannyS712). Xtools says I have over 2400 edits to Steward requests/Global, where I frequently report accounts and IPs for stewards to lock/globally block.

  I know that stewards often have to deal with sensitive information; I have experience dealing with sensitive information as an OTRS agent, an Oversighter on Wikidata (though I've only been an OS there since December 2020), and as a member of the account creation team on enwiki.

  When I'm online, I can usually be reached on IRC, and #wikimedia-stewards is one of the channels I idle in. I have noticed times when there is an ongoing cross-wiki vandal and no stewards are available, and while this is perfectly understandable (stewards are volunteers) I think it would be beneficial to expand the steward ranks.

  I am a volunteer MediaWiki developer with +2 rights, and if I become a steward I can look for places where stewards' workflow can be improved either via user scripts or improvements to the relevant MediaWiki core/extension code.

  I'm happy to answer questions.
• Questions: See Stewards/Elections 2021/Questions#DannyS712

English: You are not eligible to vote. More information

  Yes

2. Yining Chen (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  --Yining Chen (Talk) 14:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Leaderboard (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  A very capable user, and in particular they have demostrated very good technical skills which I think would help the community a lot (from their "uniqueness" answer), and I can attest to the anti-vandalism work they do at my homewikis. Also handled Revi's challenging question about CU very well, and I'm satisfied with his response to that question. Their answer to the "bizarre situations" problem was fine as well. My main concern is honestly activity, you seem to be doing a lot and I'm not sure how you're going to maintain it as a steward. Leaderboard (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. ImprovedWikiImprovment (Verification pending) •  --IWI (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Super Wang (Verification pending) •  From what Danny promised I can support them, everyone should learn to walk before they run; still I'd appreciate if Danny's learning won't take too long. Super Wang hates PC _{You hate, too?} 14:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. LuchoCR (Verification pending) •  LuchoCR (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No

1. Rschen7754 (Verification pending) •  Stewards are supposed to insist that community consensus and global policy are to be followed by the WMF - not to take advantage when the WMF decides to go against the community, as seen at phab:T268090#6630726 when the candidate got CU rights on testwiki against the global CU policy. Sad to say, I do not think this incident reflects well on his ability to stand up to the WMF in situations like this. Rschen7754 14:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. -revi (Verification pending) •  Fails my voting criteria 1, 4.2. Improper, unauthorized access to CheckUserLog data has not been sufficiently addressed. — regards, Revi 14:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. TonyBallioni (Verification pending) •  I have serious concerns with his ability to interact with community members in a way that is human and not rigid and formulaic. His responses to the questions (particularly Nick’s and revi’s) dodged what they were actually asking and provided answers that amounted to little more than “I have answered your question and I am right.” That is not the correct temperament to be a steward. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Tks4Fish (Verification pending) •  Per Rschen, -revi, Tony. He has problems dealing with people which is not fitting for a steward. His responses to the emergency actions and to the homewiki questions were awfully bad, and his reply to the CU granting on testwiki did not respond to the issues there presented. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 14:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Herbythyme (Verification pending) •  Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. MF-Warburg (Verification pending) •  Not convinced, seems like a hatcollector. The answers to the questions are often "disappointing and uninformative", as one questioner put it. Also the CheckUser incident gives me pause. MF-W 14:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Miraclepine (Verification pending) •  Per the CU log incident. ミラP@Miraclepine 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Martin Urbanec (Verification pending) •  Danny's answers to questions are unsatisfying to me. They seem to recite policies rather than show how the candidate feels about the topic. As Nick put it, his answer to the enwiki RfA question was "disappointing and uninformative". In addition to that, his answer to my emergency situations cases doesn't satisfy me. It doesn't unravel how the candidate understands emergencies at all. I'm also concerned by the candidate's fast promotion track. Most of the permissions the candidate now has were granted in 2020. I don't think that gives him required experience. Maybe next time, Danny. Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGK (Verification pending) •  AGK ■ 14:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Xaosflux (Verification pending) •  For stewards, I like to see a much longer tenure engaging with communities. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Praxidicae (Verification pending) •  Per many others, but particularly revi and Tony's points. Praxidicae (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Spicy (Verification pending) •  Concerned by answers to questions, particularly the one about emergency situations. Spicy (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Jianhui67 (Verification pending) •  While I believe he means well, I think this candidacy is premature. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 15:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral