Daniel Case

Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I am honored to be nominated for this responsibility and to be among such other well-qualified candidates for the job. The community will be well served by whoever wins.

I have been a registered editor for about four years now and an admin for a year and a half. I have become active on Commons, and I have accounts, all under this name, at Wikiquote and Wiktionary and the French Wikipedia, all of which I use from time to time. I am active in the newly-formed Greater NYC Wikimedia Foundation chapter.

I have learned to balance editing and admin work: the former primarily on National Register of Historic Places articles, the latter on AIV, UAA, CAT:RFU and DYK. I describe what I do as administering (I hate calling it "administrating") from the front, and only involving myself in the drama at the back when I have to. Oversight is an extension of that, with the caveat that it is quiet work done in the dark for what most of the community must trust is the best of reasons. I have no reservations about doing it.

Besides my experience and policy knowledge, I have several years' experience in journalism and the attendant practical awareness of U.S. defamation law (I wrote the articles about the two most recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the subject, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. and Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., if you really want to look) which I believe would be helpful in making the judgement calls involved in oversight.

Thank you for your consideration and the best of luck to whoever is the community's choice. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Daniel Case

• What is your reasoning for choosing not to allowing email to yourself? There are some subjects and issues that need to be conveyed privately, in my view. I thought that it was often part of administrator nominations that administrators should allow private access by email. And, in a checkuser role, are you meaning to preclude ever allowing anyone to contact you with confidential information? I don't understand prejudgement that no information can ever be confidential but important to discuss for some reason. doncram (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears to me that Daniel has email enabled. Special:EmailUser/Daniel_Case. --JayHenry (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that email interface. Then perhaps it has been available, but i have not known that all along. However, I've contacted Daniel approximately 3 times during the last two years requesting email contact, and he never replied. The effect has been to preclude contact and avoid the requested off-line discussion of matters which I never did state publicly. Has email contact been possible all along then, and if so, why not direct me to it? doncram (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this was entirely a misunderstanding on my part, please disregard my question. doncram (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen Daniel Case around quite a bit, and I've always had a very positive impression of him. He is very responsible, trustworthy, and civil - one of Wikipedia's best administrators . He is worthy of our trust for oversight. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A good and trustworthy admin who isn't already wearing lots of hats. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I really highly think of Daniel Case's contribution in general, especially his devotion for DYK. However when he proposed an infinite ban for Kurt Weber, the canvassing to one of editors who harassed the user really disappointed me a lot. Oversight should go to others who can keep cool other let behind personal feelings.--Caspian blue 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As with Lucasbfr standing for CU, Daniel Case is an excellent candidate for the permissions of oversight. Caulde 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For inadvertently revealing their IP or other information that could be used to identify them if they keep their identities a secret. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#Daniel Case‎. Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Daniel Case

2. Support--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Orderinchaos 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Ty 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. JayHenry (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. — neuro^(talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. rootology (C)(T) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. LittleMountain5 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Noroton (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Royalbroil 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. DGG (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. bibliomaniac15 05:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support-- Tinu Cherian - 08:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Davewild (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. --Aqwis (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Xclamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25.  Badgernet  ₪  12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. WWGB (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. — Aitias // discussion 13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. لennavecia 15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Sure. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Majorly talk 15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support prashanthns (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. arimareiji (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. --Elonka 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. GlassCobra 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Jamie^☆S93 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support --Polaron | Talk 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. seresin ( ¡? )  20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. – wodup – 10:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support --Mblumber (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Secret ^account 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Sam ^Blab 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Caulde 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. - Philippe 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Stephen 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. utcursch | talk 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support -chaser (away) - talk 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. David Shankbone 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Kingturtle (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Rje (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support --Tikiwont (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. iridescent 20:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. CharlotteWebb 14:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Kralizec! (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Elbutler (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Enigma^msg 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Graham87 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Daniel Case

2. Gurch (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. RMHED. 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mr.Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Caspian blue 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. ^Law _shoot! 04:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]