Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dylan620 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
add {{unsigned}} for RegentsPark's comment (on a side note: Thanks for the explanation. Maybe now we can all agree that it's a good idea to use edit summaries to explain your edits?)
Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)
145,401 edits
Line 220: Line 220:
#'''Neutral''' - I don't think there's enough article work or discussion on article talk pages. [[User:Monterey Bay|Monterey Bay]] ([[User talk:Monterey Bay|talk]]) 02:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' - I don't think there's enough article work or discussion on article talk pages. [[User:Monterey Bay|Monterey Bay]] ([[User talk:Monterey Bay|talk]]) 02:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. Putting myself here because I honestly can't decide if Dylan would make a good admin or not. Good content work in the past but rather little recently, a slight lack of talk page and deletion discussions and few contributions to files - the last not usually a problem except when the candidate states it as an area of interest - make me hold back from supporting, but there's also a lot of good work and commitment to the project, and a fair amount of policy experience. I might have opposed if Malleus hadn't. [[User:Alzarian16|Alzarian16]] ([[User talk:Alzarian16|talk]]) 14:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. Putting myself here because I honestly can't decide if Dylan would make a good admin or not. Good content work in the past but rather little recently, a slight lack of talk page and deletion discussions and few contributions to files - the last not usually a problem except when the candidate states it as an area of interest - make me hold back from supporting, but there's also a lot of good work and commitment to the project, and a fair amount of policy experience. I might have opposed if Malleus hadn't. [[User:Alzarian16|Alzarian16]] ([[User talk:Alzarian16|talk]]) 14:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
#:In which case you have proven yourself to be a clown, and a dishonest one to boot. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 15:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:33, 22 April 2011

Dylan620

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (70/17/6); Scheduled to end 15:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Dylan620 (talk · contribs) – Once more, I submit myself for your consideration. I first registered an account back in September 2007, though I didn’t begin editing actively until late August 2008. I've got over 13,000 edits under my belt, and I've been trusted with rollback for over 2 years (and reviewer privileges since November, though I don't use them often). While I'm not an artist, I do have some experience with article writing; most notably Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season, which I got to both FL status and to the DYK section on the main page; my most recent such endeavor would be improving Timeline of the 2004 Pacific hurricane season from Start-Class to C-Class (which is a bigger improvement than it sounds; the timeline was literally incomplete before I came along). I help out in the mainspace in other ways as well, through anti-vandalism efforts, dead link cleanup, and general maintenance. Most of my activity rests in maintenance work, like the aforementioned mainspace work, broken redirect cleanup, and any general cleanup opportunity I come across.

I have run for adminship before, though that request was quickly sunk due to my answers to a couple questions, and due to maturity issues as well. That was 16 months ago; I believe I've improved with regards to my maturity (though that may simply be from getting older), and I've also formulated better answers to my questions as well. Do I believe I'm perfect? Absolutely not! But nobody's perfect, and I believe I'm worth a shot at the mop. If this passes, I look forward to helping you all out in a greater capacity than previously possible for me. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 12:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This is a self-nomination, so obviously I accept. While I'm here, I would like to give special thanks to Soap (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who was a guiding force for me during my learning curve, and would have nominated me if he wasn't busy IRL. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 15:04, 18 April 2011 (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 plan to start off slowly; I will only take admin action in areas where I feel comfortable doing so. For now, this entails AIV, UAA, broken redirect cleanup, the image blacklist, and community ban discussions at AN or ANI. I may eventually branch out into areas such as CSD in general or XfD, but not before I get more experience there.
Forgot to mention WP:PERM; I plan to review requests for rollback, account creator, and autopatrolled rights.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As both a featured list and a DYK item, Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season is still the contribution I'm proudest of. I'm also proud of my completion of the Timeline of the 2004 Pacific hurricane season, though I failed to get that through FLC. In general, I'm proud of any contribution to Wikipedia which helps the site, along with any of my limited content contributions (like my first article, the help I gave to NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with his article on William Thompson Lusk, and the Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season and how the related FLC from November 2008 helped me to improve my editing).
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: My answer to this question at my last RfA still applies here, but I've had some more conflicts since then. Here I shall elaborate on two: the first is where I was a party in a conflict, and the second is where I tried my hands at dispute resolution:
Child protection: At a recent ANI thread, I redacted multiple comments about an editor's age; this action was met with criticism from an editor who repeatedly demanded to see the policy justification for this (the standard practice is currently not written in policy AFAIK). I was one of multiple editors who tried to explain to them that it was standard practice to censor the ages of underage editors; I did so using essays which explained the current practice (and that common sense should win the day), but this did not satisfy them. I soon backed off from this particular incident, feeling comfortable that they would eventually understand; Department of Redundancy Department (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) made it clear that even though it is an essay, Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy accurately describes the standard practice in such situations; while Aiken drum (talk · contribs) pointed them to an actual policy. I should note, though, that Wikipedia needs a far better child protection policy. Children on the Internet need protection from more than pedophiles; if we have a standard practice to censor the ages of self-disclosed minors, then that should be included in the policy as well. I think I'll head over to WP:VPP to propose that once this RfA is transcluded...
Iaaasi (talk · contribs) community ban discussion: And relevant discussion here. Another editor complained to me that Iaaasi was using his newly-restored talk page access to sling mud at him, questioning the purpose of restoring it in the first place. He also referred to Iaaasi as "User:Bonaparte/User:Iaaasi" (he had mentioned at the ban discussion that Iaaasi was previously suspected to be a sock of Bonaparte), and also claimed that Iaaasi had committed "falsifications and distortions" without providing evidence as to just what they were. I explained to the editor that Iaaasi's talk page access had been restored so that he could respond to comments in the ban discussion; I also remarked that saying that Iaaasi was Bonaparte (when that link was never proven), and making unsourced allegations of misbehavior by Iaaasi, were personal attacks. The editor explained himself, and gave examples of Iaaasi's "falsifications and distortions" - some examples I agreed with, some I did not. After the discussion was closed and Iaaasi community-banned, we decided that the matter was now irrelevant, and left it there.
So basically, if I'm involved in a dispute — whether as a party or as a mediator — I know to hear what the editors have to say, remain calm, point out where they are violating policy, and when to let it go.
Additional optional question from Wifione ....... Leave a message
4. Give at least two cases/reasons when a user can be blocked indefinitely without having even one live contribution or deleted contribution on record?
A: One such case is when a username is incredibly offensive (Fucktard366, JewsdidWTC, etc.); another is when an account carries the same username as/a username identical to a prolific cross-wiki vandal (such as Grawp).
5. You notice a new user name being created, Pepsi200. What action, if any, would you take?
A: To use a UAA template: Wait until the user edits. Simply having "Pepsi" in the username does not merit administrative action. However, when it becomes apparent that the account exists only to promote Pepsi, that is time to block.

Additional question from Keepscases

6. The Wikimedia Foundation decides they would like a celebrity spokesperson, and they've entrusted you to make the decision (Wikipedia spokesperson is such a prestigious position that any living celebrity would of course accept). Whom do you select? Why?
A: Chuck Norris. Need I explain myself?
Meh, if you ask me, his beard alone would be sufficient. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from StrPby (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Do you believe RFA is broken? If so, how is it broken? (I do not require your opinions on how to fix it, if you agree it is broken.)
A: Well, too many candidates leave the site in tears because of hostile comments at their RfA. Some candidates have a few kinks in them; instead of kindly asking the candidate to work them out before coming back to RfA, we tell them that they're a net negative and that we don't need them here. And when a great candidate is simply eager to help out, we accuse them of power hunger. But despite my strong dissatisfaction with the outcomes of such RfA's, I cannot in good faith say that RfA is broken; if it is, then why do we still have marvelous candidates passing with flying colors?
Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
8. Communication is obviously a very important part of Wikipedia's collaborative editing environment. While you have many user talk- and project talk space edits, you have very few (186 as of 03:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)) article talk space edits. Any particular reason, or was it just fate?
A: 'Twas fate. I'm not the most prolific article writer, and never have been; that said, I have raised concerns about articles on talk pages (1, 2, 3, 4); this was also an early attempt at dispute resolution.
Additional question from Kansan
9. In your answer to question 1, you mentioned wanting to work with the image blacklist. What, specifically, do you want to do in that area? Kansan (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: I plan to rectify incorrect exceptions and review requests to add images to the blacklist. For instance, say there is a sexually explicit image/an image frequently being used for vandalism; if a request is made at Mediawiki talk:Bad image list to add such an image to the blacklist, I will grant it if there are no problems. Also, I recently asked for File:Wikibukkake.png's (warning: NSFW) exception to be changed from Bukkake to Bukkake (sex act); I'd like to be able to eliminate the middle man in such cases. However, if I see an image which I believe should be added to the blacklist, I would feel more comfortable if another admin reviewed my request, instead of sending it straight to the blacklist myself.
Additional question from Salvio giuliano
10. What is the difference between a softerblock and a spamublock; when would you employ the former instead of the latter and vice versa?
A: A softerblock is employed when an account has a promotional username and edits, but when the user behind the account appears to be editing in good faith; i.e. the editor does not appear to be aware that advertising/self-promotion is not permitted. A softerblock permits the blockee's access to their own talk page, ability to use the e-mail function, and ability to create another account while still logged in; autoblock is disabled as well. A spamublock is somewhat similar in that it is also employed on accounts with promotional usernames, but instead of misguided advertising/self-promotion, the editor is engaging in blatant, bad-faith spamming; while one's access to their own talk page and the e-mail function is still permitted with a spamublock, creation of another account while already logged in is disallowed, and an autoblock is in place. I would use a softerblock if the account's only edit was advertising/self-promotion within its userspace; or, if an account engaged in advertising by creating a single page, the page was tagged for speedy deletion, and the author removed the speedy tag; in that case, the author may simply have not known how to contest the speedy deletion of a page. I would use a spamublock if it was clear that the editor was intent on spamming; for instance, if they spammed on multiple pages, or if their spam was reverted/deleted and they insisted on re-creating it. Obviously as both types of blocks are for accounts whose usernames match their promotional edits, I would use neither block if that was not the case. (apologies for the somewhat verbose answer here)
Additional question from Lambanog
11. You are evaluating a dispute between two editors on a little visited article. One editor wishes to add a better citations style format banner; another wishes to remove it. They are on the verge of an edit war. What policies and guidelines apply? What else are you looking at to determine if the banner should stay or not?
A: Per Kudpung's comments here and here, I don't really feel comfortable responding in the form of an answer to a RfA question, though I will say this: tags are stupid things to edit war over.
Additional question from Likeminas
12. Will you be open for voluntary recall? Why? and if so, after how long do you feel a stand for "re-confirmation" of adminship is warranted?
A: Yes, I will be open to recall. I'd use the sample process with some modifications. Any editor who feels I am no longer sufficiently trustworthy for adminship may initiate a recall petition at User:Dylan620/Admin/Recall. The petition will last for one week; if six editors have signed the petition during that time, then a reconfirmation RfA will commence when the week is up. (In order to initiate or sign the petition, an editor must have at least three months tenure, at least 1,000 edits, and no blocks for the past three months; all editors whom I have blocked or otherwise sanctioned are exempt from these conditions.) The reconfirmation RfA will play out like a typical RfA; if I pass, I remain an administrator, and if I fail, I head over to meta:Steward requests/Permissions to relinquish the tools. Also like a typical RfA, the end result will be determined by a bureaucrat.
Another question from Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Looking through your talk archives, I found something quite curious. This is from a few years ago, but it's worth bringing up to see if you learned from it. Could you explain Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Dylan620/1985_Planet_Ceres_Atlantic_Hurricane_Season, what the pages were about (why had you created them, for example) , and what you would do in the present day if, as an admin, you came across a similar page belonging to a new user?
Additional question from AlexandrDmitri
14. How would you handle a request for the Account Creator permission from a user who has created just twelve accounts in two days (and has hit the six per day limit twice)?
A:

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support. You'll make a great administrator. I feel really bad about not being able to come up with a good nomination statement, but I'm sure that I wouldn't be able to write anything as good as yours even if I had lots of time to work on it. —Soap— 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite alright; I appreciate that you tried :) --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 17:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I see a high level of reasonableness from this candidate; the recent ANI shenanigans cemented this. No concerns about this editor becoming an admin. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support This candidate seems to have a good editing history, and seems to have a good track record in the areas they profess an interest in. I support the candidates cautious attitude in Q1, and while I don't agree with the substantive position in the first part of Q3, the candidate seems to have handled the dispute well. I see no reason why this candidate cannot be trusted with the mop. Monty845 16:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Longterm user, seems mature and sensible. ϢereSpielChequers 16:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I've found Dylan620 to be a sensible and helpful editor, and I trust him to use the tools wisely. 28bytes (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I've seen you around in the right places and you seem to know what you're doing. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support: I recall the two issues referred to in Q3. In the child one, I fully support your removal of sensitive information - the protection of minors (including from their own carelessness) is of paramount importance. But it's not agreeing with me that counts - what actually counts is that you handled the dispute calmly. I've also had a look over the Iaaasi case, and I think your contribution was excellent - very fair and even-handed. And looking back at a reasonable number of random samples of your contributions, I see nothing but good stuff -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support, Dylan has the time, experiance and communication necessary for acquiring the mop. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Dylan620 has changed a lot in the time I've known him: I remember having concerns about him and being critical a couple of times, but that was long before 2009 ended. Nowadays he is much more mature; his work, both to content and maintenance, is good, and whenever I see Dylan620 around I am always pleased: I have no concerns now and am happy to support his request for adminship. Acalamari 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No concerns at all. Seems competent and is experienced. Has clearly learned from last RFA which occurred ages ago. AD 17:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support As far as I can determine, Dylan has matured considerably since his first RFA and is now experienced and clueful to be an administrator. Regards SoWhy 17:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 17:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support good breadth and depth of experience Jebus989✰ 17:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - no issues or concerns that you will misuse the tools. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. (edit conflict) Support - No reservations here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - No reason why not, adminship is not a big deal and this candidate has shown proficiency in many areas of administrative work. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I think this editor has improved this time compared to the previous RFA. Minima© (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I like what you said about the protection of minors! I wasn't here in 2009 so I can't comment on any of that. Based on the progress you've made since then, yes, you're ready for the mop (and the "crappy" t-shirt).  :) This lousy T-shirt (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Last time around, I opposed due to maturity issues. However, a quick flip through your talk page and contributions show that you've changed a lot since then.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support – I have no concerns with Dylan holding the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Friendly and motivated. Also, per Soap. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, per Dank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.111.46 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC) (indent - IPs aren't allowed to !vote at RfA -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  22. Support. Decker41811a (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I the only one who finds it a bit suspicious that the above !vote is Decker41811a's first edit? --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 02:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    CU note: There are one or two valid paths how this user ended up here, and no abuse of multiple accounts is apparent on first glance. Amalthea 07:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support nice edits Pass a Method talk 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Tiderolls 21:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Keepscases (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Great Editor, been around long enough (13,000). And although the edit count does not make the editor, he is sensible and has been around long enough to know how the mop needs to be used (as he has demonstrated above). I believe he will do a fabulous job as an admin, and has proven that he won't abuse the tools. I say we give him the mop. @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 22:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. What we have here is an enthusiastic contributor who had a few issues but has done an excellent job of improving, and I think he's mature enough now that he can take on the job. ceranthor 22:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support: I have worked with user on numerous occasions and have always found them to be knowledgable, helpful and willing to work with others. I strongly support Dylan getting an adminship. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong support Certainly deserves the tools. WayneSlam 00:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support. I was one of the editors you redacted in the AN/I discussion mentioned above. Your e-mail to me was professional, polite, and to the point, and your decision was IMO correct and in line with what policy we have regarding minors. Your actions showed initiative and common sense, and I was highly impressed. I think you'd handle the mop just as thoughtfully. --NellieBly (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per above. -download ׀ sign! 02:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. per above too. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 03:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. tentative support - I partly agree with NW's concerns below but three years without anything worse leads me to think that a trial with admin tools is feasible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I understand why NW is opposing, but I can't really agree with him without being hypocritical. So, here I am... T. Canens (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weak support. Dylan620's content creation is lacking a little and "Believe (Staind song)" is disappointing, but otherwise contributions are okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support: Give the man a mop - he can be trusted with it Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 09:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Trustworthy and mature. If he breaks the wiki, I'll eat my hat. -- Ϫ 12:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I sense a degree of maturity with this candidate and a willingness to tread slowly into unfamiliar areas. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Seems well meaning and trustworthy. I hope he'll have more edits as an admin and do some quality writing, of which he seems capable.--tWehwalt (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - seems to have intentions in the right place -- Tawker (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - the issue with the Staind song article is disappointing, but not enough to prevent me from supporting. I am especially impressed by your commitment to our child protection policies, which I think are more important than most of us think. You also say that you intend to tread slowly in any area you don't feel comfortable, and this leads me to think you won't cause any problems. Kansan (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Candidate seems cluful, intelligent and knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies. mauchoeagle 05:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support The contributions I checked out were great. Perfect example of how to learn from an unsuccessful RFA. --Banana (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Weak Support I was considering an oppose per NW, (and that Im weary over the recent editing exp and time, it is too small....) but I think you would be a net benefit based on previous editing time and some of your views/answers on questions. I and others are giving you the thumbs up, make us proud. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Meets my criteria. The answer to Q7 struck me as a bit odd, but neither the question nor its response have really anything much to do with whether Dylan will make a good admin or not, and I'm sure he will. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - long term competent and enthusiastic user, who'd likely make prolific and effective use of admin tools. Dylan did have some maturity issues to start with but has always been a dedicated contributor - and it all looks good to me at this point. ~ mazca talk 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Weak support - User's a member of WikiProject Bacon. No concerns. Swarm X 18:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? NW (Talk) 16:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Swarm X 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Dylan has helped me two different times, and he seems to be ready for the administrator privileges.--Nyswimmer (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I feel, looking at his record, that this user will use the tools wisely. I am certain that he will not damage the encyclopedia. There are a few minor concerns raised in the Oppose section but hey, nobody's perfect. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, this user looks trustworthy enough to use the tools. Good luck! Tavix |  Talk  23:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I trust Soap's judgement. Secret account 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Although I agree that there are a few minor concerns, here, I do believe you'll appropriately use the tools; by the way, I also liked your answer to my question. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I supported last time, this time is no exception ;)--White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak support. He's become a lot more mature since last RfA, and I think he's ready. I have concerns that he won't be bold enough with his tools (we learn from trial and error), and may not be the right guy to make a tough call as a result. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Weak support It's disappointing to see an editor who has done some content work in the past, like Dylan, almost completely cease to do so. Ideally, most administrators would also continue to actively work on articles; unfortunately, that is not the case. Since his last RfA, Dylan made the decision to spend most of his time on Wikipedia participating in administrative areas rather than improving articles. That was his choice. Because it seems that his work in the project namespace has been helpful and not problematic, and because he's mainly interested in maintenance and administration as opposed to writing and editing, I think both Dylan and Wikipedia stand to benefit from his being granted adminship. Ultimately, based on his editing patterns since his last RfA, I suppose Dylan would only become a heavy content contributor in the future if he wanted to game the system to pass a third RfA. Surely that isn't something we want to encourage. People are going to do the things they enjoy on Wikipedia; in Dylan's case, we might as well give him some tools to help him do so. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - The user has been here long enough to know our policies well, and I see he does have experience in the areas he desires to use the tools in. I also don't see anything particularly troublesome in recent times. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. So basically, if I'm involved in a dispute — whether as a party or as a mediator — I know to hear what the editors have to say, remain calm, point out where they are violating policy, and when to let it go. All I needed to hear to support. Just remember to live by it no matter what. Shiva (Visnu) 07:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. I see no reason to oppose; I believe he can be trusted. Yes Michael? •Talk 07:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support No concerns here. I believe he can be trusted CalumH93|talk 13:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. No problems, no doubt he'll be a good admin. Trusted, experienced, very good candidate. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Moneya weak support Formerly weakly opposed due to amount of automated edits now weakly supporting due to further looking on my part —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
  64. Support Baseball Watcher 22:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support − Can't see any real problems. Candidate is a time served user. S/he's been around long enough to know the ropes and to know the project. Good luck. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I trust that Dylan620 will move cautiously in using the tools in areas with which he is relatively less familiar, and that he will bear the concerns expressed in the more substantive opposes and neutral comments in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per NYB response to oppose vote 12 below. While lack of article and File: work is a concern Dylan620 does seem to have the balance between caution and action just about right which is really the main skill an admin needs.--Salix (talk): 07:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Good user. I think you'd be absolutely fine with the tools. All the best, Orphan Wiki 10:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I must admit I was a bit concerned with oppose #12, but NYB response to it was also quite persuasive. A deeper look into his contributions says he will do just fine. Likeminas (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. You certainly have improved from a couple years back, but not by enough for my tastes. Your answer to question 2 is almost identical to your previous RFA, which was a year and four months ago. Indeed, your last 500 articlespace edits goes back six months, and the vast majority of those are mass link fixes or Huggle edits (The last 1,000 edits go back to your previous RFA, and much of that is cosmetic). I'm also disappointed that you still have not referenced Believe (Staind song). While you might not have understood the verifiability policy when you created that article, you should by now, and I would expect you to go back and clean up work old work.

    Lack of article work is not by itself a sufficient reason to oppose, but I'm simply not convinced that enough has changed since then to warrant supporting, in terms of article work or other issues. NW (Talk) 15:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Per NW. Not enough track record between RFAs to measure an improvement. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I could say "Per NW" as that is reason enough, but you really hit a sore spot with me in your question 1. I don't trust the judgment of anyone that says that they want to work near files in an admin capacity, even in something as trivial and non-policy intensive as the bad image list, when they only have 6 edits to the file namespace. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Sorry, but doesn't have the right sort of experience to handle content disputes (see below). Nice chap, pleasant social skills, but definitely not an admin. - Pointillist (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Too little involvement with article content. Per X!'s Edit Counter, of 10,536 live edits, only 3,529 (33.5%) are in content space (i.e. Article or File). Soxred93 says that in total, 3,963 edits were automated (presumably that would be c. 2,000 automated edits in article space with the other half being warnings on talk pages). There were 758 article edits in the past twelve months, of which 650 were marked minor and 8 others were simple reverts, so there were at most 100 non-minor article edits in the past year.
    Lack of experience handling conflict. Has only voted at one AfD in the past year (Paddy Beirne, unopposed snow delete) and has never had to defend/improve an article as a result of an AfD. Not active at New page patrol and AFAICS not active around controversial articles: has made only 186 contributions to Article talk pages since 2007. Update:21:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC) the Article Talk examples in Dylan620's answer to /ƒETCHCOMMS/ question don't inspire confidence, I'm afraid.
    "the Article Talk examples in Dylan620's answer to /ƒETCHCOMMS/ question don't inspire confidence" - could you please elaborate on that? --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, here's my take:
    In example 1 you deleted text because you didn't do a google search. Anyone could make that mistake, but there are people out there who make a very plausible case that "no sources were found" when in fact they didn't want to find them. As an AfD-closing admin you'll need to have a better grip on searches.
    In example 2 you spotted linkspam but instead of deleting it you just asked at the talk page whether it was advertising. No one replied and now eight months later the linkspam is still there (I've just killed it). As an Admin you'd be expected to make that call. Turns out the link was added (diff) by a single-purpose account whose name matches the spam and who only ever made that one edit, so there wasn't any room for doubt.
    In example 3 once again no-one replied to you, so it's not an example of article talk page interaction.
    In example 4 you rightly questioned a change because it didn't match the cited source. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk · contribs) replied saying it is correct anyway. Surely you should have asked for a verifiable source, rather than just walk away!
    In this example AFAICS you just posted your opinion (no problem with it BTW) and then retired without getting involved in the further discussion, so it's not much of an example of interaction.
    Please don't be offended but IMO you have not so far demonstrated the mental rigor and vigor to succeed with the mop. You can see the issues, but still seem to rely on others for decisions, as Ceranthor (talk · contribs) said in your first RfA, and I wonder whether you would in fact enjoy adminship if you had it. Take a look at the messes admins like Materialscientist (talk · contribs), LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) and JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) clean up in a day's work—is that really your personal style? Or shadow DGG (talk · contribs) for a while—is that more your approach? Wielding the mop is a big deal, and there's no shame in leaving it to those more temperamentally suited to the challenge. - Pointillist (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose per NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs). Not enough involvement in the article-space – particularly not enough creative involvement, ie. not automated tasks. It's also concerning that you've had basically zero involvement in the AfD process and (since you say you'd like to be involved in this) in area of images. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 12:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per NW and Sven, with limited contributions to the file namespace and no participation at WP:FFU I'm concerned that the user lacks the required knowledge to deal with files (copyright, fair use etc.), especially in an admin capacity. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:48am • 23:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppoes Not sure about actual involvement, lots of automated edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneya (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    The above user only has 42 edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Decker41811a's first edit was to support this RfA, and when I expressed my suspicion at that, Amalthea (a checkuser) provided sufficient reason to assume that Decker got here via a legitimate path. Surely we can AGF with an account whose edit count is 4⅔x higher, and has been here since January? --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 02:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You do have a point there. Struck per above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. There are already too many children in positions of authority here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have every right to oppose, but age ≠ maturity; there are 15-year-olds who are easily more mature than some 50-year-olds. On top of that, I'd appreciate it if you evaluated me based on my contributions, rather than my age. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 02:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended discussion following this response by Dylan has been moved to this RFA's talk page. Please continue discussion there. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Baseball Watcher 22:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Not strongly. I can't really support a candidate who wants to hand out the autopatrolled tool but (a) wouldn't qualify for it themself; and (b) doesn't have a strong enough content record to make me confident that they would hand out this content creation tool only in appropriate circumstances. Also agree with Pointillist's oppose and follow-up. Sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I'd like to see a stronger focus on content development rather than vandal fighting. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'd rather not make someone an admin if they want to work with files and only have six edits to the file namespace.--Rockfang (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Just a month ago, the candidate closed a community ban discussion that he had himself proposed. He performed this closure after a 4 hour discussion in the middle of the night UTC, whereas WP:BAN requires 24. Even more concerning is that the candidate tried to ban someone under the cover of darkness here as a result of peer pressure, not a good quality in an admin. Courcelles 00:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While this description is accurate as far as it goes, I don't think it's completely fair to the candidate. Dylan620 made a well-supported ban proposal against a user who had engaged in extremely serious misconduct. The ban was supported by multiple editors, opposed by no one, and someone suggested that the discussion be closed and the ban enacted. At that point, Dylan620 protested against any premature closure of the discussion, pointing out that even where a ban appeared a foregone conclusion, a couple of hours was insufficient time for a ban discussion and that there should be at least 48 hours of discussion. Other editors then argued (on ANI and on Dylan620's talk) that in this situation the waiting period was not necessary and reverted the "banned" tags on the user's page, and Dylan620 then closed the discussion as effectively an "IAR" situation. It might have been better for Dylan620 to have stuck with his original instinct to wait longer, or better still, to have allowed someone else to have closed the discussion (although I don't see Dylan620 as really an "involved" user here, as he'd played no part in the underlying dispute). I'm a strong proponent of procedural fairness to users facing sanctions, but it also bears emphasis that an action that one user might decry as "giving into peer pressure" can equally be described as "ascertaining and accepting consensus," which far from being wrong is sometimes cited as the essence of Wikipedia collegiality. I can agree that this ban closure was not optimal, but not at all that it reflects poorly on Dylan620's qualifications to be an administrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I have not seen enough real space content work; or a range of demonstrated expertise in anything beyond vandal fighting and notice board commentary...Modernist (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I see no reason to allow someone with minimal files work to start doing admin work with files --In actu (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Minimal content contribution. I am also not comfortable with the apparent suspicion raised of my good faith in posing my question. My experience informs my decisions on what I see as important attributes in an admin candidate; it is also incorrect to assume that the situation alluded to by others was what prompted my question—another I was uninvolved in was the primary basis. That the candidate feels compelled to hide behind the remarks of others to avoid the question does not indicate to me enough of a capacity to form an independent judgment or to address a simple matter head-on. If he is going to place suspicion of editors he disfavors (or worse yet the prejudices of others he uncritically accepts) ahead of guidelines and policies he does not deserve the mop. Lambanog (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's generally considered completely acceptable not to answer a question posed at RFA about an editing dispute the poser is or was recently involved in. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lambanog's concern appears to be the indirect imputation of bad faith in his asking the question, not the fact that the candidate did not answer it. Not that it is a big deal but linking to Kudpung's comments was perhaps unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)
  16. Oppose I agree with most of the above. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - The opposes have convinced me. I don't see the need to give the extra buttons here. The "file work" arguments carry weight and I'd like to see a more well-rounded candidate in content creation. Suggest if this Rfa fails that the candidate work hard and try again early next year. My thanks for the candidate's service to date, and best wishes. Jusdafax 10:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral pending further stats/contributions review. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any point to this remark, seems like you are posting a reminder to yourself to review the candidate later. This section is supposed to be for comments from users who have reviewed the candidate but have not been able to decide if they support or oppose, not for you to mention that you haven't done that yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is intended to indicate that I've reviewed the RfA and have some concerns...concerns I'd prefer to keep to myself until I've had the time to complete a more detailed evaluation. In the meantime, the candidate is aware that I've seen the RfA. I mean it as a courtesy to the candidate, not a puzzlement to anyone else !voting. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A review of the candidate's contributions show positives in the area of article content contribution, but negatives in dealing with situations an admin would consider fairly routine. Neither outweigh the other, so unless something I missed gets my attention prior to the RfA closing, I'm remaining Neutral. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral temporarily, as I just want to note a couple of comments until I do a bit more of a review, and I don't want to forget my first thoughts. I recall the two issues referred to in Q3. I remember the child one, and I fully support your removal of sensitive information - the protection of minors (including from their own carelessness) is of paramount importance. I also recall the Iaasi incident, though less clearly right now, but overall I think I see a mature and sensible approach to dispute resolution. My instinct is to support - and that's how I'll probably change my !vote when I've had a closer look -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    I've just had a look over the Iaaasi case, and I think your contribution was excellent - very fair and even-handed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC) (I've looked further, and I've seen enough to support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Neutral. To be honest, when I saw this RfA, I thought I would probably support. I understand your content creation is limited, but that said you have written an FL, which initially allayed my concerns there. But then I went to have a look at the articles you've created and the first one I looked at, Believe (Staind song), is completely unreferenced. While I understand it was created back in 2008, I still can't support, as it seems like you don't grasp one of our most fundamental policies, WP:V. Jenks24 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern. May I ask if you read the FL? Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season - reached FL in August 2009. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 19:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn. That was disappointing. If you had have referenced the article when I mentioned it, I'd probably be in support right now. Instead I'm going to remain in neutral and, yes, I did read the FL and, to be honest, it's probably the only reason I'm not in oppose right now. I really though that when I brought up the article you would reference it with a "wow, I'd totally forgotten I'd created that, thanks for informing me, I'll go and reference it now". Jenks24 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the process of adding refs now; sorry for letting you down. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 21:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick note that while editing this section earlier, I originally planned to expand on this; unfortunately, I experienced a brain fart and it slipped my mind that I wasn't just making the above comment. What I said in my original comment still applies. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why you may have thought it looked desperate, but I still think it's what you should have done. It's nice to see you have now added some refs to the article, but it is still mostly unreferenced and has a refimprove tag on it. I really have thought long and hard on this, and I don't think I can support this RfA. That said, it seems likely this will pass and, if it does, I wish you all the best as an admin. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Appreciate the candidate's answer to Q7 but it's just about balanced out by the content issue. Neutral leaning support. StrPby (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mainly neutral because I don't think there's enough in-depth article work or discussion on article talk pages. Not a major issue, as deletion is not this candidate's main intended area of work, but I still look for a bit more writing. Everything else is excellent, IMO; Dylan has always come off as a clueful user who is willing to learn and help out. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - I don't think there's enough article work or discussion on article talk pages. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Putting myself here because I honestly can't decide if Dylan would make a good admin or not. Good content work in the past but rather little recently, a slight lack of talk page and deletion discussions and few contributions to files - the last not usually a problem except when the candidate states it as an area of interest - make me hold back from supporting, but there's also a lot of good work and commitment to the project, and a fair amount of policy experience. I might have opposed if Malleus hadn't. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case you have proven yourself to be a clown, and a dishonest one to boot. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dylan620_2&oldid=425351316"