Sky Attacker (talk | contribs) |
Kaiwhakahaere (talk | contribs) m →Oppose |
||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
#I think you're going along the right lines, but I'm going to oppose for the moment, I'm afraid. On going through your contributions, certain failures to assume good faith such as [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Until_It_Sleeps/Archive|this]] sockpuppet investigation, are still a little too recent for comfort; for my support, all of your recent edits would need to show an assumption of good faith. Also, you have created only 16 mainspace pages (plus a number of redirects) in 12,000 edits. Those 16 are for the most part solid pieces of work, and I liked the Beatles timeline in particular; I'm not one of those who usually oppose for lack of content contributions, but I think in your case the situation is quite extreme. I do think you need a little more experience in that area to prepare you for the dispute resolution part of a sysop's work, and I think 16 page creations in 12,000 edits is quite un-productive. I would suggest paying some attention to [[WP:AFC]], [[WP:MEA]] or some other constructive, collaborative area in which you could build at least a few more article credits of your own.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] [[User talk:S Marshall|<font color="Maroon" size="0.5"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|<font color="Maroon" size="0.5"><sub>Cont</sub></font>]] 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC) |
#I think you're going along the right lines, but I'm going to oppose for the moment, I'm afraid. On going through your contributions, certain failures to assume good faith such as [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Until_It_Sleeps/Archive|this]] sockpuppet investigation, are still a little too recent for comfort; for my support, all of your recent edits would need to show an assumption of good faith. Also, you have created only 16 mainspace pages (plus a number of redirects) in 12,000 edits. Those 16 are for the most part solid pieces of work, and I liked the Beatles timeline in particular; I'm not one of those who usually oppose for lack of content contributions, but I think in your case the situation is quite extreme. I do think you need a little more experience in that area to prepare you for the dispute resolution part of a sysop's work, and I think 16 page creations in 12,000 edits is quite un-productive. I would suggest paying some attention to [[WP:AFC]], [[WP:MEA]] or some other constructive, collaborative area in which you could build at least a few more article credits of your own.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] [[User talk:S Marshall|<font color="Maroon" size="0.5"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|<font color="Maroon" size="0.5"><sub>Cont</sub></font>]] 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' - mostly due to my [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|RFA criteria]], but also per [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] and [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]]. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>[[User:DoriSmith|Dori]] ❦ ([[User talk:DoriSmith|Talk]] ❖ [[Special:Contributions/DoriSmith|Contribs]] ❖ [[WP:Editor review/DoriSmith|Review]]) ❦</span> 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' - mostly due to my [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|RFA criteria]], but also per [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] and [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]]. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>[[User:DoriSmith|Dori]] ❦ ([[User talk:DoriSmith|Talk]] ❖ [[Special:Contributions/DoriSmith|Contribs]] ❖ [[WP:Editor review/DoriSmith|Review]]) ❦</span> 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose'''. Admins should be able/willing to perform '''all''' admin duties including the curly ones, but your comment above shows you are not ready to do so. Your comment I refer to is ''"Since I usually have off-site access to at least one older and more experienced admin (through Skype or IRC) I will consult them before performing any but the most simple of tasks."'' [[User:Kaiwhakahaere|Kaiwhakahaere]] ([[User talk:Kaiwhakahaere|talk]]) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
#<s>'''Oppose'''. Admins should be able/willing to perform '''all''' admin duties including the curly ones, but your comment above shows you are not ready to do so. Your comment I refer to is ''"Since I usually have off-site access to at least one older and more experienced admin (through Skype or IRC) I will consult them before performing any but the most simple of tasks."'' [[User:Kaiwhakahaere|Kaiwhakahaere]] ([[User talk:Kaiwhakahaere|talk]]) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</s> |
||
#:I see no implication of any such thing, perhaps it is just an alternative interpretation of what he said. I see it as a safety net, not an indication of inability. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— [[User:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">neuro</font>]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">(talk)</font>]]</i></sup></font> 01:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
#:I see no implication of any such thing, perhaps it is just an alternative interpretation of what he said. I see it as a safety net, not an indication of inability. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— [[User:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">neuro</font>]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">(talk)</font>]]</i></sup></font> 01:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
#::I specified '''not ready''', not '''inability'''. Count me out. [[User:Kaiwhakahaere|Kaiwhakahaere]] ([[User talk:Kaiwhakahaere|talk]]) 01:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' I'm a big believer in letting youth handle responsibility on Wikipedia. Shoot, I was even co-nominated at my own RfA by a teen admin. But disregarding your age in meatspace, I think you need some more experience in order for us to trust you with the mop, particularly along the lines S Marshall describes. If you can give me some more concrete evidence of experience in those areas, then I may switch to support. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">[[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]] [[User talk:Steven Walling|(talk)]]</font> 01:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' I'm a big believer in letting youth handle responsibility on Wikipedia. Shoot, I was even co-nominated at my own RfA by a teen admin. But disregarding your age in meatspace, I think you need some more experience in order for us to trust you with the mop, particularly along the lines S Marshall describes. If you can give me some more concrete evidence of experience in those areas, then I may switch to support. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">[[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]] [[User talk:Steven Walling|(talk)]]</font> 01:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 01:50, 1 September 2009
Dendodge
(talk page) (28/15/3); Scheduled to end 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Nomination
Dendodge (talk · contribs) – Well, it's been a while since I've nominated somebody, so here goes. I'll start out by addressing D's first three RfAs. He withdrew his first request with a tally of (0/4/0), so for all intents and purposes it was WP:SNOW'd. However, as this was nearly two years ago, I don't believe it should be held against the candidate; the same applies to his second RfA, which was also withdrawn within similar circumstances. His third RfA largely failed because of concerns related to experience and maturity. Nonetheless, I supported. Since then, about nine months' time has elapsed; in that time, Dendodge has significantly matured and improved upon his editing skills, and is now an asset to several areas of the site, most notably WP:TB.
With that said, here are a few relatively boring yet still somewhat significant stats: 12,269 edits, of which nearly 3,000 are to the mainspace, 2,100 are to the projectspace, and 2,400 are to the usertalk namespace. His most active month was March 2008, when he made a total of 1890 edits. His activity in terms of editcount has decreased a bit in recent months, but he still manages to edit daily. Automated tools account for 18.48% of his contribution history. Finally, Dendodge has created 40 pages in the mainspace, including redirects. It goes without saying that most of his edits are in some way related to The Beatles. To me, these figures demonstrate a well-balanced editing career and a contribution history evenly distributed amongst the various areas of the project. He has been awarded with a Triple Crown for his excellent contributions to featured sounds, good articles, and DYKs.
Much like myself, Dendodge is not perfect, yet I fully trust him to handle the extra buttons responsibly. I'm confident you'll agree. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, and would like to thank Julian for the confidence he has expressed in me.
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I don't have any specific areas in mind—I'll just help out wherever I can. The tools probably won't make much of a difference to my editing habits. I will probably work with CSDs, ProDs and XfDs, as well as blocking and unblocking users. I do not have much of an interest in page protection (while I consider it valuable to the site's stability, it is not an area in which I have much experience), though I will help out there when there's a backlog.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Many of my better contributions are behind the scenes, to project pages and discussions. I have done a lot of work with WP:TB, notably a complete overhaul of {{WPBeatles}} to standardise it using {{WPBannerMeta}}. I have also had a lot of experience with sounds, gaining a lot of featured credits in that area (although Audacity has been playing up lately, so my activity there has drastically decreased), as well as with images (although my experience there is not so extensive). I have not written any FAs yet, but have significantly contributed to two articles, helping to bring them to GA status: Kristallnacht (as part of the WP:SPOT collaboration drive, of which I was a coordinator) and George Harrison. I have created a number of articles, including The Beatles at The Cavern Club and The Beatles timeline, both of which I am rather proud of, despite both being unfinished works-in-progress. Perhaps my best contribution is the overhaul and redesign of P:TB, for which I was responsible.
- 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: I have been involved in a few conflicts, none of which have escalated to edit wars or reached the point where outside assistance was necessary. Talk page discussion usually helps to gather consensus. I am familiar with the dispute resolution process, having mediated a couple of cases for the WP:MEDCAB. I will always strive to use the correct processes to resolve any disputes in which I find myself involved, submitting to consensus as soon as it is made clear.
Questions from ArcAngel
- 4. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
- A: Never. They usually serve to inflame the situation, and blocks are preventative, not punitive.
- 5. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?
- A: If the user has a previous pattern of vandalism, I would probably block (as long as the user has been sufficiently warned). I am usually in Skype at the same time as Wikipedia, so I would probably check with another admin first, to make sure I don't act too rashly.
- 6. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
- A:
I'm not quite sure what this question means. Policy is policy, and is all important for the stability of the 'pedia. I will probably be able to give a more detailed answer if you clarify your question. - I think that all the policies regarding the use of administrative tools are equally important, be it WP:BLOCK, regarding only blocking users who need to be blocked, or WP:DELETE, regarding deleting only pages that are not useful to the project.
- As for other policies, I am of the opinion that content policies (such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP) are more important that user policies (such as WP:CIVIL). However, these are also very important, as we are here to collaborate, which means not arguing and slinging personal insults at each other. Of course, the most important policies are those which exist to stop us from getting sued (WP:FU, and WP:BLP, for example).
- A:
- 7. What are your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
- A: I will add myself to it. If the community chooses to give me adminship, they should be able to take it away from me again. Despite my views in my first few months here, adminship is no big deal.
- Additional optional questions from Vicenarian
- 8. To satisfy those who are concerned with the age of administrator candidates, would you be willing to disclose your exact age or, at least, whether or not you are over the age of majority in your jurisdiction?
- A: I am 15, as of 23 June.
Question from Mazca
- 9. I've been digging through your contributions looking for edits to areas relating to your answer to Q1 - specifically, WP:AFD, WP:AIV, and speedy deletion tagging. However, I've found very little of any of those. Can you point to some contributions where you've demonstrated your knowledge of policy, or any other info that can give us a better idea of where and how you plan to use admin tools?
- A: I have moved away from those areas over the last year, in an attempt to focus on content. My deletion taggings are sparse in my contribution history, since most of them were deleted. Therefore, you will have to go back a few pages in my deleted contribs to find it. I have done little work in AIV, but I have experience with vandal reversion, warning and reporting, mainly using Twinkle and Huggle. Dendodge T\C 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Question from harej
- 10. What is your approach to tendentious editors? When is it appropriate to block users or to lock pages from being edited?
- When users are being disruptive, they should be warned and eventually blocked. Blocking would be something I would not take lightly, and I would only block users in severe cases—everyone deserves a second chance, so they can reform. As for page protection, I have already said that is not an area I have much experience in, nor one in which I intend to work. The way I see it, there is no set formula for page protection; it should be decided on a case-by-case basis: If there is a high level of vandalism (especially of the subtle kind), or a lot of edit warring, page protection is to be considered. Dendodge T\C 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
- 11. What administrative action is required on File:Brian Epstein Cavern.jpg?
And another one from harej
- 12. Has there ever been an on-wiki episode that made you frustrated to the point that you behaved uncivilly? Describe what occurred, and what you did to make things better again.
- Additional optional questions from Protonk
- 13. I opposed last time due in part to your response to Question #9 there. I would like to know what your response to the question would be today. I'm not looking for the "right" answer. Meaning I don't care if you like policy XYZ or dislike policy ABC. I want to know: "If you had the power to change or get rid of one Wikipedia policy or guideline, which one would it be" If your answer is none, then please explain why. Thank you.
- A:
General comments
- Links for Dendodge: Dendodge (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Dendodge can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dendodge before commenting.
Discussion
- Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- What does question 13 have to do with adminship? It seems like asking a question just for the sake of asking a question. iMatthew talk at 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- The question doesn't have much to do with adminship, the answer does. What frustrates the candidate about wikipedia? Where do they feel the frictions lie between policy and action? Is there some conduit that they see to less cluttered editing if only we could step out of a rut? Also, the preamble to the question was written in some attempt to clarify its purpose and avoid responses like this one. The same question was asked at the last RfA and the candidate gave an insufficiently reflective answer (IMO). It was enough then to push me over to oppose and I want to know if their feelings have changed. It's certainly not being asked just for the sake of asking it. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Support
- I know people might raise their eyebrows if they see someone has had multiple RfAs. Howver, IMO, Dendodge is a deserving candidate for the mop. He is trusted and will get my Support. Pmlineditor Talk 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I believe multiple RfAs are only concerning if the editor seems too eager for the mop, to the extent that his/her other work becomes secondary. This is not the case here. Dendodge appears to be a fine, experienced user with the trust of a respected admin, so I am placing my !vote here. Good luck! The V-Man (Said · Done) 16:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- As nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know this user pretty well, and he is no doubt knowledgeable or responsible enough to have the mop. Mm40 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- No reason not to. I read this RfA, and not one from last year, just so you know. He is certainly nothing like what the opposer falsely describes him as. Majorly talk 16:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- A good editor who has the best interests of Wikipedia's content at heart. He knows what he is doing and will put the tools to good use quietly, sans drama. NW (Talk) 17:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support I am convinced he will be a net benefit. MBisanz talk 18:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support I'd trust you with the tools. hmwitht 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Previous interaction has been incredibly positive, although I think age could be the factor to decide this RfA I'm afraid. A net positive for the project despite that. GARDEN 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support - Age is a very poor indicator of maturity or suitability. Dendodge will make a great administrator. — neuro(talk) 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support, nothing wrong here. He'll make a fine administrator. –blurpeace (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support If Julian trusts this editor to the point of nomination how can I oppose. I trust Julian's judgment, and looking closely at this users, I see no issues that raise a huge red flag. I hate ageism. I don't care about age. I wish people would just keep it to themselves. All it does it make people make biased decisions.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support. No problems here, will be a net positive, no concerns about age, since this is a poor indicitor of maturity. AtheWeatherman 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not much interaction, but I trust Julian's judgment. ceranthor 19:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) So Dendodge is a teenager. I don't give a crap. All I care about is whether or not Dendodge has improved since his last RfA, and whether or not he'd be a net positive if promoted. Let's see; more mature, more experienced, so on the improvement. DYKs, featured content, GAs, and clear editing experience? Net positive. If you ask me, rejecting a clearly capable teenager for adminship is like failing a 10 year-old who gets every question right on their SAT's. Young does not equal incapable, and for these reasons I support Dendodge for adminship. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 19:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support Seems capable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Giants27 (c|s) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support After seeing the answers to the questions, and seeing the candidate handle some contention in the neutral section, I feel I can trust him with the tools. ArcAngel (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support A great candidate. He would make a fine sysop. Chevy Impala 2009 20:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support - No reason not to. Dendoge is ready for adminship now, and I'd trust him. Sure, there's a connection between age/maturity, no doubt. However, I hold the opinion "assume reasonable unless there's evidence of judgement problems" rather than "assume immaturity unless proven by some who-knows-what evidence/standard". I know some that are in between those sides of opinion, but when I see a young user who seems suited for adminship, I'll be happy to support and as long as there's no forseeable issues with him/her in that position. I'm familiar with Dendoge's work, and the opposes are not concerning either. JamieS93 21:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support Dendodge appears to be an excellent candidate and a valued contributor to Wikipedia's editorial contents. His sincere dedication to the project is commendable, and his ability to maintain a state of grace in view of certain ridiculous opposition comments should offer a reminder that maturity is not measured by the number of candles on your birthday cake. I am happy to support Dendodge's candidacy. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Decent answers to questions, oppose votes are not convincing. @harej 22:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support. I have found Dendodge to be an extremely intelligent and mature editor. There is no reason not to grant his request for the tools. Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - cut the ageism people. Dendodge is ready to wield the mop, and his age has nothing to do with his maturity.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support. Personal attacks are still personal attacks, even if they are hidden behind the wiki-correct guise of ageism. Frankly, I am disappointed with some of the opposers (I'm looking at you Goodmorningworld and Sky Attacker). Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support Some valid criticisms have been raised, but for now I don't see a problem with letting someone old enough to command men under the British Flag log some admin actions. Sorry if this support invites some complaints that I'm just balancing things out, but sometimes things need to be balanced out. Protonk (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support I do not see any compelling evidence that User:Dendodge would abuse the tools and if - to a degree when, everybody's human - they did unintentionally misuse them I think they would learn from the mistake made. Guest9999 (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- Still very young, same as on previous RFAs. Yes, there are some exceptionally mature young people out there. But reading through Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dendodge_3 indicates that this is not an exceptionally mature young person, but rather a young teenager who acts just like a young teenager. Wikipedia needs to grow up now, and promoting childish admins will not help with this goal. Friday (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair to dendodge, that RFA was over 9 months ago, and surely in this time, looking over his edits in that time, they have grown up over the period between the two RFA's. Regards. AtheWeatherman 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think Friday's more concerned about real world age than wiki-experience. Indeed, nine months is relatively little. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not very concerned with real-world age. Only with people who are not yet adults do I even tend to consider it at all. But here's someone who is very young, and has a record of behaving how you'd expect a young person to behave. I can understand the contention that age shouldn't matter. Fair enough. Considering maturity alone is still enough to oppose this RFA. But, it's pure lunacy to encourage this bizarre notion we have around here that age and maturity have no relationship. The entire rest of the world recognizes this relationship- so why is Wikipedia different? It's time for Wikipedia to grow up, and admitting that young people tend to act like young people is a necessary step along that path. Friday (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Friday, I agree with you—despite some comments I have made previously, younger users tent not to be as mature as older ones, as the laws of many countries recognise. (Note that I am not trying to badger here, but just explain) Since I usually have off-site access to at least one older and more experienced admin (through Skype or IRC) I will consult them before performing any but the most simple of tasks. Dendodge T\C 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion continues on talk page
- I'm not very concerned with real-world age. Only with people who are not yet adults do I even tend to consider it at all. But here's someone who is very young, and has a record of behaving how you'd expect a young person to behave. I can understand the contention that age shouldn't matter. Fair enough. Considering maturity alone is still enough to oppose this RFA. But, it's pure lunacy to encourage this bizarre notion we have around here that age and maturity have no relationship. The entire rest of the world recognizes this relationship- so why is Wikipedia different? It's time for Wikipedia to grow up, and admitting that young people tend to act like young people is a necessary step along that path. Friday (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think Friday's more concerned about real world age than wiki-experience. Indeed, nine months is relatively little. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair to dendodge, that RFA was over 9 months ago, and surely in this time, looking over his edits in that time, they have grown up over the period between the two RFA's. Regards. AtheWeatherman 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh great, I'm on the same side as Friday... age isn't an issue with me, and the user has done some audited content work. But there are other niggling issues. I can't find evidence of any AfD participation since before his last RfA. Considering the user is saying he would participate in that area if there was a need, that worries me a tad. In the above questions the candidate said he was moving away from XfDs to focus on article work. But he's done relatively little since his last RfA; 88% of his total contributions are represented by the period before then, and the vast plurality of his recent edits have been to the project namespace. In fact, the dropoff suggests that he might have "stopped trying" after his last RfA. His short answers to the questions above (and very little elaboration or change, upon checking his previous RfAs) don't suggest he's gained any more experience or wisdom in the intervening time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- prefer admin candidates that generate content. Having less then 25% of your contributions in mainspace isn't anywhere near enough for me. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to support the candidate but I'd nevertheless like to note that this 25% is in fact close to 3000 edits to the mainspace which seems more than reasonable even if you remove the automated edits. There's something paradoxical in preferring candidates with 3000 edits to the mainspace and 9000 edits to other namespaces to candidates with 3000 edits to the mainspace and 2000 to the others. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- At first glance this oppose appears to punish those who build articles in their sandboxes, not moving them into the mainspace until they are complete and referenced, in favour of those who acquire large numbers of article edits with huggle, twinkle, hotcat etc. Am I missing something, Spartaz?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to support the candidate but I'd nevertheless like to note that this 25% is in fact close to 3000 edits to the mainspace which seems more than reasonable even if you remove the automated edits. There's something paradoxical in preferring candidates with 3000 edits to the mainspace and 9000 edits to other namespaces to candidates with 3000 edits to the mainspace and 2000 to the others. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose.I remember when I was fifteen; I would have been incensed at anyone who tried to bar me from editing Wikipedia articles, had there been a Wikipedia then. The notion of becoming an admin, however, would never have entered my mind. I knew better than to presume I should hold the power of ending someone's hobby. I am well aware that few of the RfA regulars will agree with me, but I am completely stymied for an explanation that a fifteen-year-old could want this for himself. Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is this a blanket statement generically arguing against the candidate? What's wrong with the notion of becoming an admin irrespective of age if a person is suitable? "Ending someone's hobby"? That's not done under policy... it would be against the growth of the encyclopedia. Is there a concrete reason to doubt a candidate's relevant skills, possibly backed up by evidential diffs? Respectfully, I think that would sway more people. -- Mentifisto 20:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The candidate wants to work in deletion areas, especially CSD but has almost no record there and the few examples I found were less than thrilling. For example, he tagged The Beatles Complete on Ukulele for A7 after I had declined the same tag previously, which means that he either did not review the history or deliberately wanted to find an admin who will ignore the previous decision (a wish that was, unfortunately, granted). Both interpretations are not exactly good ones. His taggings also include a foreign-language article (La Macachuera) as G2. Since his last RFA, the candidate has participated in exactly three XFDs and has requested speedy deletion eleven times, five of which were G7s, one was U1, two were incorrect (see above), one was a correct A7 and two were F8s (duplicate on Commons). As such, there is nothing to indicate that this candidate can be trusted with the delete button, which is especially problematic as he indicated to want to work in exactly that area. I came here expecting to support or at least neutral but I cannot overlook this lack of activity or knowledge in that area. Regards SoWhy 20:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, SoWhy declined the tag on March 3 and Dendodge tagged in anew on April 28 -- this Oppose gives the impression that Dendodge immediately contradicted the original decline out of spite when, in fact, Dendodge reviewed the article as part of his expertise in Beatles-related articles and determined it did not meet Wikipedia standards. Having reviewed the now-deleted article, I concur that Dendodge was not in error and I commend him for seeking a second opinion on this subject. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per wishing to work in deletion areas and for failing to demonstrate competency or adequate experience. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't actually mean to express a specific interest in working in deletion—I just listed that as an example. TBH, I don't really have any specific areas in mind. I do have little XfD/CSD experience, and I realise that now (I thought had more than that when I answered the question, but SoWhy has proven otherwise). In light of this, I will work less than I originally intended in deletion-related areas. Instead, my focus will be mainly on other areas. Chances are, I will not sit and monitor a single area, or a selection of areas, instead using the tools only when a need for them comes up in other discussions, or when somebody comes to me specifically. Dendodge T\C 21:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I understood that you probably didn't actually mean you wanted to work with deletions. My thinking is that if that was the area that popped into your head as your strong suit, it probably means you don't have a strong suit, yet. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't actually mean to express a specific interest in working in deletion—I just listed that as an example. TBH, I don't really have any specific areas in mind. I do have little XfD/CSD experience, and I realise that now (I thought had more than that when I answered the question, but SoWhy has proven otherwise). In light of this, I will work less than I originally intended in deletion-related areas. Instead, my focus will be mainly on other areas. Chances are, I will not sit and monitor a single area, or a selection of areas, instead using the tools only when a need for them comes up in other discussions, or when somebody comes to me specifically. Dendodge T\C 21:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Moved from support to oppose – I came back after a detailed look to say that I had switched to oppose, but rather than ramble on, it is per SoWhy and Wisdowm89. Alan16 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bangs head against wall. I've always been a fan of Dendodge's enthusiasm for article work, intelligence at RFA, and maturity (for any age). I came here expecting to support, but averaging around 2.5 edits per day for 4 out of the last 6 months suggests that he doesn't feel the same connection to Wikipedia that he used to, and his statement that he will probably work in deletion areas is a red flag. Curse you, SoWhy, I wanted to vote for this guy! If this one succeeds, you probably won't let us down, but I just can't support with that record. If it fails, get your ass back here in 3 months with solid experience in any admin area, and enough recent article work to show me that you still care, and you'll gladly have my vote. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not enough activity lately is a really bad reason to oppose. Do you think he'll be competent with the tools? If the answer is yes, him being competent with them a few times a month is still a net gain. It's pretty normal for someone's interest level and amount of free time to fluctuate over time. Friday (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- IMO, lack of activity is a good reason to oppose. It's important that admins keep in touch with the 'pedia, so they are aware of policy changes and the like. Ad as Dank said, it's important that admins demonstrate they care about the 'pedia (both it's article content, and user interaction), for obvious reasons. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not enough activity lately is a really bad reason to oppose. Do you think he'll be competent with the tools? If the answer is yes, him being competent with them a few times a month is still a net gain. It's pretty normal for someone's interest level and amount of free time to fluctuate over time. Friday (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - under the age of majority. Sorry. → ROUX ₪ 21:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per many above me. I, like Dank and SoWhy, came here expecting to support. However, I'm not sure if you're mature enough to handle the tools. Being an administrator is not just "pushing a few buttons" as many make it seem. When you start deleting articles and blocking vandals, some of them are going to come to you and bitch. I'm not sure you'll be able to handle that maturely enough. Additionally, I agree with Friday's comments on the talk page. Starting out slow is fine, and asking for help is always good. But you said that you would ask someone on Skype or IRC for advice, which concerns me. Editors, while on Skype or IRC, aren't as focused as they are while actually editing. I don't believe that administrative advice is best given in a chat room. I'd prefer if you get the tools, to ask for advice on-wiki, on admins' talk pages. All of this put together raises a red flag for me. I'm sorry, and hopefully will be supporting you in the future. iMatthew talk at 22:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- The higher rights on Wikipedia are for adults and not for
littlechildren. I suggest that youdon'tcome back here for the tools when you turn 18 in 2012.--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)- What? Fifteen is not "little" by any standard, and there are plenty of capable admins who are under the age of majority. There are some admins who are young and immature, admittedly, but if you are opposing for this reason, please say it directly. ceranthor 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting view you have there. Considering there are, perhaps, hundreds of admins/bureaucrats who are under the age of 18, where do you get the idea "higher" rights are for adults only? Oh and most 15 year olds are not little. Majorly talk 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, either way, I'm going to echo Friday now. Wikipedia needs to grow up. In three years time, if this user has matured and has made some great contributions to this website, I'll probably have no reason whatsoever to oppose. But unfortunatley, the only way to ensure that the Wikipedia community has the maturity of adults is to promote admins who are adults. I hold nothing against the user as an editor, only a precaution against their age.--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but please rethink the "little child" remark, which I personally view as needlessly insulting. A fifteen-year-old is a teenager. Goodmorningworld (talk)
- I've struck the word "little" in the above comment. Happy now?--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I know people throw the term "lol" around all the time, but I literally just laughed out loud. Your comment so obviously has an undertone of anger; and yet, you accuse Dendodge of being the immature one! Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not accusing Dendodge of anything, nor am I angry. I am merely taking precautions.--The LegendarySky Attacker 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I know people throw the term "lol" around all the time, but I literally just laughed out loud. Your comment so obviously has an undertone of anger; and yet, you accuse Dendodge of being the immature one! Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've struck the word "little" in the above comment. Happy now?--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but please rethink the "little child" remark, which I personally view as needlessly insulting. A fifteen-year-old is a teenager. Goodmorningworld (talk)
- I wish editors would shut the hell up about their age and write an encyclopedia. Judge others only by their on-wiki contributions and not their personal life. I am 100% certain that Juliancolton has blocked hundreds of this editors peers. Teenagers running wild vandalizing the project for a good laugh. If you can prove to me that this editor is like that, then hell yeah he is immature. nowhere do I see this. We are all just proving how old fashioned we are, relying on terribly old and outdated ideologies. I fear for the security of our world when our adults cannot find the maturity to see past the child to a young adult. It sickens me. It really does.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're going along the right lines, but I'm going to oppose for the moment, I'm afraid. On going through your contributions, certain failures to assume good faith such as this sockpuppet investigation, are still a little too recent for comfort; for my support, all of your recent edits would need to show an assumption of good faith. Also, you have created only 16 mainspace pages (plus a number of redirects) in 12,000 edits. Those 16 are for the most part solid pieces of work, and I liked the Beatles timeline in particular; I'm not one of those who usually oppose for lack of content contributions, but I think in your case the situation is quite extreme. I do think you need a little more experience in that area to prepare you for the dispute resolution part of a sysop's work, and I think 16 page creations in 12,000 edits is quite un-productive. I would suggest paying some attention to WP:AFC, WP:MEA or some other constructive, collaborative area in which you could build at least a few more article credits of your own.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - mostly due to my RFA criteria, but also per Wisdom89 and SoWhy. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Admins should be able/willing to perform all admin duties including the curly ones, but your comment above shows you are not ready to do so. Your comment I refer to is "Since I usually have off-site access to at least one older and more experienced admin (through Skype or IRC) I will consult them before performing any but the most simple of tasks." Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)- I see no implication of any such thing, perhaps it is just an alternative interpretation of what he said. I see it as a safety net, not an indication of inability. — neuro(talk) 01:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I specified not ready, not inability. Count me out. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see no implication of any such thing, perhaps it is just an alternative interpretation of what he said. I see it as a safety net, not an indication of inability. — neuro(talk) 01:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm a big believer in letting youth handle responsibility on Wikipedia. Shoot, I was even co-nominated at my own RfA by a teen admin. But disregarding your age in meatspace, I think you need some more experience in order for us to trust you with the mop, particularly along the lines S Marshall describes. If you can give me some more concrete evidence of experience in those areas, then I may switch to support. Steven Walling (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral, primarily based on Q1 and Q9. Focusing on content is to be commended, but I have trouble reconciling a visible lack of any use for admin tools with another RfA: Dendodge expresses in Q1 an intention to work in various areas, but has visibly and intentionally not done anything in particular in any of them in recent times. I appreciate that "no need for the tools" is in itself a poor reason not to support an RfA, but it certainly makes the whole "net positive" calculation less favourable. Valid potential concerns about maturity have been raised in the past, and while I don't oppose younger candidates on principle, I do appreciate that there's an extra element of risk involved. Ultimately, putting these things together I find no sufficiently compelling reason to oppose, but equally I'm not quite comfortable supporting. ~ mazca talk 17:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral per Mazca and Q6. This was an answerable question as-is, and I would have liked (and still want to) see an answer to this. Tan | 39 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I just don't quite understand what the question was asking. Could you elaborate, please? Dendodge T\C 18:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Important policies relating to administrator tools? Seriously? policies which directly pertain to the tools you're using. The block policy, f'rinstance, is unlikely to matter to anyone but a tool-bearer and, well, a tool. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's not my question. However, I personally consider WP:V to be more important than, say, WP:CIVIL. This is my opinion, YMMV. Tan | 39 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ah—I can't believe I was stupid enough to not get that! I'll go and answer it properly now. Dendodge T\C 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Important policies relating to administrator tools? Seriously? policies which directly pertain to the tools you're using. The block policy, f'rinstance, is unlikely to matter to anyone but a tool-bearer and, well, a tool. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral because of the response you just posted under Friday's oppose where you say you'll consult with a more experienced administrator when you don't know what to do. Which is good ... we all need a little help from our friends sometimes, but it makes me wonder what you'd do when you have to make a tough decision by yourself. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it's urgent, I'll make a decision and consult others later. I trust my own decision-making ability, but would feel slightly more comfortable consulting other people (as I do in real life) until I have more experience with the tools and making adminy decisions. Dendodge T\C 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perfect answer; also, I can't really think of a situation that is so unbelievably urgent you couldn't consult with other admins before taking action. This is Wikipedia, not an emergency room. There are no life-or-death scenarios on here. Tan | 39 19:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. I've had to make some pretty difficult and controversial decisions here on Wikipedia, but nothing to which I couldn't respond with "Sorry, I'd rather hear what others have to say first". –Juliancolton | Talk 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oversighters, for example, might need to make snap decisions. I don't see it as relevant to adminship.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. I've had to make some pretty difficult and controversial decisions here on Wikipedia, but nothing to which I couldn't respond with "Sorry, I'd rather hear what others have to say first". –Juliancolton | Talk 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perfect answer; also, I can't really think of a situation that is so unbelievably urgent you couldn't consult with other admins before taking action. This is Wikipedia, not an emergency room. There are no life-or-death scenarios on here. Tan | 39 19:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it's urgent, I'll make a decision and consult others later. I trust my own decision-making ability, but would feel slightly more comfortable consulting other people (as I do in real life) until I have more experience with the tools and making adminy decisions. Dendodge T\C 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral mostly based on A5: it would be best if the admin lets someone else do the actual blocking when they're directly involved like that, if nothing else than to avoid the troll-feeding appearance of retaliation. Otherwise, the user's age and their past RFAs (over 9 months old) do not concern me; this user seems as mentally mature, reasonable, and experienced as many adequate admins, and they seem to improve rapidly. If this RFA is unsuccessful, I would be happy to support with a few months of good editing and slightly better understanding of blocking etiquette. -kotra (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)