The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (84/48/13); ended 03:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC) - Unsuccessful. - Andrevan@ 03:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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?

A: Sure. I began as a MySpacer; dreaming up hypothetical/fictional hurricane seasons was a hobby of mine, and I wanted to share it with my fellow Wikipedians. Until the MfD, I was uninformed of any harm my pages could have done; I never would have thought that something in my userspace could be a threat to Wikipedia's integrity, nor that there was any risk that readers could believe that the events described in those pages really happened. I managed to transfer all of the pages to Wikia before they were deleted, and that material has stayed off of Wikipedia since then. I later applied the lessons from that MfD to a similar page in the article space; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 International Series hurricane season. In retrospect, I suppose a templated message might have been a bit bitey; next time, I will still nominate the page for deletion, but instead of the standard template, I will leave a friendly, personalized note explaining to the user why I think the page to be deleted, pointing them to relevant policies/guidelines/helpful essays, and inviting them to drop a note on my talk page if they have any further questions.

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: I would grant the request. On one hand, the user could be collecting hats; on the other, they could be making a genuine offer to help out at ACC, and a request for us to help them do so. Obviously the user is relatively new to ACC, so I would keep an eye on them and point out if they are making mistakes.

I'd like to make it clear that I will thoroughly review any applicant's actions at ACC (no matter how many accounts they have created, or how long they have been at ACC); I thought that went without saying.

Additional questions from Ancient Apparition

15. This is a follow-up question to Q10., you say you'd block a user if their only edit has been to their userspace or they created a page that contains promotional material, that is not an appropriate use of the block function if it was in good-faith and if those edits were the only edits made.

A:

16. You say you wish to work with files in an administrator capacity, could you please give your interpretation of the core file policies?

A:

Withdrawn question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

17. How are you performing in school? How do parents and teachers view your investment in Wikipedia, and sacrifice of study and social time? (You have eloquently written about WP's obligation to protect minors, so I trust that you may pardon and indeed understand my concern—which some may view as paternalism.) Please protect your privacy, and preferably consult a parent before answering:

A:

Optional question from RHM22

18. This is optional, but of the opposes listed below, which do you agree most with and which do you agree least with? In other words, which oppose do you think has the best rationale, and which do you think has the worst? Obviously you probably don't agree with any of them, but this is just about which you think have the most and least merit. Again, this is completely optional.

A: The opposes over age are the ones I disagree most with; like I said in response to Malleus's oppose (#7, for those of you who haven't been watching), I want my compatibility with adminship to be judged not by my age, but by my contributions. There have been truly excellent administrators who were promoted at ages younger than I am now, so should age really be a problem?

Now, which oppose do I agree most with? That would have to be a tie between NW and Courcelles (#1 and #12, respectively). I understand that content creation is desired by many participants at RfA, and that I've been slacking quite a bit lately. As for the Sol Goldstone incident, I will admit that that was a fairly large blunder on my part; all that can be done now is to consider it water under the bridge, a learning experience, and to pledge to be more careful when applying policy in the future.

Exceptionally optional question from Newyorkbrad

19. What do you think of the advice given on the page Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors—either the current version, or the original version as I wrote it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A:

• Links for Dylan620: Dylan620 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dylan620 can be found here.

---

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

• Edit count stats posted to talk page. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 15:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think he'd make a good admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.166.224 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Candidate seems to be somewhat obsessed by the drama boards and the like. While I don't think that a a lack of article writing per se would make a poor admin, I'm worried about the combination of focusing more on the politics, and on the goal of being an admin -- the latter based on previous userpage versions. If the greater amount of influence an admin implicitly has in the situations that the candidate presently involves himself is acknowledged -- based on the current Wikipedia culture -- I find the appointment of the candidate to be ill-advised. I fear that as an admin he would cause more problems than he would solve, or worse, go on an outright power trip. In a nutshell, the outlook and activities of the candidate are not well-suited to the political implications of adminship. Maxim_(talk) 04:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to apologize for leaving Q15, Q16, and Q19 unanswered — I've been busy IRL lately, and Easter made it worse. With only an hour or so until I go to school, Q18 is the only one I'm able to answer before then. I'll continue to work on answering the others, and will e-mail my answers to the editors whom asked them; if they so desire, they will have my full permission to post the answers on-wiki.
  I'll leave a thank-you note on my talk page when I get home — while I highly doubt that this RfA is going to pass, it's been the greatest learning experience I've been through during my time (so far) on Wikipedia. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 10:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this yet another one of those RfAs being kept open beyond their closing date until the bureaucrats get the result they like? Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also wondering why this was left open. I don't think that the bureaucrats are waiting to for the !votes they want, because they are pretty unlikely to change now. Most of the people who are going to !vote have already done so.-RHM22 (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are clearly more trusting than I am. All credit to you for that, but it doesn't pay to be too trusting. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not that I'm trusting, I'm just being logical here. I do think that the bureaucrats are usually pretty honest, from what I've seen. They're held to a much higher standard than admins.-RHM22 (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are they really? I think you may be thinking of the ludicrously high bar they have to jump ar RfB of, what is it, 80% support? But once jumped they're just as unaccountable as any other admin. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's more of a combination of (1) there isn't many active crats - many recent RfAs were closed by WJBscribe, and he hasn't been editing since 21 April and (2) there will probably be many people who think that there's a need for a closing rationale, which would further make people reluctant to close it especially if they are short on time. T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's a lot to slog through here, including all the drivel on the talk page. It's not an easy decision, I don't blame the crats for taking a little longer to determine consensus on this one. -- œ^™ 02:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's a big difference between "taking a little longer to determine consensus" and waiting until you get the result that you want, which they have done before. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh yes, those !votes are really pouring in now.-RHM22 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Are you congenitally thick or are you just posting to win a bet? Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It depends on your meaning of "thick". So far, there has been one or possibly two extra support votes since the RfA was supposed to have been closed. Unless they leave it open for days, the numbers aren't going to improve much. I think the candidate also got a few extra opposes since the scheduled closing time actually.-RHM22 (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

   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) Concerns have been broughtcome to my attention such that I no longer feel comfortable supporting. Monty₈₄₅ 08:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Longterm user, seems mature and sensible. ϢereSpielChequers 16:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Strong Support, Dylan has the time, experiance and communication necessary for acquiring the mop. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Support No concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support good breadth and depth of experience stuck per oppose concerns Jebus989^✰ 17:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12. Support - no issues or concerns that you will misuse the tools. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. (edit conflict) Support - No reservations here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. 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]
15. Support I think this editor has improved this time compared to the previous RFA. Minima© (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Support – I have no concerns with Dylan holding the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. 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]

20. 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]

21. Support nice edits Pass a Method talk 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Tiderolls 21:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Keepscases (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. 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]

    Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Move to oppose. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25. 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]
26. 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]
27. Strong support Certainly deserves the tools. WayneSlam 00:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. 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]
29. Support per above. -download ׀ sign! 02:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. per above too. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 03:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. 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]
32. 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]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. Support. Trustworthy and mature. If he breaks the wiki, I'll eat my hat. -- œ^™ 12:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. 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]
37. 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]
38. Support - seems to have intentions in the right place -- Tawker (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
39. 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]
40. Support - Candidate seems cluful, intelligent and knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies. mauchoeagle 05:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
41. 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]
42. 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]
43. 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]
44. 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]
45. 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]

46. 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]
47. 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]
48. Support, this user looks trustworthy enough to use the tools. Good luck! Tavix |  Talk  23:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
49. I trust Soap's judgement. Secret ^account 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
50. 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]
51. Support I supported last time, this time is no exception ;)--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 01:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
52. 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]
53. 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]
54. 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]
55. 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]
56. Support. I see no reason to oppose; I believe he can be trusted. Yes Michael? •^Talk 07:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support No concerns here. I believe he can be trusted CalumH93|talk 13:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
58. 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]
59. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
60. 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).

    User has 98 edits. Goodvac (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

61. Support Baseball Watcher 22:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
63. 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]
64. 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]
65. 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]
66. 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]
67. 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]
68. Weak Support I'll comment more fully later, but I'm not worried about the lack of creative content editing. I've vacillated on this before, but my current thinking is that the demand for more content editing says more about the politics of content heavy editors vs. admins than it does about admin judgment so I can't hold this editor hostage to a broader political gambit. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're referring to my oppose, that's just my point of view, not part of any organized conspiracy. My logic is like this: (1) The purpose of this project is to build encyclopaedic content. (2) Admins have wide powers that affect content and the editors who contribute it. (3) Therefore being an admin requires a reasonable minimum level of content competence. (4) Therefore admin candidates/nominators should demonstrate this competence. Do you disagree with this, or are we just debating what the "reasonable minimum level" should be? - Pointillist (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't referring to your post specifically, but I could have been. The idea of RFA was originally to give people the mop and let them be janitors, right? You weren't supposed to be some content virtuoso in order to be handed the mop. Writing content has not become progressively more important so something else must have changed. My suspicion is that content editors fancied themselves the "true" wikipedians and thought that "vandal fighters" were getting too much attention and power. So now we see this novel social rule restricting admins to those who have rendered enough content so as to be judged acceptable. The actual writing of an article may or may not give an admin the insight into the particular world of content editors--I used to think it does, but I'm no longer sure. Certainly it doesn't have anything to do with the chain of logic you purported. I have no idea what a "minimum level of content competence" is or how I might go about achieving it. Nor do I have any reason to believe that because people on wikipedia do something important that I must do that same thing in order to delete some pages or move over old titles. It just seems more politically infused than rational to me. And we have enough political and social weight attached to the bit as it is. Protonk (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Originally the idea was that people would bang in an unreferenced stub using their own "knowledge", but content standards have moved on since then and the idea of RfA has evolved accordingly. As an illustration, in 2008 – the year you registered your account – the Marie Curie article expanded from 1767 words with 2 citations to 2 footnotes (01.01.08 version) to 3825 words with 43 citations to 35 footnotes (01.01.09 version). To attract and keep editors who will do that sort of improvement, we need admins who really care about content. They don't have to be content virtuosi (what a waste that would be) but RfA !voters need to see that candidates have personally wrestled with sourcing, neutrality, BLPs and notability/recentism/AfD. Not necessarily a lot, but enough to understand content issues and interact sensibly with heads-down content editors. Think back to your posts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Emilius Fauquier and the twenty improvements (diff) you made to the article in 24 hours. Dylan620 hasn't done anything like that yet (though his featured list is well-sourced most of the references come from the same organization and were already cited in the articles for the individual tropical storms/hurricanes). A candidate like this wouldn't have got the mop three years ago and there's no reason RfA standards should have fallen since then. - Pointillist (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

69. Support per NellieBly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Fassdlcs (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User's only edit, other than to talk and user page. AD 19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked this user as a sock per behavioral evidence. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

70. Support. Answers to Q7 and 13 are good answers (and what I'd hoped to see, wrt Q13). A number of the opposes are baseless and the closing bureaucrat should, of course, take the reasoning given into account. I believe Dylan will not misuse the tools and his age plays no part in my decision to support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This user seems to be blocked for sock-puppetry.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 06:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    !Vote indented. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

71. Support - To counter Malleus' oppose: We have seen time and again that maturity and age are two separate entities. Take Anonymous Dissident for example... someone who even at a very young age has shown vast maturity in some of the most sticky situations, and is one of the few admins who I personally hold in high regard. The fact that Dylan is younger than most admins, does not mean he isn't mature enough to make tough decisions regarding this project. Therefore, as I do not see any concerns regarding his maturity or otherwise that would lead me to believe that Dylan wouldn't make a fine admin, I support his request. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 07:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lengthy !vote discussion moved to talk page. MacMed^talk_stalk 14:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

72. —Кузьма^討論 07:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support I don't see any reason to think that he'll misuse the tools. Qrsdogg (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. Trustworthy user who has handled several difficult situations well. I will note that the answer to Q14 is wrong because the check of what the requester has been doing should be made before granting the permission in the first place. However, based on the good answers to the other questions, I'll assume that the candidate didn't have time to more fully elaborate on this one. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
75. Sadads (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
76. Fully trust Dylan to do well. I agree with Coffee's comment. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A user who seems like he will be a great Administrator, based on experience on Wikipedia.Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    comment about the above accounts support vote - This account has got 69 edits to the en wikipedia - searching for the recently created accounts contributions to articles, they have made only one, this single uncited detrimental vandalistic contribution -He is considered one of the most enlightened pope's in history, and is considered a bad-ass by people of all religions. - as such the accounts value for supporting possible accounts to administrator status is worse than worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate support vote, user already supported above. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The duplicated support comment from this vandalistic account should not be counted either. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

77. Support. This RfA alone proves he has a pretty even keel to deal with completely unreasonable demands, and I've seen evidence that this calmness extends to his other work. And my signature shouldn't be headache-inducing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Terrafermat (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There seem to be quite a few editors voting here who've made very few edits, 189 in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's true, but since their very first edit Terrafermat has demonstrated a faultless command of Wikipedia's category system—and their Wikipedia Talk comments indicate a well-developed understanding of key issues and personalities here. To achieve such an enviable degree of familiarity with en.wikipedia in only a couple of hundred edits suggests that Terrafermat is a contributor to be reckoned with. - Pointillist (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think some of the support votes being canvassed from off-wiki. The 'crats will know how to deal with them, nothing for us to bother with. I should add that the "suspicious" votes are generally the ones added with little or nothing other than the user's name, and that some of them have been removed from the RfA. I'm not intending to cast any doubt on the legitimacy of the serious voters of this RfA. —Soap— 23:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It certainly suggests something Pointillist, but I doubt we'd agree on what that might be. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about that, but perhaps I'm more cynical than you. - Pointillist (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's highly unlikely. Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

78. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
79. weak support editor moved into project space big time in response to last RfA. Has largely shown a reasonable degree of maturity in that time. That said, the answer to #1 concerns me (per NW Sven Manguard). I think we are seeing an editor who _really_ wants to be an admin. That could be problematic, but honestly I'm seeing someone who looks like they will _be_ a good admin. I do have worries about age-related issues and typically hold minors to somewhat higher standards for adminship. But Dylan620 seems to be above that bar. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support mainly per the rationale of A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs), though because editing preference is personal to a user, I will not hold that against them. I also agree with Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs). I've had good experiences with Dylan in the past and can't see a reason to oppose regardless of the concerns mentioned below. upstateNYer 02:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Age and maturity are indeed correlated, but a much better indicator of maturity is his contributions page, which does not show him to be significantly less mature than the average admin candidate. It's like how age and algebra ability are correlated, but it would be silly to say that an eighth grader is better at algebra than a first grader if both get the same grade on an algebra test. As for the alleged lack of content creation: Huh? The way I met him was through content creation (DYK). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Maturity is clearly demonstrated, and age is unrelated to editing ability, if you ask me. I'm not sure why User:AlexandrDmitri said the answer to Q5 was "plain wrong". If anything, I think he misunderstood Dylan620's response ("to use a UAA template" used not as an instruction, but as "to answer this question using a UAA template"). All edits I've seen seem fine. Q13's response demonstrates growth as an editor. In my opinion, this user can be trusted with adminship, and should. Guoguo12--Talk--  12:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
83. not a bad person. AfterHelper11 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Registered for a month with a handful of edits.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

84. As Dylan's long-term mentor and former admin coach, I believe that he is unlikely to either misuse or abuse the admin tools. Juliancolton (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And here comes the cavalry, 12 hours after this RfA ought to have been closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

   Don't forget File:RelaxedPenis.JPG and File:Prince_Albert_Piercing.jpg (or the meritorious Fart contributions).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Erm, the first example was a {{badimage}} tagging, and the others were vandalism reverts. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Dylan, I referenced Milton on farting just last week on my talkpage. However, the proportion of your edits about fart and the proportion of penises in pictures may be relevant to a judgment about maturity, perhaps not about you, but about a young man like you who applies for the administrator tools. You seem like a good young man, and likeable fellow, but not obviously better equipped to be an administrator this year than I was at your age---and I was not. (See my talk page for discussion of this comment, which was not meant to insinuate anything apart from limited experience and normal teenage maturity.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:17, 24 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]

   Don't forget to restore the user's !vote once the issue has been cleared. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:48pm • 04:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The !vote wasn't struck due to suspicions of sockpuppetry; Moneya switched to support. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 04:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Whoops my bad! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:57pm • 04:57, 23 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]

    NYB, I have a lot of respect for you, but I can't agree with anything you just wrote. If there is one thing that never, ever justifies playing the IAR card, it is to use it to impose a community ban on an editor. Blocking one? Very rarely, but, yes, it can be. But a community ban is designed to be difficult to impose. There's no wiggle room in the 24-hour requirement of WP:BAN- or the equally clear requirement that the closer be an uninvolved administrator. Dylan was uninvolved- up to and including the moment he made the formal motion to ban. At that point, there can be no procedural fairness in the same editor closing the discussion. Now, I don't really care about this situation- some ban discussions are just going to go a certain way, but the fundamental principle of the matter is very important. Banning policy is not onerous, but it does try to give some basic safeguards to ensure we don't railroad an editor in the middle of the night. Either Dylan620 decided to do something without reading and studying the WP:Banning policy, or he did read it and decided that corners could be cut in this, the ultimate sanction available to the community. IAR admin actions are supposed to be rare, and they always need to have a fairly clear benefit to the encyclopaedia, banning someone who is already indef blocked in four hours does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courcelles (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 April 2011 (diff)

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)

    As far as I am concerned there was no reason for the candidate not to answer the question. If you just got robbed I think it perfectly natural to express interest in what those in charge think about security. How would you then feel if instead of your questions being answered it was insinuated you're faking the robbery to claim insurance? Lambanog (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose I agree with most of the above. Especially concerns about the user jumping into admin areas where they have nearly no experience. Such as working with images (and there is an additional concern about such a young editor working on the bad images list - where he has just two talk page edits). And also granting requests for permissions. I do a lot of behind the scenes work and RFPERM, and can't recall seeing him there once. Indeed, in my own RfA I cited RFPERM as one of the places I would work, but only because I had been lurking there and helping out with the non-admin tasks long enough to be familiar with the standards for different rights. The answer to Q14 doesn't inspire confidence in me that this candidate has been doing the same, nor does the user's signing of Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge just over a month ago. - 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]
18. Oppose Contributions seem lightweight, and per Malleus and Modernist. The circular self defeating defense on this noms talk page almost proves the point, as do the headache inducing sigs of many of the supporters. Ceoil 22:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So, basically you're saying "Oppose, supporters have signatures which are too colourful". Wow. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Or more likely that many of the supporters seem to be fellow children. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Or much more likely, they don't like the same blue link signature and actually have personalities not comparible to a troll under a bridge and like a little color. Oh and in under 26 hours, I turn 30. So, do call me a "child" as much as you want. :D - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Was I talking to you? Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know, my feeble child mind gets lost sometimes. I think I have that ADHhhhhey, look a bunny. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange Passerby, you spectacularly misunderstand, and its this lack of clue and insight that reinforces my oppose. Malleus has it right. And Neutralhomer, if you are almost 30 (woah) youve surely learned that being tritely obstinate does nobody any favours. Ceoil 07:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose I still have a concern that a young teenager—who has confessed his own past "addictive" responses (BUT IN 2009 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)) and making "hundreds of edits" when discovering new editing tools—

    I was tired of letting them make me feel badly about myself, so in February I began to tag pages for speedy deletion and revert vandalism. A couple days later, I was granted rollback rights – I became an avid vandal-fighter for about a week before slipping into a month-long wikibreak. After that, I thought, "Hey, maybe I can help with account creation!" That is how I became an account creator. About a week later, I curiously rummaged through some old RedirectCleanupBot (talk · contribs) archives, and found Schutz's tool. I became addicted immediately, tagging broken redirects left and right (which is why broken redirect cleanup makes up the vast majority of my 2,000+ deleted edits). Then, in July, I began using Huggle and made hundreds of edits per day through combat of vandalism. Lastly, in August I began reviewing proposed DYK hooks (achieving my first featured list around the same time).

    —should not be granted administrative tools now. Doing homework, studying, reading, and writing and contributing to his family and friends are the primary responsibilities of this young man. His researching a topic and then writing a good article (or several) over the next years should provide him with ample opportunities to contribute to the project while developing discipline. At the same time, he should know that research is quite different than writing WP articles, and that he should strive to become a researcher by excelling in school and thinking for himself. Let him write some articles, and continue to grow as an editor, without the distraction of new tools.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    NYB kindly alerted me that the candidate's WP activity-levels have been reasonable for a long time. Thus, I have changed my statement, but left inappropriate remarks stricken, to help others to understand the following discussion:

    Lengthy discussion moved to the talk page for this RfA.-RHM22 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose largely per Courcelles (talk · contribs) and the limited content contributions. That William Thompson Lusk (where the candidate made five edits converting notes to prose^{[1][2][3][4][5]}) is among his "best [content] contributions" is disappointing. Furthermore, I have seen no indication that the candidate is capable of sourcing content other than bare statistics, as evidenced by Believe (Staind song) and Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. Goodvac (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose Last time I checked, the closing bureaucrats here have stated that "lack of content building" as an oppose rationale carries zero weight. Even still, myself and the others above still think that it IS a major problem and the candidate should not be promoted. Is it really that hard to write an article and source it properly, like Believe (Staind song)? Combine that with the fact that you're talking about branching off into AFD, and I have a major problem with this candidacy. I don't want to give the tools to someone that only knows how to destroy while having yet to exhibit any interest or competency in creating. Even if this RFA somehow drops to 68%, don't be surprised if this easily passes just like the others. One of them promoted last year exhibited so much inexperience that she looked like a chicken running around with her head cut off. You're pretty much guaranteed to pass, but that doesn't change the fact that I think this promotion is a very bad idea. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 06:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Reluctant oppose. I'm concerned about the answers to a couple of questions. Firstly, the answer to Q5 is plain wrong. The question was not "What would you do if this user was reported to UAA?", it was "You see this new user being created, what action would you take?". Either the candidate has not read the question properly and replied hastily, or has not understood the question, neither of which inspire me with confidence. Secondly the answer to my question failed to allay my fears about handing out the Account Creator permission without appropriate thought and reflection: on a borderline case such as just two days' experience I would expect a thorough review of the accounts created and those not created, not a "shrug, I recognise that there might be a real problem but I'll AGF". I'm all for assuming good faith, but I'd expect a far more reasoned and measured approach before assigning permissions. Sorry --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) and Pointillist (talk · contribs). They've said it all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Per many of those above, particularly NW, Pointillist and Agent Vodello; "I don't want to give the tools to someone that only knows how to destroy while having yet to exhibit any interest or competency in creating" sums up my view as well. With the current tight bundling of rights and strong vested resistance to any weakening and reform of those rights adminship is a big deal, and a single admin error can drive a productive editor away. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add substantive content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. – iridescent 15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose - user is a child and offering children authority here is irresponsible and ultimately detrimental to the maturity of the project. If this oppose is not sufficient - I don't see the degree of maturity or broad experiance contributions that I support in administrators, and I see no difference in contribution patterns since his last withdrawn RFA. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose, reluctantly. Candidate is too old. Experience shows that the admins who have contributed most constructively, became admins between the ages of 10 and 14. Also, the issue raised by Courcelles about the non-admin ban discussion closure in defiance of WP:BAN is very concerning in the light of earlier concerns about the candidate. In the candidate's previous RfA, they referred to past complaints about them at AN/I. Those issues are now years old, but one thing that stands out is that the candidate was criticised for "Strange obsession with adding users to WP:LOBU" including pre-emptively. The candidate's clear focus on this aspect of Wikipedia persists to this day, even though their nomination statement and answers don't mention it. The too-soon non-admin closure I find very problematic because the candidate's ban proposal was misleading in itself and made accusations for which there was no evidence. The candidate was repeating accusations made by other non-admins, rather than making up the accusations himself, but that is still an indication of lack of wisdom in allowing himself to be led by other users without checking the facts himself, on a matter of this seriousness - a tendency which continued when he allowed himself to be pressured into the early closure by other editors as has been discussed already. His last 500 edits still show repeated interest in the List of Banned Users and opining on or making ban proposals almost as one of his main activities, and this worries me. This fascination is not going to change, and as an admin, the candidate's influence in such matters would be immeasurably greater. As Courcelles rightly said, banning a user is the ultimate sanction and should be enacted with the greatest of care, and having a wiki-policeman who is focused on that area and easily led or misled by others, is a big potential risk. Finally, the candidate's involvement in content creation and dealing with content disputes is extremely limited. (Having got a page to Featured List is good work, but rather limited in scope when you look at the list in question - the other items mentioned are pretty much trivial.) Those two areas aren't an admin's job, but having enough experience in them to understand disputes from the point of view of those doing the work, is an essential prerequisite for adminship in my view. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hah, hah, hah. (!Vote indented.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Understandable confusion. I've unindented, and changed the emphasis to make it a little clearer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27. Oppose per Pointillist. This kind of edit history doesn't instill confidence in me. Salih (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. per NW et al. -Atmoz (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose. (1) Per the problem Courcelles pointed out; if the user is going to be enforcing policy they need to be pretty conversant in it or read up before they act. (2) Wants to work with files but does not seem to have any experience in this area. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am fully aware of the banning policy; the Sol Goldstone incident was a misapplication of IAR which I do not intend to repeat. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 02:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30. Oppose per Iridescent. Being an administrator is a big deal. A very big deal. It gives the power to block well established content editors. Giving this power to yet another child who has contributed little content is inane. Sorry Dylan, its not your fault that the "admin" system here is so stuck and broken. I see little problem with granting you the other tools. But, along with many current admin incumbents, you have no background at all that should give you the right to block well established content editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to "badger" you but could you please clarify your comment? Do you mean that there somehow different standards to apply to established content editors when it comes to blocks that Dylan does not know or do you mean that Dylan does not possess the necessary experience to make blocks in general because of his age and/or his lack of significant content-related contributions? Regards SoWhy 23:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Having the considerable power to block established content editors, and therefore also having the power to make the implicit threats that this power brings, is not something that should be handed out so lightly. Used in unaware ways, these powers are demeaning to content editors. At the moment, we hand this power out very lightly, to people with just a few thousand edits and little experience in content creation. It would be good if these blocking powers were handed out to people carefully selected on the basis that they can use them wisely, in the long term interests of Wikipedia. Instead we get the current practice, with the consequent alienation of many of our best contributors. Using these powers appropriately is not something that can be captured in a simple code of practice. It would help to have some experience with what it takes to create real content and some experience as an adult. Incumbent administrators, naturally enough, refuse to contemplate having their powers clipped. There is currently a pretense at "administrator reform", controlled by admins and admins wannabees, which is trying to prop up and strengthen the current system. If this "reform" goes through, things will naturally get worse. Dylan should be given the powers to help him get on with the things he wants to do, including blocking vandals, if he wants that. I doubt Dylan actually wants the power to block content editors. So I'm sorry to oppose you Dylan. You are not the problem, the current system is the problem. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31. Oppose Lack of significant content work and other experience to eliminate the concerns on the previous RfA, and unconvincing answers to questions. (I could elaborate, but I think there's enough detail above to provide feedback on the specifics) - I hope the candidate will demonstrate suitability for adminship, and reapply at an appropriate time in the future.  Chzz  ►  23:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose. Unfortunately. Per above. Concerns with judgement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose, primarily in accordance with Courcelles and Pointillist. I'm concerned with the relatively low number of edits per month. Too often, I have encountered an editor that received the mop several years ago, only to show up periodically to enforce obsolete policies and guidelines. The lack of consistency in editing has hindered the ability to effectively administrate. When I review an editor for possibly working in an administrative capacity, I consider the frequency of past participation, preferring a minimum of 500 edits per month during the previous year. Dylan has edited over 500 times per month, only five times since September 2007 (when he was 11 years old?). The last time was August 2009 (when he was 13? 14?). If Dylan never mentioned his age and continued editing at that capacity (minus the error in judgement), this request would have most likely resulted in less opposition. In my opinion, administrators need a comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in order to effectively uphold them. This includes the basic knowledge of navigating the community, in order to locate the policies and guidelines with which the editor may not be wholly familiar. I do not expect perfection. That said, I do expect a display of quality, consistency, and growth before acting in a leadership role. --Respectfully, Cind.amuse 00:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose per NW and Diannaa. Kcowolf (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose - per concerns about maturity (yes, I'm aware there is no minimum age for adminship; I'm referring to emotional as opposed to chronological maturity) and experience. I don't feel this user yet has the skillset required for adminship, particularly in content-related areas, but also in policy and application thereof (per responses to questions and issues pointed out above). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose-I change my position. I no longer feel he is experienced enough. Maybe in a year he shall be ready. However, now he is not ready. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. --John (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    John, I opposed too, but I think the use of WP:NOTNOW as a rationale is pretty far off. Do you mean "Not now"? NW (Talk) 04:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing out the mistake. I meant to say oppose; not ready yet. NOTNOW was the wrong thing to type and I apologize. --John (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

38. Weak oppose As Hobit put it nicely (though he's in the support section), I typically hold minors to somewhat higher standards for adminship. In particular I really want to see solid content creation (which I don't always view as essential for other candidates) before I trust them with the delete button. None of the problems noted in the oppose section strike me as deal-breakers but collectively they are sufficient to instill doubt. Pichpich (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
39. Weak oppose Not much in the way of content contribution since the candidate's banner year of 2009. A lot of top-drawer Wikipedians have expressed some serious reservations about maturity and judgement in the oppose and neutral sections.--Hokeman (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose. Insufficiently well-rounded Wikipedia activity, concerns about maturity. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
41. I can't support nomination for the editor at this time; only one-third of edits in the main namespace concerns me. Neutrality^talk 01:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
42. Per NW, Malleus, and the failure to answer multiple, reasonable optional questions. Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose due to mismatching of goals to expertise, somewhat reluctantly given this editor's valuable contributions in many areas. I don't want to discourage this editor - they have demonstrated they can contribute substantially without this bit. I specifically reject the age-based criterion because expertise (in WP terms) is more readily verified and relevant in this context. -- Scray (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose Due to most of the concerns found above. -DJSasso (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
45. Terrafermat (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to bureaucrats: this user was discussed above, in the support section.-RHM22 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

46. Oppose, sadly - There's very few reasons I will oppose an RFA, and as someone who has worked with Dylan in the long past, I just have a problem with Huggle being the majority of your article work. As an admin and a long time article writer. You need some article writing experience and experience before dealing with article content disputes. Just my personal pet peeve at RFA.Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 00:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
47. Sorry - Largely per Sven and NW. Answers to questions #1 and #2 are unconvincing. hmssolent\Let's convene 03:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose (changed from neutral). Basically, after thinking this over, it just overall is not a good idea for the Wikipedia to encourage minors to be admins, period, part of my reasoning being delineated at my earlier postings at #8 in the Neutral section. Granted we have made admins of minors in the the past, but: it's time to stop doing this. Herostratus (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

   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]

3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]

   Oops, that came out wrong. What I was trying to say was that because I disagree with your oppose, I'm not going to oppose so the numbers remain the same as if neither of us had !voted... not that that makes much more sense now I think about it. Back to content work it is. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Maybe you should try using more than one of the fingers on your hand for counting. If you want to neutralise my vote then you have to support; it's really not a difficult concept. Malleus Fatuorum 04:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Let's try and remain CIVL here please - I sense this might head south fast if things continue. -- Tawker (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Good idea. Why don't you start? Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Tawker are you suggesting Malleus AGF when responding to Alzarian16's I might have opposed if Malleus hadn't. . That would be very blind. It was pure and simple bad faith on Alzarian16's behalf, regardless of the backtracking. Note you positioned your bland almost meaningless plea after Malleus' comment. Well done. Ceoil 10:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Well you're all for creating straw man arguments tonight aren't you? Tawker, I'm certain, intended that all parties involved heed his comment. But it's not as if that matters, Alzarian16 didn't cross the civility line by calling another editor a clown, or pretending that they could only count with one finger... that was Malleus. From what I take on Alzarian16's original comment, he wasn't attacking Malleus, he was attacking his argument and voted neutral to show his disagreement with said argument, but that was shortened to using only the name of the editor from the oppose that he disagreed with. (This being made evident by Alzarian16's second comment.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 10:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   What you are missing is that regarless of the letter or law, Malleus was correct in calling, again, regardless of the backtracking. His snide aside is far more offensive than the clown comment, and if you cant see that, then well. Ceoil 11:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   WTF is "Malleus was correct in calling, again, regardless of the backtracking" supposed to mean? That doesn't make sense in the English language. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 11:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Really? I though we were both Paddies. In cork we would say, "Malleus was grand calling the fiend a langer, he tried to back away though, the bollox, but t'was too late, we'd known his sort by then and were non plussed, like." Too many big words or someting? Ceoil 11:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I was referring to the fact that you failed to put what Malleus called Alzarian16 in your sentence... therefore the sentence was left without meaning... or as regular people would say, it didn't make sense. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, I'll give you that, but its not really a substantial argument, much less a refutation. This is going nowhere fast now, agree to disagree and go about our business? I'm weary and tired by you smart-alec crap. Ceoil 13:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral – I'm taking people's words that Dylan620 does a lot of vandal-fighting, which is good. I'm a little concerned about his/her (I'm guessing it's a him) recent decline in activity, and also Dylan620's lack of content contribution compared to other his/her other areas of prowess. I don't mind Dylan620's young age, since I fall in more or less the same category as Dylan620, or if he becomes a sysop. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 08:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   If you had the guts you should have opposed on the basis of your opening comments, which are reinforced by your closing. Ceoil 10:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I can understand wanting to badger the supports, given you're opposed. But hounding neutrals so that they switch? That's low. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Your not making sence, and contradict your own behaviour. Stop that. Ceoil 11:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Ceoil, please consider redacting or recasting your comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   For God's sake grow up. Telling someone that they're not making sense isn't uncivil, it's a statement of fact. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Neutral - Can't support per Malleus' oppose, but I'd prefer not to oppose in this instance either. —SW— ^squeal 14:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Jeez (changed to Oppose), the person is 15? Hmmmm. I've never opposed an RfA -- we need admins -- but I dunno about this. For one thing, when I give a person admin rights, I'm giving them the right to block me and thus, since Wikipedia is an important hobby to me, the ability to fuck up my life. I don't know. I've never had a a 15 year old cop who could arrest me, or a 15 year old boss who could fire me, or a 15 year old dentist who could screw up my teeth, or whatever - and I'm not sure I'd like any of that. Granted, there are bad admins (and bad cops, bosses, dentists...) of any age -- but we still don't have 15 year old cops and bosses and dentists, and for good reason I guess. Also, the person started in 2007 - they were what, eleven? On what planet does anyone think that eleven year olds should be anywhere near the Wikipedia??? This does not show good judgment (or oversight at home or whatever), and even at 15 is it good idea for this person to be dealing with material like this and this? I would think not. To the extent that we have made the de facto decision to be an adults-only website, how does this jibe with having admins who are minors? Can't have it both ways, I would think. At 15, should this person even be reading the Wikipedia? Maybe, maybe not, it's arguable. But as an officer? Jeez... Herostratus (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   "we have made the de facto decision to be an adults-only website" - no we haven't, the Wikimedia Foundation has expressed official support for teaching with Wikipedia (link) and students working on Wikipedia with that support include middle school classes, i.e. a lot younger than the candidate under discussion here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Sure we have. What you cite is de jure decision and doesn't alter the facts on the ground, which I what I mean by de facto. The Foundation can say what they like but it doesn't change that Wikipedia is an adults-only website ("adult content" website, "mature content" website, what have you). It waddles like an adult-content website, it quacks like an adult-content website, and it has pictures like an adult-content website. Not complaining about that here, just pointing it out. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   No, actually the vast majority of content on Wikipedia is suitable for viewing by people of all ages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The vast majority of the distance between the top of the Empire State Building and the street is perfectly safe to traverse in freefall. It's that last foot that'll get you. Look, two things. I'm not complaining about any of this (here). The Wikipedia is what it is. For God's sake, be proud of that, of being uncensored and all, but don't pretend that facts ain't facts. Second, this is not just theoretical. We have had people raise this question before, and the links I provided above show that this editor is involved with images such File:Wikibukkake_new.png -- viewing these images, and deciding in various ways how they'll be handled. Is this good? Not in my opinion it isn't. I could discuss my reasons in detail but don't want to get into that now, so let's just leave it at that: not in my opinion, it isn't. So OK fine, we have readers of all ages and consider all of this to be jolly educational fun. Fine. But to make a person an admin -- essentially an officer -- to deal with all this is doubling down and stepping it up a notch. Do we want to do this? I don't. Do you? Herostratus (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   An analogy? Let's see if I can get you a closer one. This place has books about photography and biology and other subjects that will include nudity, they're on open shelves, unsupervised, and anyone can browse them. Probably it has books depicting sex acts as well, which might well be displayed the same way. Is it an "adult content bookstore" or an "adults only bookstore" or a "mature content bookstore" as a result? Why no, the big poster in the foreground is advertising an event where many children and teenagers will have happily met an author who writes children's books and also writes books widely read by teenagers. Just like my secondary school library had books in at least three different genres depicting nudity (but possibly not sex acts), and the oldest kids using that library were 18. Now, are there issues regarding the sort of content you describe being openly available on Wikipedia? Yes indeed there are issues, and there's initiatives underway to deal with those issues, but that doesn't justify your re-branding the entire site as "an adults-only website". Is it a good idea for an 11-year-old to be editing Wikipedia? Only with a significant amount of adult supervision (and I don't mean by self-appointed unidentified adults from Wikipedia). Is it inappropriate for a 15-year-old to be an admin on Wikipedia given the existence of the issues regarding content? Despite my !vote (which was for other reasons entirely), my opinion is that no, it is not inappropriate. A strong majority of other people who have expressed an opinion on this RfA agree with me on that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Please take a look at the file I reference. What has that to do with "including nudity"? Nothing. What has that to do with "photography and biology"? Nothing. You are claiming that Waterstones has books with images like that on open shelves accessible to minors with no warning? That is fairly contentious statement to make about a reputable organization, and is actually libelous. It's also not true, because if it was true it wouldn't be true for long, because they would in rapid order be 1) out of business and 2) in jail. OK. That the Wikipedia is a mature-content website is a simple fact. This is demonstrated by the image that I linked. You are entitled to your own opinion about whether that is a good thing or not, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. Since we can't agree on facts, there's no point in continuing this discussion. My objection stands, notwithstanding your argumentum ad populum. Herostratus (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   You seem to have a strawman argument there, along with a dose of WP:LEGALTHREAT too. I'm not interested in precise delineation of exactly "how mature" (or indeed "how pornographic") images in other media that are not labelled as "adults only" outlets are, just that such outlets can contain mature content without anyone in their right mind even considering labelling them as "adults only" venues. Time to take this to the discussion page or elsewhere I think, since your responses now make no reference at all to the candidate or this RfA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   "I'm not interested in precise delineation..." Yes, I understand that. I appreciate your honesty, though. It takes a certain amount of admirable forthrightness to admit that one is, quite frankly, simply not interested in processing inconvenient facts. At any rate, after consideration, I have changed my vote to Oppose, so this particular conversation is, thankfully, over, I trust. Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Neutral - I like your attitude, but I would like to see a bigger proportion of your time devoted to creating and editing articles, rather than just talking about it. It's not because you are young! Deb (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral, but leaning towards support. I like the answers, but not some of the actions. In my opinion, age isn't really a factor here. The reason being that I would not guess your age if I did not already know. That's the best way to decide, I think. If you can tell an editor is underage from reading his/her edits or talk page, then said editor shouldn't be trusted with the tools. If you couldn't tell without them having told you, then it shouldn't be a problem. Just my thoughts. Good luck either way.-RHM22 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   In my opinion, age isn't really a factor here. The reason being that I would not guess your age if I did not already know.... If you can tell an editor is underage from reading his/her edits or talk page, then said editor shouldn't be trusted with the tools. If you couldn't tell without them having told you, then it shouldn't be a problem. I strongly agree with this statement! It is exactly what I do! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. Neutral I am very disappointed in those who appear to be opposing solely based on the candidate's youth, without giving due regard to his contributions. That is the epitome of not assuming good faith, in my opinion. However, there are some valid concerns raised that prevent me from being able to outright support Dylan. I can - and do - appreciate his work, but must remain neutral on this run. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 20:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    commentI second that. I actually can't believe Dylan has been opposed solely based on his age. Pass a Method talk 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. Neutral - I was leaning towards support because there is a lot to like about the candidate's work in vandal fighting. But couldn't bring myself to jump over. Some of the opposers put up valid concerns about substantive content contribution which is essential in areas such as AFD, PROD and CSD when there are articles down falling into grey areas or down to the wire and require careful precise, and fine judgement. Having work on contents allow the candidate to know the in and outs of policies, inclusionism and exclusionism....etc. Come back in a couple of months, I'm more inclined to support the nominee.--Visik (Chinwag Podium) 03:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Neutral — this could easily change later. The editor shows good development and an even, calm disposition. These are essential in an admin. But we should sell no wine before its time. I'd like to support this candidate but he's really young. Other admin candidates were approved at even younger ages, and I feel those may have been a mistake. Also this candidate has fairly limited experience editing article mainspace. I started editing as an IP address many years ago. I created this named account only in response to sockpuppet accusations. And just for my named account, I have more article mainspace edits than the candidate. Given hyis youth and his mainspace inexperience, I remain hesitant. Sorry. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Neutral I mostly agree with King of hearts, but I cannot cross the border. NuclearWarfare's thoughts influence me too. --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 02:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.