→Support: + |
Steven Crossin (talk | contribs) →Oppose: update |
||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
#'''Oppose'''. Concerns over the user's maturity and types of contributions. Perhaps a little more time, and possibly more work in article mainspace :) <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">[[User:IShadowed|'''<font color=#87F717> IShadowed </font>''']][[User talk:IShadowed|<span style="color:#800000; background-color:black"> ✰ </span>]]</span> 20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose'''. Concerns over the user's maturity and types of contributions. Perhaps a little more time, and possibly more work in article mainspace :) <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">[[User:IShadowed|'''<font color=#87F717> IShadowed </font>''']][[User talk:IShadowed|<span style="color:#800000; background-color:black"> ✰ </span>]]</span> 20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
#'''Weak oppose''', still concerned about maturity, though a lot of the issues are dated. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Weak oppose''', still concerned about maturity, though a lot of the issues are dated. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
#Sorry, but I have maturity concerns here. Adminship is a big role and I don't feel you are quite ready for it, sorry. <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
#Sorry, but I have maturity concerns here. Adminship is a big role and I don't feel you are quite ready for it, sorry. Additionally, your answer to Question 6, where the question says, "...is more important to abide by and enforce the letter '''or''' the spirit of...", as opposed to "will you abide by and enforce X", to me, neither shows sufficient thought or understanding. I do have strong opinions on how admins should act, and the characteristics they should posses, and I am afraid you have showed you do not posses those qualities. <small>Updated at 00:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
#:I'm trying not to respond to the opposes, but I'm still curious - can you please direct me to any recent instance where you believe I have been immature? --'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|contribs]], [[Special:Log/Dylan620|logs]], [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Dylan620 (3)|review]]) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
#:I'm trying not to respond to the opposes, but I'm still curious - can you please direct me to any recent instance where you believe I have been immature? --'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|contribs]], [[Special:Log/Dylan620|logs]], [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Dylan620 (3)|review]]) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
#::This is going to sound mean, but I am afraid it is just my perception of you. I know that might seem unfair, but I just don't feel that you have demonstrated exceptional maturity in proportion to your age. Sorry. <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
#::This is going to sound mean, but I am afraid it is just my perception of you. I know that might seem unfair, but I just don't feel that you have demonstrated exceptional maturity in proportion to your age. Sorry. <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:12, 12 December 2009
Dylan620
(talk page) (?/?/?); Scheduled to end 19:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Nomination
Dylan620 (talk · contribs) – For my seventh nomination, I would like to present... myself!
Let me start by admitting that I wasn't always the editor I am today. Back in January, I was reported to the administrators' noticeboard. That was back when I was still new to the site, and I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I have since learned from my early mistakes of MySpacing; for instance, while content building is still not my forte, I wrote Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season and Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season from scratch. I also played a small role in building William Thompson Lusk. For a full overview of my article creation achievements, see User:Dylan620/Content.
With that out of the way, allow me to detail the basics; I've had an account since September 2007, and I have been active since August 2008. I am a rollbacker and accountcreator with over 10,000 edits. So, why do I want the mop? Since content building is admittedly a weak spot for me, I resort to maintenance tasks. Among these are the creation of 70+ accounts at WP:ACC, vandal fighting and broken redirect cleanup. Among these, I consider broken redirect cleanup to be my forte. I often go to Schutz's tool to look for broken redirects to tag for deletion. Most of my taggings under the appropriate category for broken redirects (WP:CSD#G8) are deleted – see Special:DeletedContributions/Dylan620. In addition to my redirect cleanup work, I also have experience in vandal fighting (having made over 2,000 edits with Huggle), account creation (again, over 70 accounts created there), and DYK clerking, although I haven't been quite as active there as I have been in the past. Still, I could be of assistance there from time to time.
I hope that you will all consider my request, and I wish you all Happy Holidays. Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 03:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: My main motive for requesting adminship is to use the delete button for broken redirect cleanup, though I also plan to use the block button on vandals. I might also help out at WP:DYK, though I wouldn't be the most active admin there.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: The contributions that I'm proudest of would have to be "Believe", Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season, and William Thompson Lusk. My first article ever was on "Believe," while the 2001 AHS timeline was sent to FLC – however, I withdrew after multiple concerns began piling up. Eight months later, I created the 1996 AHS timeline, and successfully shipped that one off to FLC – it is my only piece of featured content to date, and on top of that it was the first of my 3 DYK credits. After the timeline passed DYK, another editor requested my help on the William Thompson Lusk article with converting bulleted notes into prose. The article would become my second DYK credit. (In case you're wondering, my third DYK credit was just a nomination of an article created by another editor (Hurricane Bill (2009).) Aside from my limited content contributions, I would also have to be proudest of my broken redirect cleanup work and my anti-vandalism work – each time I revert a vandal, I protect Wikipedia's intergrity, whether it be on userpages or on articles.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I have been involved with many conflicts during my time here at Wikipedia. The ones that I regret most can be located here and here (from November 2008 and April 2009, respectively). During the 2001 AHS timeline FLC, I responded rashly and immaturely to an editor's calling the timeline "ugly", and then I began swearing out of anger. I think I might have even unintentionally violated WP:OWN in the process! Later on during the FLC, I apologized for my misconduct, and withdrew. For proof that I have learned from my mistakes at that FLC, I would like to direct your attention to the 1996 AHS timeline FLC from July - August 2009. There, I considerately and civilly responded to concerns, and the FLC passed. WRT the Ottava Rima RfA – I admit it. I was very rude to Ottava both here and here, and I am deeply sorry for my misconduct there. Back then, I was still jumpy – I've matured very much since then. I suppose an example of this would be at the What If (Coldplay song) page. Several users were restoring the article for that redirect against consensus obtained at this AfD, and I was one of the editors who were reverting the article back to its redirected form. The content dispute ended with me successfully requesting a temporary full-protection of the page. In the future, I plan to continue to learn from my early mistakes, and deal with disputes in a calm, civil manner.
- Additional optional questions from JamieS93 (stolen from Coffee)
- 4. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
- A.
- 5. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
- A.
- Additional optional question from Katerenka (stolen from Steven Zhang)
- 6. Do you, as a potential administrator feel that it is more important to abide by and enforce the letter or the spirit of policies and guidelines. Additionally, if a situation arose where policies ans guidelines conflict with a better solution that you could achieve by using common sense and administrative judgment, would you do so? If possible, please give an example.
- A. Yes, I do feel like it is important to abide by policies and guidelines. Overall, I feel that policies and guidelines are created for protection - no specific type of protection, just general protection. Allow me to elaborate - in my opinion, the personal attack, civility, harassment, biting the newbies, and assumption of good faith policies/guidelines are maintained to protect users' credibility or self-esteem. For instance, say a well-meaning editor who is new to Wikipedia adds unsourced information (or at least sources it with an unreliable source) without being aware of the verifiability and reliable sourcing policies. A bitey editor reverts the edit on sight, scolding the newbie with an uncivil warning filled with personal attacks. Feeling unimportant, the newbie leaves Wikipedia. Not only is the newbie's self-esteem hurt, but the reverting and warning editor's credibility is also hurt, because s/he resorted to incivility, personal attacks, and bitey-ness, scaring off a potentially helpful contributor in the process. Meanwhile, the policies on verifiability, reliable sources, external links, and vandalism protect the credibility of the encyclopedia itself by preventing the introduction of disreputable or libelous content into articles.
With regards to the other part of the question, hmmmm... I'll think about that. I'll try to have an answer prepared by the end of the night.
- A. Yes, I do feel like it is important to abide by policies and guidelines. Overall, I feel that policies and guidelines are created for protection - no specific type of protection, just general protection. Allow me to elaborate - in my opinion, the personal attack, civility, harassment, biting the newbies, and assumption of good faith policies/guidelines are maintained to protect users' credibility or self-esteem. For instance, say a well-meaning editor who is new to Wikipedia adds unsourced information (or at least sources it with an unreliable source) without being aware of the verifiability and reliable sourcing policies. A bitey editor reverts the edit on sight, scolding the newbie with an uncivil warning filled with personal attacks. Feeling unimportant, the newbie leaves Wikipedia. Not only is the newbie's self-esteem hurt, but the reverting and warning editor's credibility is also hurt, because s/he resorted to incivility, personal attacks, and bitey-ness, scaring off a potentially helpful contributor in the process. Meanwhile, the policies on verifiability, reliable sources, external links, and vandalism protect the credibility of the encyclopedia itself by preventing the introduction of disreputable or libelous content into articles.
- Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve
- 7. In your last Editor Review in October, Coldplay Expert said you should go for an RfA, and you had to see what your former coach had to say. I want to ask the question that Soap asked there: Even just now, you had to ask Julian for advice on whether to run or not. If you can't make a decision like that by yourself, how can I ever trust you with the duties of an administrator?, and what has changed in the last 2 months to make you feel ready to self-nom?
- A: Two things. Firstly, Julian's advice was to wait until toward the end of the year – with there being only three weeks left in 2009, I felt that now was the right time. Secondly, upon self-reflection of my editing career (August 2008 - December 2009), I feel like I've learned a lot from my past mistakes, and have become an editor who could benefit Wikipedia with the tools.
- Additional question from User:Keepscases
- 8. You're an administrator, and you come across a user page in which a user has apparently hotlinked to various pictures of naked people from Wikimedia Commons, and below each picture has a sentence "rating" the peoples' attractiveness. There is absolutely nothing abnormal or wrong with any of the user's other contributions. What, if anything, do you do about the user page?
- A: Since pictures of naked people would likely cause disrepute toward the project, I would warn the editor that their user page is inappropriate, citing WP:UP#Images on user pages as reference for the user. If the user failed to respond in a timely manner or responded incompetently, I would delete the user page.
- Additional question from User:Coldplay Expert
- 9 While I have already !voted support, (see below as to why) I would still like for you to answer this question if you will. As you pointed out in you nomination, you used to be an editor who would get into a lot of trouble. Even getting you reported to the AN. So what caused you to abruptly turn your actions around and why?
- A:
General comments
- 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 Special:Contributions/Dylan620 before commenting.
Discussion
- Editing stats are available at the talk page. @Kate (parlez) 19:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Quick note that I will gladly explain my answers if requested to do so. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Support
- I've seen a lot of Dylan's work and I'll be very surprised if something turns up that changes my vote, but I'll keep an eye on it. The comments about Ottava are regrettable, but they're a long time ago and I'm positive Dylan takes a different approach at RfA now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I have to say Dylan. You had a pretty shaky past but you have learned quickaly. You have done wonders in all areas that you have contributed in and furthermore you have have admited to your own mistakes. It takes guts to admit that you were wrong...even if it can fail your RFA. More admins these days need to be humble and realize that they are admins, not supermen. If everyone here was like you then the project would be a better place. Im proud to !vote support for you. Good job and Good luck.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Let me say it clearly: I remember Dylan being immature when he started and I know thus where the opposing !votes come from. But I also know that people can change and that Dylan has stopped his immature behavior, thus demonstrating both the maturity and the cluefulness to learn from past mistakes and change one's behavior when needed. I have not seen any recent indications that would justify assuming that Dylan is still immature (I would request those opposing about immaturity concerns to present diffs that prove otherwise in case I am wrong). On the other hand, Dylan is helpful, knows his way around the project and has no record of blocks or misusing tools (like rollback) that would be reason for concern. Regards SoWhy 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Pleased with the well-thought out answer that Dylan gave to the first half of my question, and seriously doubt that he could say anything in the response to the second half that would negate the opinion I have from seeing him around. Smart, competent, and clueful editor, who takes the time to help out people who need it. I have no reservations about giving him a few extra buttons to push, as him assuming the role of administrator would be a net positive for the project. @Kate (parlez) 23:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Concerns over the user's maturity and types of contributions. Perhaps a little more time, and possibly more work in article mainspace :) IShadowed ✰ 20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, still concerned about maturity, though a lot of the issues are dated. Wizardman 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have maturity concerns here. Adminship is a big role and I don't feel you are quite ready for it, sorry. Additionally, your answer to Question 6, where the question says, "...is more important to abide by and enforce the letter or the spirit of...", as opposed to "will you abide by and enforce X", to me, neither shows sufficient thought or understanding. I do have strong opinions on how admins should act, and the characteristics they should posses, and I am afraid you have showed you do not posses those qualities. Updated at 00:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm trying not to respond to the opposes, but I'm still curious - can you please direct me to any recent instance where you believe I have been immature? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is going to sound mean, but I am afraid it is just my perception of you. I know that might seem unfair, but I just don't feel that you have demonstrated exceptional maturity in proportion to your age. Sorry. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm trying not to respond to the opposes, but I'm still curious - can you please direct me to any recent instance where you believe I have been immature? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's very clear you're here to help. I've seen you all around the project, and it's obvious that you're trying to be as helpful as possible. It is also clear you're here for all the right reasons- you seem to have stuck your head into the wrong places early in your time here-and therefore, would be a net positive. Nevertheless, as many have said earlier, the real question at RfA is "do I really trust this candidate with the tools?" At this point, I don't think I could fully say that I could trust you, Dylan. You do seem to be a bit immature, and seem to be prone to rely on others for decisions. Maturity comes with experience and I am sure that you will eventually make an excellent admin candidate, just not at this time. Best, ceranthor 22:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weakest of weak opposes - going with my gut. Don't think the candidate is suited to the tools. Really sorry. GARDEN 23:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral I'm undecided for the moment. The incident with Ottava makes me reluctant, but the incident being so long ago is what's preventing me from opposing. I'm planning on deciding once I get to see the answers to any subsequent questions that might be asked... The Thing Merry Christmas 20:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I've always had questions about Dylan's maturity which the Ottava thing is a minor part of, Q7 could change this but at this point I'm leaning oppose.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Neural - I just have too many issues in the maturity department that I don't want to support. I don't want to be harsh and oppose, so I am neutral.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 20:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also currently undecided. Consider this a placeholder, I will make an oppose or support comment soon. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think Dylan is a very nice person, has nothing but good intentions, and I doubt he would abuse the tools. What sets him apart is his high level of enthusiasm, which of course is sometimes taken for callowness. Admins need to be held to a high standard of maturity, and while Dylan may or may not quite meet that standard, the perception he gives is not particularly compatible with adminship, unfortunately. I appreciate all the work he does in making the Wikipedia community a more welcoming one. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)