Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dylan620 2

Dylan620

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (25/1/2); Scheduled to end 15:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to start off slowly; I will only take admin action in areas where I feel comfortable doing so. For now, this entails AIV, UAA, broken redirect cleanup, the image blacklist, and community ban discussions at AN or ANI. I may eventually branch out into areas such as CSD in general or XfD, but not before I get more experience there.

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?

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Dylan620
• Requests for adminship/Dylan620 2

• 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.

Discussion

• Edit count stats posted to talk page. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 15:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. You'll make a great administrator. I feel really bad about not being able to come up with a good nomination statement, but I'm sure that I wouldn't be able to write anything as good as yours even if I had lots of time to work on it. —Soap— 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

   That's quite alright; I appreciate that you tried :) --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 17:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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)
3. Support This candidate seems to have a good editing history, and seems to have a good track record in the areas they profess an interest in. I support the candidates cautious attitude in Q1, and while I don't agree with the substantive position in the first part of Q3, the candidate seems to have handled the dispute well. I see no reason why this candidate cannot be trusted with the mop. Monty₈₄₅ 16:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Longterm user, seems mature and sensible. ϢereSpielChequers 16:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Support. I've found Dylan620 to be a sensible and helpful editor, and I trust him to use the tools wisely. 28bytes (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Support I've seen you around in the right places and you seem to know what you're doing. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Support: I recall the two issues referred to in Q3. In the child one, I fully support your removal of sensitive information - the protection of minors (including from their own carelessness) is of paramount importance. But it's not agreeing with me that counts - what actually counts is that you handled the dispute calmly. I've also had a look over the Iaaasi case, and I think your contribution was excellent - very fair and even-handed. And looking back at a reasonable number of random samples of your contributions, I see nothing but good stuff -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Strong Support, Dylan has the time, experiance and communication necessary for acquiring the mop. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Dylan620 has changed a lot in the time I've known him: I remember having concerns about him and being critical a couple of times, but that was long before 2009 ended. Nowadays he is much more mature; his work, both to content and maintenance, is good, and whenever I see Dylan620 around I am always pleased: I have no concerns now and am happy to support his request for adminship. Acalamari 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
10. No concerns at all. Seems competent and is experienced. Has clearly learned from last RFA which occurred ages ago. AD 17:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Support As far as I can determine, Dylan has matured considerably since his first RFA and is now experienced and clueful to be an administrator. Regards SoWhy 17:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Support No concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Support good breadth and depth of experience Jebus989^✰ 17:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Support - no issues or concerns that you will misuse the tools. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
15. (edit conflict) Support - No reservations here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Support - No reason why not, adminship is not a big deal and this candidate has shown proficiency in many areas of administrative work. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Support I think this editor has improved this time compared to the previous RFA. Minima© (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Support I like what you said about the protection of minors! I wasn't here in 2009 so I can't comment on any of that. Based on the progress you've made since then, yes, you're ready for the mop (and the "crappy" t-shirt).  :) This lousy T-shirt (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Support Last time around, I opposed due to maturity issues. However, a quick flip through your talk page and contributions show that you've changed a lot since then.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Support – I have no concerns with Dylan holding the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Friendly and motivated. Also, per Soap. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

    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))

22. Support. Decker41811a (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Support nice edits Pass a Method talk 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Support. Tiderolls 21:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
25. Support Keepscases (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. You certainly have improved from a couple years back, but not by enough for my tastes. Your answer to question 2 is almost identical to your previous RFA, which was a year and four months ago. Indeed, your last 500 articlespace edits goes back six months, and the vast majority of those are mass link fixes or Huggle edits (The last 1,000 edits go back to your previous RFA, and much of that is cosmetic). I'm also disappointed that you still have not referenced Believe (Staind song). While you might not have understood the verifiability policy when you created that article, you should by now, and I would expect you to go back and clean up work old work.

   Lack of article work is not by itself a sufficient reason to oppose, but I'm simply not convinced that enough has changed since then to warrant supporting. NW (Talk) 20:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral pending further stats/contributions review. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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))

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)

   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)

   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)

   I thought that it would have appeared desperate... I'll do so now. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 21:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)