Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dayewalker

Dayewalker

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (24/1/3); Scheduled to end 23:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Dayewalker (talk · contribs)

It's been a while since the last time I nominated someone else for adminship and I have not been as active in the past two years as I would have wished to be, so bear with me

Dayewalker is not someone most editors will recognize easily. He seldom is involved in any of the huge discussions that sometimes benefit, sometimes plague this project. But he works behind the scenes, dealing with vandals, new users, editing disputes and most other things that are needed to handle the problems that can arise from conflicts between editors or simply from some kid somewhere having too much free time on their hands. When I reviewed his contributions, I found that in dozens of random samples of his edits, Dayewalker always acted calm, neutral and level-headed, trying to talk to problematic users instead of simply slapping warning templates on their talk pages and doing his best to facilitate discussions when disagreements arose. He is, like myself, one of those editors who is not an artist, i.e. he did not create any featured content or DYKs, which some !voters seem to see as a prerequisite. But on the other hand, his edits show that he is, despite not being a major creator himself, aware of how important content is to this project; as such, I'm certain that anyone concerned that he might not understand how hard it is to create great content will be able to see from his edits that he certainly does.

So if you want someone to do the stuff that is necessary, who stays out of drama and tries to be a calming influence on the project, who is neutral and does not discriminate against any editor and is happy to help out as much as they can, then Dayewalker is your guy. Regards SoWhy 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

SoWhy, I appreciate your time in going over my contributions, and your faith in my abilities. Thank you for the nomination. I feel I've learned enough in my 3+ years here to be an asset to the project with the tools.Dayewalker (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Further Comment From The Candidate: I should probably clarify something here that's caused some discussion. As I said in one of my questions below I am a professional writer, freelance at this point. I spend 10-12 hours some days covering events and writing about them afterwards, and when I come to Wikipedia, I do so for fun. I'm not coming here to write articles specifically, because that's what I do for a living. I come to read, to learn, and to clean up whatever I see needs fixing. I have the utmost respect for writers because we eat at the same buffet lines (and oh, the glory days when they were complimentary). My time here is spent cleaning and polishing those articles because that's what I've enjoyed doing, collaborating with other writers to produce a better product.

I'm a volunteer just like all of you are, and I've enjoyed my time here for the last 3 1/2 years and 13K+ edits. I have donated my time, energy, and opinion to Wikipedia, and had a great time doing so. I feel like I have a very good grasp on policy, and I feel certain I can help to work to make things run smoother around here if I had the tools. I've volunteered for this RfA to see if the community has that trust in me, based on my edits. If so, I'll be glad to help as much as I can. If not, so be it, no harm done in the trying. Dayewalker (talk) 20:36, 3 November 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 figured I would help out where most admins start, with vandal clean-up, page protection, and edit warring. Those noticeboards are areas where new editors show up, and when they can't get help quickly, they can get frustrated. I've been there myself. I'll also respond to helpme and adminhelp requests, and just try and help people find their way around here.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've fought a lot of vandals in my day, and done a lot of article cleanup. I skip around a lot, and will work off of the "random article" button a couple of times a week. I'm a writer in real life, so I try and tighten up the writing on other articles when I can. I'm most proud of the edits and discussion I've been able to have on diametrically opposed articles. I've tried very hard not to let any personal bias intrude on my edits here, so I've cleaned up some articles on subjects that I really don't care for.

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: Oh, of course. I think any editor who's been at Wikipedia for more than a month has probably come into conflict with someone. I'm most proud of the ones I was able to resolve. I'm not a big fan of continued conflict, especially when it's between two people who both are trying to help the project. For example, at one point I had an ongoing battle with Ncmvocalist. We had gotten crossways somehow and butted heads, and I just decided it wasn't worth it. I stopped the sniping and apologized (for whatever it was, neither of us really knew at this point), and he did the same. We both knew we were both here to benefit the project, so there was no need to let the little things aggravate us. That was probably two years ago, and we're still friends. I think if you can fix the conflict, you do so. If you can't, you move on.

Additional question from Mkativerata

4. Have you ever edited as an IP or under a different account? If the latter, would you consider identifying it for this RFA? I ask because the edit summary on the Dayewalker account's first edit betrays some prior wikipedia experience.

A: I edited for a few days as an IP before learning about registering accounts. Dayewalker (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Optional question from Dweller

5. There's some opposition from editors questioning your content work. But in your answer to Q2 you hint at some good content work you've done. To help us get an understanding of this, please could you briefly pick a couple of articles where you feel you've done good content work and either show some diffs or explain what your contribution amounted to.

A: Certainly, one of the things I'm proud of here is my editing to diametrically opposed articles. My goal when I began to get serious about editing was to not let any of my personal feelings enter into the articles I would help improve. As I've said, I take pride in editing articles as diverse as Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann, Baptist and Satanist, Republican National Convention and Democratic National Convention, and Nancy Pelosi and Jesse Helms. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that have some very strong emotions behind their editing patterns, I feel like I can help those articles (and WP in general) by staying neutral and true to our policies. My goal here is to have an editing history that doesn't reveal anything about my personal beliefs, which I feel have no place on Wiki. As I said below, I have the utmost respect for people who create articles here regularly. I feel that polishing and protecting those articles is another vitally important facet of Wikipedia.

Optional question from Divide et Impera

6. How do you solve an issue with two editors who gang up and edit war on a newbie?

A: It would depend on the situation. If it's a matter of the two editors being correct, I'd try and calm the matter by discussing with the newbie exactly what's going on, and why their edits are being reverted. Often new editors' hearts are in the right place, but they need guidance as to our policies. If there's some debate as to which version is preferable, I'd join in the discussion on the talk page (or start one if necessary), and start an RfC if it seems like more opinions would be beneficial. If the newbie's edits seem to be correct, I'd join/start the talk page discussion and revert (once) to the correct edits. I feel conversation is always preferable to the use of admin tools. The tools should be a last resort to be used only if discussion and consensus building isn't working.

Optional question from Snottywong

7. In your answer to Q2, you reveal that you are a writer by trade. Considering this, is there any particular reason that you have not created any new articles, written any substantial new content, or otherwise chose to focus on content creation over vandalism fighting at any point? On the surface, it would seem you're a logical fit for being a significant content contributor. There isn't a right or wrong answer to the question, I'm just curious; and it might help shed some light on your editing patterns.

A: Sure, there's a couple of reasons behind my editing pattern. The simplest one is that I very rarely find anything that doesn't already have an article, and doesn't have what I'm looking for. When I find something missing, I'll certainly add it. As for my writing, I'm a sports and humor writer currently working freelance. Most of my day is spent either writing my columns, or hustling up other work. I have a great deal of respect for people who are content creators, so when I get here, I'm trying to clean up and protect those articles. I have a deep watchlist, and I often just hit the "random article" button to see what else is out there I could add to or clean up.

Aditional question from Leaky Caldron

8. In terms of encyclopaedic content policy, in the discussion taking place at WT:V you have indicated support for the proposed change, part of which will remove the adage “verifiability, not truth” from the lead. Your !vote comment: “while true, removing this from the lede subtracts one of the things most off-putting to some editors. Nothing changes other than the presentation of the idea, and I support that”. Can you explain why "V, not T" is off-putting to some editors and why removing it might encourage some editors?

A: Certainly, let me start by saying I completely support the meaning behind that statement. "V not T" is essential for an encyclopedia. It's a policy every veteran Wikipedia editor knows and understands, because chances are if you're here more than a week you've seen someone editing based on their personal version of WP:TRUTH. Newbie editors may not understand that when a Wikipedia editor says "truth," they mean WP:TRUTH, and seeing "V not T" as a policy might be a bit hard to understand at first. "Verifiability" is something everyone can understand, but "truth" means something different to everyone, especially as a beginning editor who may not have read WP:TRUTH yet. Dayewalker (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Optional question from 28bytes

9. What are your thoughts on this edit, and its aftermath?

A: I appreciate the question but I'll confess, I don't have much recollection of that thread. It looks like my only involvement was to revert an IP's changing of another editor's comments. I wasn't even involved on the IPs (Jack Merridew's) talk page with that situation. There are certain editors and situations best handled by experienced admins and ArbCom, Jack certainly falls into that category. If I were to become an admin, that's a situation I'd certain defer to my more experienced brethren on.

Additional question from ItsZippy

10. You've said that you are less of a content contributor and spend more time reverting vandalism, working through disputes, improving articles, etc. I think this is really great, but could you provide some examples (with diffs) of ways in which you have handled disputes well, please?

A: Good question, one that actually sent me back to my talk archives [1] [2] [3] [4]. Looking back, I'm proud of it all. I just glanced through three years of talk page discussions, and most of them fell into two categories, either positive discussions with productive editors about things we've fixed, or taunting from editors who have since been blocked. I'm pretty proud of both, because almost every one of those discussions spins from something that helped this encyclopedia. Recently speaking, I'm going to use an odd one as an example. Zhand38 is a contributor who has been a prolific contributor to various zoo articles. Unfortunately, he's got competence problems, and possibly maturity issues. I've tried on many occasions to talk to him, and talk him down from the actions that have led him to being blocked [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (a few of the diffs). I've given him far more chances than anyone else would. Did it work? No. It's disappointing, because I was hoping to be able to reach him and help turn him become a responsible editor.

It failed for me this time, but I'm not willing to give up on new editors at the first sign of trouble. One of the things I discussed with SoWhy when he initially looked at my edits was my use of RFPP, rather than AIV or ANEW, as seen here [10] [11] [12] [13]. I explained to him my philosophy is to always try and resolve problems before resorting to admin tools. If I can can keep editors talking, we can work towards consensus. Failing that, I'd prefer to protect the page and force discussion on the talk page. If that doesn't work a block would be necessary, but it shouldn't be a first option. That's my preferred method of handling disputes.

Optional question from Off2riorob

11. In reply to Dweller's question five - "There's some opposition from editors questioning your content work. But in your answer to Q2 you hint at some good content work you've done. To help us get an understanding of this, please could you briefly pick a couple of articles where you feel you've done good content work and either show some diffs or explain what your contribution amounted to." - you link to a few articles, I am wondering , did you misunderstand the question or the definition of content work because you included Keith Olbermann which I investigated and you have been editing there for three years, 80 reverts and undo's only - not a single content expansion or addition. Nancy Pelosi also - not a single content addition or expansion? Satanist another one you list, not a single content addition, you have thirty edits to Satanism and those edits are thirty reverts. - another one you list in response to Dweller's question, Jesse Helms, you have 14 edits over three years - thirteen reverts and one uncited content removal, - to qualify, could you link us to some content additions and article expansions you are particularity proud of? Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A. Certainly Rob. If I could clarify my remarks to Dweller's question, in my initial response (Q2) I wasn't hinting at content work. I'm proud of all of my edits here, and I actually quoted from something I wrote long ago on my user page about my editing habits. It was meant to show my neutrality, not my content. I apologize for any misunderstanding on that one.

You ask what I'm proud of here, and it's not my content. As you've seen from going through my contributions, I'm primarily an article cleaner, as I've discussed elsewhere on the page. I add material on occasion, but I mostly fix vandalism, clean up articles, and protect the work. You and I have both worked on keeping BLP's up to snuff, I think that's something of utmost importance at Wikipedia. In the past two years as I've learned more about policy, I've tried to help out more at ANI and BLPN. To those of you who see that as raising the drama level, I encourage you to actually look at my edits to those pages. I'm not a fan of drama either, and I try very hard to contain it whenever possible.

What I'm proudest of here is that every article I've worked on, I've made better. Every edit I make, I make to the best of my knowledge of Wikipedia policy and if I find a new editor, I try and help them out in learning the same. That may not add up to the kind of content some editors are looking for, but it's something I enjoy volunteering my time to do, and I feel it's very necessary for the growth of Wikipedia.

Additional questions from Surturz

12. Will you commit to a term limit, reconfirmation, or recall? If not, why not?

A: I support all admins being subject to periodic reconfirmation.

13. Have you participated in any off-wiki (e.g. email) communication in regards to this RfA?

A: Before accepting the nomination, I exchanged off-wiki emails with my nominator discussing some of my edits. Other than that, no.

14. Has there been any off-wiki canvassing for your RfA either by you or other editors?

A: Heh. Generally speaking, I have no off-wiki contact with anyone here. I have one trusted admin I've taken some problems to in the past, and as of right now I don't believe that admin has even commented here yet. I'm not on IRC, and I don't have any regular contact with anyone. I'm not here to make friends and chat, I'm here to read, research, and make things better.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to talk. Baseball Watcher 23:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• AfD stats posted to talk. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Looks good to me! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Support. Don't see why not. --regentspark (comment) 00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Support I don't see a reason not to support, though their user talk page could use some type of link to the page archives. Monty₈₄₅ 00:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry about that, I've added one. Thanks for mentioning it! Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

4. Support Doesn't look like there's a problem. Baseball Watcher 00:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - Not an admin already? Gah, this always happens to me! Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
6. Support I echo Eagles247's statement. Totally assumed adminship before. m.o.p 00:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
7. Support - Easy decision. Swarm ^X 00:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
8. Support - Easy decision. The lack of own creations is more than adequately compensated by the candidates edits to mainspace - all manual except 2 (two)! and the the solid experience on noticeboards, and high level of civility when communicating with less civil editors.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
9. Support - Looks a solid candidate. Nevard (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
10. Lukewarm support - Candidate has a solid record as a trusted vandal fighter and newcomer helper; however, Mkativerata raises some valid points, in particular no articles created.--Hokeman (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
11. Support - Clean block log, 14K edits, no indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
12. Support - My first reaction when I see large numbers of edits to WP:PITCHFORKS is an automatic oppose, but the more I have delved into this editor's contributions, the more I have been impressed with what I've seen. This user flies against the tendency to ramp up drama on these boards, instead acting as a voice of reason in an area that needs as many such voices as it can get. As far as I can see, he's consistently civil, even when the person talking to him is not. I would like to see some article creation or some GA work, but with all the other good qualities, it's not going to sway my !vote. Also, while I understand people's concern when someone appears to be demonstrating too much knowledge of Wikipedia too quickly, I think I prefer to assume good faith. Too many editors are too quick to see sockpuppets hiding under every shrub. I happen to see someone who hits the ground running as a good thing rather than a bad one. (I mean, hell, I created a wikiproject my first week.) This user strikes me as clueful and helpful... two very good qualities in an admin candidate. He's unlikely to abuse the tools and is a definite net-positive. (also... I have lapsed into the male pronoun, I apologize if this candidate is not.) Trusilver 06:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
13. Support - A trusted user. Doc talk 06:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
14. Support as nominator. Regards SoWhy 08:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
15. Support - Has a trusted experience. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
16. Support-Has a lot of experience,especially in removing vandalism.Praveen Sharma (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2011(UTC)
17. Support Seems competent enough to wield the mop. Jarkeld (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
18. While his edits to this shithole have been ... well, numerous, he seems to know what he's talking about there. Minus a few hiccups I don't see any reason to think otherwise. — Joseph Fox 15:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
19. Support. I see no problems. James500 (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
20. Support Harmless.©Geni 16:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
21. Support Everything looks good, I'm not big on the whole "You have to have some content creation to be an admin thing." and you seem to have the right attitude and are a solid vandal fighter.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 18:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
22. Support, plenty of articlespace contributions and AfD report shows that Daye's usually with consensus. Why not? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
23. Support Content creation is not obligatory (and reverting vandalism is a useful contribution to Wikipedia, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise: without vandalism reversion, all that beautiful content gets left unread and the reader just sees giant pictures of genitalia everywhere), seems sane. Although a participant on drama boards, seems to not be a participant in the underlying drama. Which is good. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
24. Support –BuickCenturyDriver 01:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 692 edits to ANI; 61 to "Wikiquette assistance" (what is that?). Zero articles created; pretty much zero content work generally. There really is no reason at all why a non-admin should be so active on the drama boards, and demonstrates an imbalance of editing inconsistent with the characteristics I would hope for in an administrator. Sorry. Your nominator seems to be pushing an agenda, citing two essays written by him or herself in the nomination statement, and I think that is unfortunate for you. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   (No comment on the oppose or the RFA for now) To be fair question four, his first edit, the candidate doesn't need to show clear Wikipedia knowledge beforehand as it was obviously a revert of vandalism. If it was jumping to some sort of content dispute, AN/I or going straight to AFD reading policies left and right as their first edit then it would be a cause of concern. Secret ^account 04:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   I suspect it's the edit summary of "rv vandalism" that Mkativerata is referring to, which does seem to suggest some prior knowledge of "Wikispeak". Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Probably but I've seen many now experienced users first contributions with an edit summary, or many IPs using an edit summary. I just don't see anything suspicious about it. (Again no comment for now on this RFA) Secret ^account 04:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   It's not the presence of an edit summary that's suspicious, it's the content of the edit summary. Malleus Fatuorum 04:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   I beg to differ. It is definitely consistent with someone who has made only a few previous edits (under an IP address) that a user's first edit could have an edit summary evidencing an idea of what vandalism is (either by its place in cultural perception of Wikipedia or through general analogy with real-world vandalism) and knowledge (possibly gained by reading through Wikipedia's help pages) of how to revert it. I would have to agree with Secret. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   I'd caution against inappropriately reading too much into my question. The answer to it is perfectly reasonable and I for one accept it as the (uncontroversial) truth. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   I know it's generally considered "badgering" if oppose !votes are replied to by the candidate or, in my case, the nominator but I want to apologize if you felt I was "pushing an agenda". Nothing could be further from the truth. The only reason I cited those essays is to avoid repeating what they are about in the nomination statement. The reason we write essays after all is to summarize ideas to be able to link to them instead of having to repeat them all the time and that's what I did. So, if people really think linking to an essay is "pushing an agenda", I'd be happy to remove those links. It would be unfortunate if you judged Dayewalker's request based on my actions - he is the one running for adminship, so I think your !vote should be based on his actions and his actions alone. Regards SoWhy 08:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

2. As Swarm says above, easy decision. Far too little content work and far too much time at the drama boards. Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Are you concerned about the candidate's conduct there, or merely presence? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

3. Not enough (i.e. none) content creation for me. It's something I've opposed people over before because it simply is the most important part of building an encyclopaedia and I think admins especially should be well-versed in that area of the project. Also, far too much time spent at ANI and the other drama boards for my liking. BigDom 08:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
   • Are you referring to article creation or article editing? The user has 7349 article edits. I've not looked at their edits, but I'm assuming they involve something other than reverting vandalism. Hobit (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
     • Both. I am incredulous that an editor who claims to be a writer in real life has done no significant writing (that I can find, although I await the answer to question 5 above), and hasn't created a single article. BigDom 17:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose - my recent spat with the user where he unarchived a discussion I had clearly closed on my talkpage to add another comment and then because I didn't care to continue the discussion with him, his opening an ANI report in a manner of escalation and adding heat, which was closed without action leave me no faith in the users ability to reduce heat and deescalate situations in a manner that I feel is required and an ability that I expect of administrators. Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   A link to the dispute. 28bytes (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Here's the discussion on my talkpage that I had archived, and I don't know what part of "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section." User:Dayewalker didn't understand because he unarchived the discussion that I had clearly closed and then because I didn't want to continue talking to him he escalates a completely unnecessary report to ANI that was closed as "All heat, no light. Nothing actionable." - I dread to think what he would have done if he had the added administrative options. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   If I read that right, you accused him of making your block log an issue and then archived the discussion. In a face-to-face discussion it seems similar to saying "you did bad thing X" and then walking away in a crowd. That either leaves the person having to object as you walk away (which is what he did) or ignoring you and looking guilty of X (which is what he should have done). You then reverted a good-faith edit as "vandalism" and he went to ANI. Admins should have thicker skin, but I'm not seeing a major problem here. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Rob, I'm sorry you still feel this way, but I'd like to quickly clarify a couple of things. I started on the original ANI page, then took it to your talk page [14] so as not to clutter the ongoing discussion. You misunderstood something and closed the discussion, and I apologized in all good faith [15], which you reverted as "vandalism." I didn't "escalate" and "add heat," you refused to talk and continued the same behavior at ANI. After the thread I filed played out, I supported the close and returned to your page [16] to try and apologize and smooth things over again. I tried to communicate with you before, during, and after this situation, and I regret that you still bear bad feelings over it. Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   You weren't be the first to upset Off2riorob, and you won't be the last. Like Hobit, I don't consider this a problem. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose - the last thing we need is a prolific contributor to the drama boards as an admin, and not a very polite and level-headed at that. Pantherskin (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Difs?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

6. Everyone should have created at least one article before being able to delete one. There is simply no substitute for the experience of actually having created an article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   It was over a year since I was editing Wikipedia until I created an article from scratch. I admit that I am not an editor who is keen on creating new articles (as opposed to expanding/improving existing articles), but I don't think it's fair to require admin candidates to create an article before becoming one. –MuZemike 14:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Here's my concern though: writing a (proper) article involves a lot more work than one might imagine, yet deleting one is a matter of seconds. OK, so this candidate is a writer in real life—but not all are, and I see no reason to be arbitrarily support one candidate over the other for such an easy task like article creation. Writing one article, and personally experiencing that process on Wikipedia gives a much better perspective on the system when the finger's over the delete button. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   I think that's absolutely right. Every administrator, except in the rarest of cases where specialist skills are needed, should have at least created an article, or substantially contributed to one. As you say, deleting is easy, creating requires a lot more work. I don't demand GAs or FAs, they're both hard work and perhaps beyond the skills of many, but I do demand that administrators understand what we're supposed to be about here; not protecting content like the dusty old knight in the Holy Grail (which is sadly a typically dreadful article that could with some attention) but producing it. And the only way you understand that is by doing it. If the candidate really is a professional writer then I don't see that as being too much to ask. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   Perhaps I'm taking this out of context for this specific candidate, but for what it's worth, I've created a few articles before my RFA (about 7, if I counted right), but that's never been my expertise as opposed to expanding/maintaining the current articles out there. I don't feel comfortable opposing a candidate who may have extensive experience with current content on certain topics in which demanding creating new articles from scratch would be unreasonable. Of course, if there is nothing else substantive in the mainspace otherwise, then I can understand. –MuZemike 02:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   There's certainly a distinction between creating an article and expanding one, but it really depends on which article and whatnot. I hope the answer to Q11 might shed some light on particular articles in which the candidate has been heavily involved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

7. Weak oppose Although I disagree that admins should do some content work before becoming one, his time on the dramaboards seems overdone; after all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these dramaboards and vandalism reversion really don't help Wikipedia much as a whole. IMO, I'd say content creation should be strongly recommended but not a requirement for adminship. although that's irrelevant to this RfA I am aware that not everyone is an artist, and his edits indicate that he is aware of content; though I'm somewhat curious about two things: 1) he hints that he's a writer in Q2, yet he hasn't done any "major" content work; 2) why he participates at the dramaboards more than articles, although he claims to be a writer. In addition, I observe this, where Dayewalker's "easy question" is, in my opinion, slightly too intimidating. I don't want to create a bunch of drama here, but also here his tone is slightly intimidating; but I don't disagree with him... and I am slightly concerned about whether or not other interactions with other users as an admin will go as well, although I can't immediately find any recent solid evidence of negative interactions. HurricaneFan25 | talk 15:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   While I certainly understand where you are coming from, keep in mind that text is not always the most effective medium to display civility and graciousness. Directness doesn't always equate to intentional brusqueness. It's very likely that what you are seeing as intimidating is nothing more than the candidate's intent to make his position clear in one edit instead of five. Trusilver 15:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

8. Administrators are elected to support and serve the good faith content creators. This means admins need a certain minimum amount of experience with content creation, without which the admin won't understand enough about a good faith content creator's point of view. I'm not one of those who thinks every candidate should have a FA, but I'll always look for at least a couple of halfway decent articles the candidate has written from scratch.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose. First of all, I have found Dayewalker to be a net asset to the project, no doubt about it. But questions were raised about contributing to article content, and they responded by citing a number of articles, including Sean Hannity. Well, in the enitre history of that article I find only one contribution that can be called substantive, and it is minor: this one (my apologies if I missed anything). Without article creation, and without much indication of article contribution, the host of useful reverts etc. seems unbalanced. Contributions to the drama boards are there, of course, and I don't remember many negative ones, but admins need to have a bit more in the content department, IMO. Regretfully, I must oppose. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I'd call that one "substantive", as it was a revert of the previous edit. 28bytes (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Good call: it wasn't thusly marked in the edit summary, and browsing through edit summaries was my MO. So, on Hannity, that's zero. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

10. Oppose. I have no problems with an admin who is primarily a vandal fighter rather than a content creator, as I feel it's appropriate to have all sorts of people with different skills, experience and interest as admins. However, I do have a problem with people who mislead, however unintentionally, as then I can't trust them. The candidate has given the impression that they have been "polishing" articles, and that they try to "tighten up the writing", and they are "collaborating with other writers to produce a better product", and to support that they state they are a professional writer. Yet when asked which articles they are proud of, they list articles to which they added nothing at all. They did not correct spelling even. They simply reverted. One article in the list they only made one (revert) edit. And another article, Democratic National Convention, they haven't edited at all under the name Dayewalker. It may be that the candidate doesn't understand what "good content work" means (they don't seem to know the difference between nominator and candidate, as they have made a statement - "Further Comment From The Nom"); though if it was the case that they are misunderstanding certain terms and phrases, then I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting as they would struggle with basic Wiki communication and would likely make too many mistakes. People who are clear and straightforward, and with whom communication has few misunderstandings make the best admins. It may be that Dayewalker feels under pressure from the comments of the lack of content work and so is now digging a hole for themselves. No worries. RfA can be a stressful experience, but lessons can be learned, and Dayewalker can come back and apply again in six months time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
11. Misplaced priorities, per above. Townlake (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Just lack of content creation, but other than that, you're fine sysop material. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
   _Contribs 10:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Opposes are a little weak and more than a little pointy, but I'm on the fence here due to not knowing the candidate (I've seen his name around, but can't ever remember why), the lack of a demonstrable need for the tools in the nomination, and a degree of trepidation regarding the sponsor. Really just looking for a reason to support. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   I think the opposes raise a solid issue... too much time at ANI and not enough time building the encyclopedia... that's significant.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   I've opposed for such before, but that was for an editor who had 4000+ (!) edits to ANI, 95% of which were actively unhelpful. I can't remember having had that sort of negative impression of Dayewalker. His articlespace edits outnumber those to wikispace nearly five to one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

3. I don't agree with the specialist paradigm. We need well-rounded generalists as admins, who understand and participate in content creation. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)