Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dendodge 3

1. Instinctive oppose. Whenever an Rfa shows up with digits like 3 in it, the question immediately arises "why does this person want to be an administrator so much?" When the editor fails an RfA and then appears to restructure their entire editing patterns around passing the next one, you wonder what their motivations for editing the encyclopaedia are. Your adminmill pages (are designed to?) show nothing but safe answers, and no critical engagement with prevailing norms. This is exacerbated by your answer to question 9; I find it incredible that someone could be active on Wikipedia for such a length of time and intensity of editing and not disagree with a single policy or guideline. That suggests to me someone who a) does not engage critically with what they are doing (terrible trait in an admin) b) disagrees with plenty of conventions but will not say so here for political reasons c) is a true believer (enough admins with us vs. them / Wikipedia is always right mentality) or d) just not that interested. The "aw, shucks, I just want to help out" answer to question 10 just does not fly, not from someone rolling right off the adminmill. Yes, this oppose is quite lacking in assumption of good faith, but adminship can only be easy-come when it becomes easy-go. A one-in-five chance of promoting an authoritarian to admin-for-life ain't worth it. I'm very sorry if it turns out I have completely misjudged you. Sincerely, Skomorokh 13:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   tl;dr version: serial RfAs, adminmill, politically correct answers, apparent RfA criteria hoopjumping. Skomorokh 13:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   To be fair, my last RfA was in March, and I've turned down quite a few nominations since then. To be completely honest, the policy page I least agree with is

   WP:IAR is Jimbo's rule, and I didn't want to insult his judgement, and I thought my real answer to Q10 would have sounded a bit stupid. Anyway, thanks for your input. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Skomorokh, you usually display pretty outstanding judgment, but I'm surprised here. As you yourself note, your statement contains quite a lot of bad faith. I see multiple RfAs as a sign of maturity; editors that try for RfA, fail, and then leave the project in a big dramastorm are the ones we want to watch out for. You also clearly have issues with admin coaching ("adminmill"ing), but I don't feel that penalizing the candidate for taking advice and help from users he respects is fair in the slightest. I agree that question 9 is pretty lacking, but question 10 seems genuine enough to me. Finally, I see from the candidate's answer to question 6 that he seems to be open to the idea of answering to the community, and giving up the tools if enough people request it (though I'd like a little more clarification from the candidate -- hint). Rather than instinctively oppose, why not ask a couple questions, discuss a bit, then make up your mind? GlassCobra 13:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   To clarify, I'm not assuming bad faith in the candidate, it's that their behaviour fits certain patterns that sometimes yield terrible administrators. If there was desysopping by community consensus I wouldn't hesitate for a minute in supporting. (Side note, if you think a candidate pledging voluntary recall means anything, then I've got a piece of land on the moon to sell you). I did ask two questions, the answers to which exacerbated my initial reservations. You are perhaps right that it is best to !vote instinctively at the end of an RfA rather than the beginning, but in the current RfA format, it's only the early opposes that count. Kudos on the most helpful and constructive badgering I've seen in a while, Skomorokh 13:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   There will be desysopping by community consensus. If you don't like my use of the tools, and open an RfC, I will resign should consensus support my doing so. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Skomorokh, I would like to restate that I respect your opinion, and you are entitled to it; however, I don't feel that your dissatisfaction with the RfA system should be hurting this candidate's chances. Yes, you're correct that early opposes are the ones that count, which is why instinctive opposing is so dangerous. Please note that I am absolutely not saying that you shouldn't oppose (bear in mind that I haven't even made up my mind yet), but merely that you shouldn't oppose because of certain behavior patterns. If we all did that, then no one would have passed RfA since Archtransit. As a final note, I would like to firmly state that I am not badgering you, I am discussing with you. GlassCobra 13:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The badgering comment was a joke :) No, it's not fair that the RfA system is negatively effecting the candidates chances, nor is it fair that administrators who are damaging the encyclopaedia are not removed. But the former is an unfortunate consequence of the latter; RfA is not about what the candidate deserves, it's about what is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. This is not a protest !vote. I disagree with your Archtransit point, because I monitor every RfA, and I rarely oppose a candidate; clearly I think the particular patterns of behaviour outlined above are especially concerning. Regards, Skomorokh 14:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, as far as I am concerned, I think it's completely obvious that an user with 3 RfAs must be power hungry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ha ha, there's hope for you yet Dendodge! Skomorokh 14:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I response to GlassCobra's comments I'd like to say that "assume good faith" does not mean "no criticism is allowed."--Patton123 21:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Strong Oppose - Skomorokh said a lot of things I wanted to say. Firstly, when I looked at this RfA, I was going to automatically vote support because of the nominator and co-nom. However, a careful inspection raised many concerns, aside from what Skomorokh already said. I looked at the previous RfAs and the first red light for me was the apparent heavy usage of automated tools (please correct me if I'm wrong). Next, I noticed that the candidate was admin-coached - something I personally dislike in general, but it becomes a lot worse when you're nominated every few months. Nine months is usually a long enough period between RfAs, but it certainly raises some questions when it's the third RfA 'attempt' in less than a year—smells of RfA-shopping of sorts. Next, there's the issue of article edits; the work on the Harrison article is impressive, but this seems to be the only article the candidate really put an effort into. Combined with the automated edits and less than 3,000 mainspace edits in general, this signifies nothing good on article contributions. Forgive me for being rude, but I think that somewhere in the admin coaching process they forget to mention the fact that writing articles, and not vandal fighting or non-admin AfD closures, is what Wikipedians are all about. Finally, the answers to the questions are short and don't always show insight; the fact that so many follow-up questions were asked clearly shows this. Especially concerning are the answers to Q4, Q6 and Q10. Having said all of the above, I don't necessarily think that this user will make a bad admin in his niche, and appreciate the help desk (and similar) contributions—just that I believe that an admin has to have general knowledge of everything going on on Wikipedia, and this is mostly gained from real article contributions. I sincerely hope that the candidate writes a few articles and researches content for a year or so, and then comes back as a new person. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Update: Changed to strong oppose per this comment and other similar comments in reply to opposition !votes. This is no way an RfA candidate should act, let alone an admin. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   "writing articles, and not vandal fighting or non-admin AfD closures, is what Wikipedians are all about" While I don't take objection to the spirit of the statement per se, I think it's a little inaccurate. There are plenty of areas for Wikipedians to participate in; writing articles is just one of them. Several of our administrators are more active in various project-space areas than in the actual encyclopedia; while, obviously, the entire point of the site is very important, participating in AfD discussions or reporting/blocking vandals both work towards increasing the quality of our encyclopedia (either by pruning unnecessary content or protecting existing content from malicious modifications), and I think we're losing sight of the forest for the trees when we focus too much on the namespaces that a candidate is active in.
   This is a trend I'm seeing in RfAs these days, and I urge everyone to consider the fact that there's more than a single path to improving the encyclopedia; trying to shoe-horn everyone into a single criterion for "how do you improve the encyclopedia" isn't, in the long term, productive. Every editor we promote that is competent (which, by your assessment, you consider the candidate to be) is a net positive for the project, and (in my opinion) we should encourage diversity to a certain degree in our administrative ranks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   But, if articles are not written and new information is not added, what should be the relevancy of the AFDs, vandal fighting, etc. people aren't willing to create new articles or update them? Many articles exist which information is not current (I saw one the other day). People are more focused upon vandal fighting and social chatter (sometimes, this can be good, but not all of the time) instead of improving the encyclopedia. For example, I saw a retired administrator click the "Random Article" tab and corrected out of date and ill-written grammar/syntax articles. Yes, vandal fighting and XfDs are important, but if your encyclopedia doesn't reflect the constant updating of information, because people are unwilling to add information, the encyclopedia will be unreliable.

   miranda 18:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I do write articles, and contribute to discussion on the talk pages of said articles and their relevant WikiProjects, although I also do a fair bit of AfD and antivandal work. I don't see where 'social chatter' comes into it - I do all that via off-wiki media (such as Skype and IRC) - you can't really accuse me of being responsible for the fact the encyclopedia is not updated regularly - partly because it is, and partly because I do some of the updating myself. Surely the people to blame are those who make no contribution whatsoever, or focus on trolling and vandalism? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I fail to see how your hypothetical situations are relevant to my comment; nowhere did I suggest that every single editor will only involve themselves in the project namespace (nor is that a particularly likely situation, I mean really...). Some are project-oriented, some are content-oriented; the entire point of my statement is that we need variety, not just one particular type or the other.
   I'm also not sure what the "retired admin" comment was supposed to mean; you're arguing that there's a risk that nobody will work on content, and then share a story about content being worked on? I'm kind of confused by that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   EVula, my oppose rationale wasn't based around article editing, it was just one of many concerns. My main concern was admin-shopping (if that's a recognizable term... but I'm sure you understand what I mean). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Heh, don't worry, I understand what you mean. And, for what it's worth, my edit summary for that comment was "broad commentary, only slightly directed at Ynhockey." EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   So, admin coaching forgets what the encyclopedia is all about does it?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Balloonman, those are your general guidelines for admin coaching, not the general way in which coaching works. But even in your case, I completely disagree with points 1 and 3 because, as I said before, it helps 'cheating the process'. A Wikipedian (whether an admin-hopeful or not) should never go out of their way to participate in 'behind the scenes' stuff or 'act like an admin', which is almost always at the expense of point #2, writing the encyclopedia. In fact, I don't think there should be such a thing as an 'admin hopeful', but I don't want to start a several-page-long conversation on my opinions on adminship here. If you're interested, we can take it to user talk :) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If you disagree with point one, then you don't under stand it. Because without number 1, everything else you might do is irrelevant. As for number 3, we may never agree on it. You apparently believe in a one size fits all approach---everybody has to be an article builder. I firmly believe the project is big enough that we can take people from different areas. The ideal candidate should have exposure in more than just the article space. Not everybody likes working there.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose per Skomorokh and Ynhockey. AdjustShift (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose. A brief look at the edit history showed some bizarre unreferenced entries on Dendodge's most edited page [1] ; oddly enough, it remained in mainspace to date. Granted, it was half a year ago, halfway through his edit history, but still I feel distrust to a user who invents non-existent info and includes it in articles.
   NVO (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I understand your reason for opposing, but I don't understand how the diff given is relevant to adminship. In the edit provided, Dendodge is adding a translation for the name of Kristallnacht--a non-controversial edit, an edit that is not likely to be challenged unless incorrect (which it may have been, but even if it is, every human makes mistakes)--and not providing a source does not seem like that big of a deal to me. Also, as you mentioned, this was over six months ago. Could you please qualify your opposition? Malinaccier (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   After brief IRC discussion, I used the Russian articles for the root words and fused them. None of us spoke Russian, but decided that adding Russian translations was a good idea and that that was the best way to do so. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 21:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, that sounds like a lot of work considering the Russian article bearing the full title has existed since 2005. We can say "verifiability, not truth" all we want, but at the end of the day being wrong is a more serious problem than being unreferenced. I know it sounds like double-speak (which is slightly different than bilinguality) but it is just another thing you'll have to get used to. The point of all this is that token translations don't really need to be sourced provided most bilinguals can agree on it at any given moment, as languages change rapidly and dictionaries/encyclopedias/etc. are a reflection of the people who speak them, not the other way round. One day I added this information but deliberately omitted the source because I couldn't find a {{cite hitler}} template and I wasn't sure I wanted to admit thumbing through Mein Kampf anyway (especially in the original Deutsch—ooh, scary…), plus I just knew some nimrod was likely to revert it on the basis that Uncle Adolf is not a reliable source (which is usually true enough), but this doesn't make me a Nazi or a bad editor. Below average and arguably a little paranoid about getting things right, but not bad . — CharlotteWebb 22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. The candidate's commentary at
   Stephano (Shakespeare), which is entirely written by Dendodge, is pretty underwhelming. Transit of Venus March is also a 300-word start-class article. Product of admin coaching; I have elaborated at length as to why attempting to learn common sense from neatly packaged quizzed is undesirable elsewhere. east718 // talk // email // 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I assume you meant Transit of Venus March, for Transit of Venus is featured. Artichoker[talk] 22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yep, my mistake. east718 // talk // email // 22:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   FYI,

   talk) 23:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

6. Oppose You're under 16 and too immature IMO, concentrate on your GCSE's instead. RMHED (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Please see

   WP:AAAD - age is a factor I cannot help, and should not be a factor in my RfA - I spend more than enough time working on my GCSEs, and it's the responsibility of my parents and teachers to decide that. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 22:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Dendodge, I'm on your side all the way. Also, RHMED, I'm ready to oppose any RfA you have for that. --

   ^Sign! 23:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   That's really not helpful, I would ask that you strike that comment and apologise. RfA is bad enough without petty squabbling breaking out. Nick (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   To Dendodge, It's my opinion and obviously differs from yours, but is just as valid. To Dylan620, join the queue, it's rather long by now I imagine. RMHED (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry about that last comment. I shouldn't have let that comment by RMHED get to me, and I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings. --

   ^Sign! 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Dylan you can oppose him for that reason or any other, or you can trade him a support vote for a GA review, or in sports terms a second-round draft pick and a bag of balls, just don't gloat about it and most of us won't care. — CharlotteWebb 23:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Your comment on GCSEs is irrelevant, you may as well just replace it with "A levels", "degree", "work", "hobbies" etc. Everyone's busy with something in real life. A further explanation of your logic would be great. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Logic be damned, I'm a human being and seldom function logically as opposed to instinctively. RMHED (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You could have used diffs instead of opening up a can of worms, right? -

   Mailer Diablo 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

7. BLP does not state that "no content in articles related to living people should contain anything offensive." The followup didn't help any – the example he gave was pure vandalism, not something that should be removed specifically under BLP. WRT to Q11, his answer shows he didn't do any research before responding; which is not a trait we want in administrators. His answer to Q5 is also wrong: he should not be denying an unblock request for a block that he made. Finally, I agree with Skomorokh; the answer to Q9 is extremely political and noncommittal, which indicates he's just trying to jump through hoops to pass RfA. seresin ( ¡? )  23:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Comments at
   THE GROOVE 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Not labouring the point, but you do realise that while Arbs and Checkusers have to provide identity and proof of age, Admins don't? I don't understand that part of your Oppose.--Rodhullandemu 23:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, I realise that. Your point?

   THE GROOVE 23:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   If I had to hazard a guess, it's because administrators aren't legally accountable for anything they do (versus CUs and ArbCom). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Really? Has that premise ever been tested in a US law court? Or is it just your opinion? RMHED (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That's pretty impressively wrong, EVula.

   THE GROOVE 02:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   What EVula said. I'm sure the closing 'Crat will give it due consideration. --Rodhullandemu 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You don't have to be 18 to be legally accountable everywhere in the world. Secondly I'm lost as to why some seem to believe it to be a good thing that volunteer admins should be able to be held legally accountable? For example if they didn't properly fix defamation or a copyright issue fast enough or correctly, do you believe they should have legal proceedings brought against them? I'm simply trying to tease out what's going on in this line of reasoning and how it applies to this candidate's RFA.

   talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

9. Oppose - Per seresin and also because I see too many signs of haste and immaturity. Dendodge's comments in the
   Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses thread are one example, and some of his remarks and answers here don't sit well with me either: "any half decent administrator is a net gain for the project", "I'm not being paid, so why do a job I don't enjoy?", the "Republicn propoganda/vandalism" logic, etc. Finally, his off-wiki blog remark "Even the law is ageist nowadays"[2] made me almost spill my drink. I don't mind being used as a bad example in the blog, honest, and I know the blog hasn't got anything to do with his Wiki-work, but it does show me there's still a lot to learn. So, no, sorry.    SIS  23:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Oppose. I have mixed feelings and significant reservations about promotong any under 16 user for adminship. I think it may be justified in some cases where a candidate's record is particularly outstanding. That does not appear to be the case here. In fact, there are sufficient reasons to worry about both the grasp of policy and general maturity issues. Initial answers to RfA questions were too short, luckluster and sometimes plain wrong. As noted by Seresin, the answer to Q5 was incorrect: you should not decline a block for an unblock you had given and leave it to another admin to make a decision on an unblock request. The answer to Q7 regarding BLP was also problematic. As noted by others, the article-writing record is somewhat underwhelming. The WP:AN discussion link provided by East718 is particularly concerning. It involves a discussion regarding fairly controversial, complicated and dicey matters of some WP article images on Wikipedia being classified in the UK as child pornography and the legal implications thereof for WMF (I think Gurch has just gotten a 3RR block in relation to the controversy arising from that WP:AN thread). In my opinion this exactly the sort of an issue where an involvement by a user (and even more so an admin) who is a minor would be particularly inappropriate and the aggressive and immature comments by the candidate in WP:AN thread were quite worriesome. Nsk92 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose mainly for the reasons stated above me by some, but also because I see far too many signs of hasty actions without any direct thought. Your comments regarding the UK ISP issues would have been bad for the project: houding the IWF is not a sensible and mature thing to do; especially when you haven't actually taken the time to look into what they do. (Yeah - actually, I think it's EU-related too - maybe a non-UK European could check it out to see if they're blocked too?) I think being a good admin is about knowing when to step back and shut up and I don't thing you have an adequate grasp of this to become an admin at this time. Woody (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose because he made too many foolish posts to
    neutral point of view. If anything, such a writer should disclose their opinion to avoid hiding a possible personal bias: it's better to put your personal opinion out in the open so that nobody suspects you of secretly writing with a hidden agenda.[reply
    ]

    Aside from specific immature posts to Jimbo's page, I sense a more general sycophantic respect for Jimbo that borders on worship of the project's founder. Dendodge has made at least 20 posts to Jimbo's talk page (search his contributions in the "user talk" namespace). Some of them have been a complete waste of Jimbo's time if he bothered to read them (which perhaps he did not, but other people do read that page and are equally hopeful to see useful discussions there.) Others have been useful, but there are better ways to spend your time on Wikipedia than responding to queries on Jimbo's talk page. Furthermore, just above on this page, Dendodge writes: "However,

    continues to discuss its implications, and Jimbo's opinion is just one of many valid opinions in the community. So I don't want to insult Jimbo's judgment or your judgment either, but if you wish to accept a leadership role on this website you need to grow up, think on your own feet, and not be overly concerned with what Jimbo thinks about you. Crystal whacker (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    If it's any relief to you I doubt Jimbo read any of it. — CharlotteWebb 02:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose per the wrong answers to Q5 and Q7, the bad answer to Q11, and the non-answer to Q9. I'm not a big fan of the admin coaching either, though that's not a major reason for my opposition. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose - For not understanding what constitutes BLP. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Weak Oppose - I'm very wary of making this vote, but I'm leaning far enough to the oppose side that I suppose I should end up in this camp. For me, the only thing causing me to vote this way is the rather weak article contributions; I have no objection to the user's age (particularly considering its proximity to my own). The editor has a habit of using only primary sources to write articles without asserting any notability (see
    SingaLongaWarYears (which cites Amazon Customer reviews in its infobox as the only reviewer). I'm just nervous about the mainspace edits, especially considering that his two best articles by his own statement are Transit of Venus, a respectable start class article, and George Harrison which was quickfailed at GA (though I have no doubt that it'll be up to snuff soon enough). These problems in his mainspace articles are just enough to push me towards oppose, though I'm not set in stone with my vote. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Oppose, as the evidence provided by others of immaturity and trying to avoid giving an honest opinion in answering the RfA questions worries me. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 07:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose While several editors I respect are supporting you, I find the combination of multiple RfA's and the poor BLP an inexcusable combination: If you don't grok it by now, why would you ever? Jclemens (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, three RfAs are clearly a bad thing. ;-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The lack of BLP understanding is the main issue--the third run at RfA and coaching, matched with that, just exacerbate my perception that the candidate isn't a good fit. Obviously, some candidates do just fine in a third RfA. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm...yes...well... Xclamation point 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose - I am worried by the stuff I have read above, but I won't pile on by writing a big load of blah and potentially cause drama like has occured above. —
    neuro^(talk) 13:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I should mention that I do not oppose based on his age, I believe the editor at hand is mature and that age is an irrelevant factor. —

    neuro^(talk) 17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Strong oppose - from what I've seen, this user is heavily biased and following an agenda. His user page is kinda scary, should I add --Virevolter nonobstant (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User's only edit is this oppose. Do we indent in these cases?

    Tan | 39 14:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Indent and then leave it to the 'crat I believe.Ironholds (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19. The cluelessness of the candidate as pointed out by other editors seriously worries me. -
    Mailer Diablo 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. See initial support. Some concerns raised by the opposers above me are worrying; Q11, in particular, is very shaky. Caulde 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose I'm trying not to oppose things lately, but a lack of understanding of BLP is a dealbreaker, even if I could just about overlook the open political bias GTD 16:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose I will very occsasionally support a candidate under 18, but only if he or she has a pristine resume. Keepscases (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose Sorry, way too young. I understand the reluctance to being ageist, but there is definitely a limit. Below 16 and have the tools should be something used in extreme circumstances. On top of that, the need to become an admin is obvious, and it shouldn't be such a necessity. Stay an editor, give yourself a couple of more years, delve deeper into the encyclopedia and then see where it goes. Not yet. bigjake (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Young people could be prodigies and help Wikipedia more than most adults in the world can. I honestly don't see your initial point; in this case, with all the other valid reasons brought up by others, he may lack what's required of a sysop but age really couldn't matter less. -- Mentisock 15:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, 'could' be prodigies, hence the statement of 'under extreme circumstances.' The circumstances of 'being a prodigy' is unique and not the standard. Unfortunately, I have not seen said user exhibit anything above normal. Unfortunately, age does matter, regardless of what people may try to skew. Statement stands as well as my vote. He's not ready. bigjake (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just contrasting and exemplifying. 'Adults' on WP (really, this is the Internet: a person could be a 200-year-old tortoise for all you know, and that's exactly why you shouldn't make a judgement using age as a basis) aren't required to be prodigies for adminship, and in any case all that's required is trust and ability mostly here. If young people have trust and ability then there's a consensus as well, it's always been like that (and in many cases the user simply doesn't mention their age). As I said this user mainly has other substantial negative issues that people are addressing and if he doesn't pass then that's because there wasn't enough of either trust or ability, but surely not due to a number. -- Mentisock 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24. Oppose Per Skomorokh, Ynhockey and east718 with some caveats. Age is not important to me. I respect decisions made by people who would be less willing to support an admin under a certain age (though not those decisions where age is treated like a brightline). Further I don't think that changing behavior following an unsuccessful RfA is a sign that the user is here only to be a sysop or isn't grounded in their desire to edit the encyclopedia. An RfA is a nervewracking and sometimes horrifying experience. Mine was successful but for someone who does not have a successful RfA, the appearance can be one of rejection. They may say "well, it is clear that I'm not editing the way that people think I should be" and change behaviors. I also am unconcerned about "adminmills" and admin coaching. In my mind, most "admin coaching" involves a user who is already seen as a good candidate for the bit learning some of the tropes and idiosyncracies of RfA. This is far less important now that we have fewer "cookie cutter" questions about blocks and bans and CDB's and what not. Admin coaching was (IMO) partially designed to get around the possibility of failing an RfA by saying something silly like "A ban is where a user is indefinitely blocked" instead of the proper (but c'mon, equally silly) "A block is a technical measure used to prevent a user from editing and a ban is a community decision to...". But the questions raised about your understanding and assessment of wikipedia policies are valid. It is a red flag (to me) for a user to have been here as long as you have and not be able or willing to produce an answer to question 9. Specifically, the answer produced was a complete dodge. So I can't support this candidate. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What if the candidate genuinely is happy with the policies and guidelines as they are, and wouldn't want to change anything? Do you regard this as not a legitimate answer, or is it just the way Dendodge said it? Reyk _YO! 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a fair question. I would say that it is hard for me to imagine someone who critically engages with policies and doesn't know of one that they could safely criticize (or where their views are outside of the consensus). But if they did critically engage and felt that policies and guidelines were all acceptable, yes I would hope for a better answer. Honestly the question itself has the potential to be great but is probably ruined by the environment. An RfA would be a high pressure place to say "I don't think WP:BLOCK is right about cooldown blocks" or even (as he writes below) that we should have a mandatory recall system. So what may seem like a good question could turn into a poor one through no fault of the candidate. I'll think about my oppose some more, thanks. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25. Oppose - the candidate's comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action are not the work of someone who ought to be an administrator. On a matter relating to child pornography, I interacted with the IWF when I was an administrator, and any admin ought to be able to do this without inflaming a conflict and misrepresenting the real problem of child pornography. The candidate also has a tendency to bludgeon the oppose votes. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, this matter has hit the mainstream media - see, eg [5]. I'd hate to think that Dendoge could be quoted in the media as an administrator of wikipedia. I'd prefer for Daniel Bryant and his ilk to be the ones quoted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It hit days ago. Some moralistic Brit gets a stick up their arse, and Wikipedia gets singled out for an album that's been around for decades... flat out idiocy. I am an admin, and the press can quote that. Nothing that Dendodge is saying is over the top, or even controversial. If anything, we should be pushing back hard at any country, especially countries that should know better, who dare censor us. China is who you expect this from. Not Britain. Grow some spines. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

26. Strong Oppose per most of the above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Weak Oppose - I don't care about your age, your blogpost or the answer to Q9, and I share your view of rap music in Q15. But I don't agree with your answers to Q7 and 11, especially Q7 as
    WP:BLP is something you'd be likely to have to police as an admin. Many BLP's contain material that is offensive to somebody, but thats not the criteria for determining whether to include it in the article. Material in BLP's should be verifiable, neutrally worded and not based on or containing original research or synthesis. Undue weight and similar are also worth considering (as you noted in your supplementary answer). On the other side of the ledger, the Help Desk work is impressive as is your recent article improvement work. A weak oppose only. Euryalus (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Oppose - See his alarming answer to Q11. Tennis expert (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Regretful Oppose, I'm sure you mean well but you need more experience I think. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose. Per Skomorokh and Ynhockey. Dendodge hasn't quite grasped the ropes just yet.
    Mentality 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
31. Oppose While I trust the nominators, I have to oppose you. As said above already, I too noticed you quite often the last days and weeks but never in a good light. Comments like this on a page that will definitaly be read by the press make us look bad, although I can understand the frustration in this case. But it is one thing to be frustrated and another to go around calling others names. I have no problem with underage admins, some of our very best admins are not 18+ years old, but you are simply not ready for the tools. Regards SoWhy 09:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose - lack of maturity. fish&karate 11:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. I don't think his answer to question 7 is quite developed enough. Seems to lack some of the needed judgment. I think Dendodge will make a decent administrator someday, but I just don't think he or she is quite ready. (And an issue not weighted in my opinion is his or her hideous userpage... e kala mai.) Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strong Oppose. Lack of maturity -- not really suitable for adminship.
    Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
35. Oppose Q7 and Q11 raise deal-breaker concerns. Not qualified.
    Townlake (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
36. Oppose Q7 and Q11 are unacceptable. I might support a 4th one; I think you'll eventually be a net positive, but not right now.
    RockManQ^{Review me} 22:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Oppose. He wants the tools, but he's not ready for the responsibility. — Athaenara ✉ 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose - Some things don't concern me, such as your age, the number of RfA's you have had and the answer to Q9. Other things do however, your answers to the questions overall show a lack of necessary experience for the tools, particularly Q5. I am also a bit concerned over comments you have made across Wikipedia times, some of which make rather sweeping statements that may make unnecessary controversy - administrators can have jokes but should be generally mature and professional when communicating. You are certainly a good contributor, but I have unfortunately come to the conclusion you are not ready for the tools yet.
    (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Oppose - I am mostly concerned about a lack of understanding of BLP issues as evidenced by Q7. This is far more serious than most work an admin or editor will do. It is so important that it almost brings an automatic oppose. Your youth is a factor too. Those candidates under 18 only receive my support when I see a stellar history here. Unfortunantly I just don't see that exceptional work here. JodyB _talk 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose No sorry, I don't believe you are ready for this role. Adminship is no big deal but it is a damn hard voluntary role.--VS ^talk 13:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose Some answers to questions were pretty bad. Just seems clueless in many important areas. SashaNein (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppoose - many concerns. Does not appear to be familiar with BLP - suggests he'd be open to recall, which should always result in an oppose. Others suggested above. WilyD 21:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you sure you don't mean oppose? You wrote oppoose instead. --

    ^Sign! 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Of course I mean both. I thought it went without saying ... WilyD 14:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, what does "oppoose" mean? --

    ^Sign! 19:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

43. Oppose 1) The Answers - ouch ouch ouch. 2) Age - IMHO those still at the compulsory education stage need to demonstrate manifest exceptionality that overrides the inherent lack of life experience. Necessary for the required level of judgment. This candidate, alas, has too often just oozed immaturity instead. 3) Adminship-is-a-big-deal-to-me symptoms. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose a fair few concerns in the contribs that suggest lack of understanding of BLP and lack of maturity/experience. As the age question has been raised - I do not think age is important, I have strongly backed younger candidates before, and I've opposed a fair few immature adults (the only requirement for adulthood is chronology, not experience or passing a test or such like). Speaking as an admin myself I've had to handle some rather nasty situations where careful diplomacy and judgement is a must, and given that adminship is for the whole project with no limitations, I'm not sure from observing you that you would not have inflamed one or two of those situations to the point of an RfC. Orderinchaos 05:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Due to the concerns echoed above, I cannot support you at this time.
    miranda 08:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
46. Oppose per Skomorokh. Leujohn ^(talk) 09:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Strong Oppose - many, many concerns that others have already thoroughly brought up. I think the common, unifying theme is a lack of circumspect thought, highlighted of course, by the dubious BLP reading, but mainly by the hot-tempered insinuations of being under attack ("Republican propaganda" against Obama, IWF battling WP ("Because we get more Google hits"), and the ageism on- and off-wiki crusade). A good admin must be able to see an issue with a non-judgmental approach, in order to make good decisions. -Seidenstud (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose Apologies, Dendodge, but I'm not really satisfied with your answers to my questions. I don't agree with the points raised by Skomorokh, but as I said, he's entitled to his opinion. The above oppose from Seidenstud sums up my thoughts accurately; BLP views aren't quite right, us-vs-them mentality, and since I don't believe that ageism is a valid reason to oppose, it shouldn't be a valid reason to combat opposes either. GlassCobra 09:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Oppose I find the age here an issue and maybe I am wrong for that and also lack of understanding of BLP is a concern. BigDunc^Talk 15:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose. Inadequate understanding of policy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose because of the concerns that have been raised about your maturity for adminship.--Berig (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Sorry, no thanks, not at this point. Daniel (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral for now per article work. The Harrison and Venus articles are nice, yes, but the Harrison one just quickfailed a GA because of "many, many paragraphs where things are not sourced" and this doesn't give me a good feeling about the Venus article either. Note that my attitude is not "candidates must have article work, kthxbai" (and any of the perennial "article work is/is not important for a candidate" debate turning up in response to my !vote will not be answered) but I do feel that someone answering Question 2 with article work should be willing to put their money where their mouth is.Ironholds (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that the Harrison GAN was maybe a bit premature - I'll carry on looking for sources, and resubmit it when it's completely sourced. The Venus one was because the source I used (the Washington post, I believe) had either made a mistake (see the talk page). I'll write about something I know more about next time. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 12:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Switching to support then.Ironholds (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting so automated !vote tally is correct. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 12:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - Somethings keep my opinion bouncing between support or oppose. I'll return I just don't know where.
   matthew ✡ 13:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I will stay here, your coaching page says support, but some questions say oppose.

   matthew ✡ 00:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Moved to SupportNeutral for now; Mainly because of this part of your answer to Q7 "

   WP:BLP means that no content in articles related to living people should contain anything offensive. This means that anything remotely controversial should be sourced and written neutrally." You might want to rethink that, if you want a hint as to why, look at David Irving. ϢereSpielChequers 15:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Moved to SupportNeutral for now. I want to support, but some feeling just keeps preventing me from doing so. I'll change later, most probably, but to what column, I don't know. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral from support Rethinking...Q5 and Q7 worry me more than I thought. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral The BLP thing and - to a lesser extent - your reluctance to give IPs a {{2nd chance}} are slightly concerning, but not enough to push me to oppose. Best wishes, Olaf Davis | Talk 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral leaning oppose (from support) The BLP question is a problem. Also, I'll freely admit that I'm a (proud) ageist and although I first decided to overlook age in this case, the blogpost dug out by Maxim makes me regret this. It takes a fairly high level of cluelessness to equate ageism with sexism and racism. I'd love to see a disgruntled teen who has been refused adminship on Wikipedia go and tell Rosa Parks: "If you think your life is tough, wait 'til I tell you what I had to go through". Teens can be competent admins, adults can be incompetent admins. But keen judgement, ability to handle conflict, ability to justify one's actions are essential qualities for admins and the fact is that these are skills that most teens are still developing. No shame in that: some adults never even get there. But it's fair to assume that younger editors are less likely to be ready for admin responsibilities. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral, not the best answers to questions. Could use a bit more developing.  
   (Talk)  04:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. A number of concerns. I want to reiterate Pascal's point however. I think you are a good editor, but you should probably reflect upon the differences between racism and ageism and why it's not a particularly acceptable comparison. --JayHenry (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. The concerns raised by the opposers, conduct at
   talk) 10:23, 12 December 2008 (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.