Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dycedarg


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

Dycedarg
Final: (14/8/13); ended 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

- I decided to nominate myself for adminship because I think that having the tools would allow me to make a greater contribution to the project. I usually limit myself to the more technical/wikignomish areas of editing as well as vandalism fighting, but I still believe I've attained the necessary experience with policy and standard practice to be able to perform well in the areas of adminship I'm interested in. Additionally, I know I was recently absent almost entirely from Wikipedia for a good stretch, but that was due to familial and medical issues wholly beyond my control, and such an absence is unlikely to recur. I had planned on trying an RFA back then, and so here I am now. Dycedarg  &#x0436;  02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would be willing to work in any backlogged area, but starting out I would like to limit myself mostly to work I'm currently experienced at, such as vandalism fighting (AIV, obvious CSD, etc.), as well as some areas I've observed which look interesting to me, namely cut and paste move repairs, and other time-consuming or complicated maintenance tasks. Later, after having spent sufficient time observing and participating in these processes, I could see myself branching out into the realms of XfD and image deletion. Most of what I'm primary interested in is in the technical/maintenance aspects of adminship; I can't see myself getting hugely involved in any particularly controversial issues for a while; at least not until I was more comfortable with what I was doing. I would like to state that when first I because interested in Wikipedia, I observed the various goings on for a fair amount of time before broadly editing so as to gain as broad an understanding of what goes on as possible; I would apply this same principle to adminship. I would never delve right into an area with admin actions that I was not intimately familiar with through both observation and normal participation.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: As I said above, I will freely admit that I have not made a sizable number of large mainspace edits. I would like to say I'm equally proud of all my work, as I try to put the same amount of forethought and consideration into everything I do. Forced to pick something, I would have to say I enjoyed the work I put into building the bot that I used to add the Gini coefficient to a number of articles (see my bot page for more info on this). Also, lest you think I do no writing at all, I re-wrote most of the second section on this cartoon villain; much of what I wrote originally still remains the same. It's not a great article, but I tried to do the best I could considering the fairly complete lack of sources for cartoon characters.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I don't relish conflict, and have mostly avoided getting in any extended conflicts. I seem to remember some kind of conflict related to the Tom McMahon article, though that was towards the start of my absence and I left pretty much in the middle of it. Also I participated as a mostly neutral party in a small tiff on the First World page until some more experienced editors came in to help sort things out. As I did in that case, I like to remain as neutral as possible in a debate, considering all views carefully before selecting one. Though I can be somewhat stubborn in the degree I'll go to prove my point, I prefer doing so in a logical and evidence based fashion rather than resorting to emotional outbursts, and being careful to concede where an opponent's point is valid; always refuting someone based upon my judgment of the quality and basis of their argument rather than on any other basis.

Questions from User:Nousernamesleft


 * 4. What's the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A: A block is simply a software feature that prevents someone from editing, put into place by an admin. They are usually put into place to prevent disruption by an editor, such as continuous vandalism, or to enforce a ban. They are primarily preventative in nature and are not to be used as a means for punishment or reprisal by an admin. Additionally, blocks only affect individual accounts. Bans, on the other hand, affect editors, no matter what account they choose to edit under. They are applied by the community, ARBCOM, or in rare incidences by Jimbo or the foundation itself. They are put into place when it is decided by the body or personage initiating the ban that the person in question is simply incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia policies and maintain proper civility in dealings with other editors. In many instances a ban only applies to certain pages that very often lead the person in question into their bad behavior.


 * 5. What's your opinion on admin recall?
 * A: I feel that it is a very good thing. While I would prefer a more standard approach, really I like the idea of admins being given the opportunity to put themselves out there as simple people who are willing to admit that perhaps they simply are no longer suited to continuing their adminship. Not that I would hold it against those admins who choose not to participate, as I've seen some of them state their reasons before and I believe many of them to be valid. I would definitely sign up for it, though I don't think I'd make it as formal as to specify numbers of people and minimum experience requirements. If it looked like enough people had a major problem with me, I'd have no problem on opening a forum for people to lay out their problems with me. And if consensus ruled I was no longer fit, then I would have no problem with giving up my adminship.

Questions from Ultraexactzz
 * 6. Could you discuss your editing patterns from April 2007 through this month? What made you come back? Do you foresee any similar wikibreaks in the future?
 * A: Basically, I had some major personal issues that required significant time and effort to overcome. I had little time or energy to expend on internet related activities of any kind. Although such problems can be difficult to predict, I can honestly say that my reasons for leaving are highly unlikely to recur for a very long time. As for why I came back, I enjoy Wikipedia. I never intended to leave for good.
 * Sorry if it sounded like I was prying, as that wasn't my intent - but your contribution history looked atypical, and I wanted to give you a chance to clarify before it became a cause of concern for !oppose comments. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 05:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry about it. I understand that an absence of that length looks funny, especially given how recent it was.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  06:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE .

They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.


 * 7. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?


 * A- Much would depend on what exactly the abuse is. If it warranted an immediate block of the sockpuppets, I would do so. I would then ask the editor on his talkpage to explain or justify his actions. If his explanations proved unsatisfactory, I would probably take it to an RFC. I would then pursue it as future events warranted.


 * 8. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?


 * A- I would respect the admin's decisions, but I wouldn't abandon the problem. I would still try to see if things could be solved through methods other than arbitration, and if not I would assist in the arbitration process to whatever extent I could. If the case was rejected, I would do my best to bring the matter to a civil discussion, and bring other knowledgeable editors to it to assist in finding as mutually agreeable solution as possible. Other methods, such as further blocks or page protection would be used only if absolutely necessary.


 * 9. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?


 * A- The difficulty inherent in changing anything of importance. There are very few things that could possibly be suggested at this point on any controversial issue that would result in a consensus. Everyone has different opinions on how things should be done, and it is very difficult to work out a solution that everyone agrees on because there are never enough people involved in formulating the policy before it is discussed by the community.


 * 10. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?


 * A- An obviously vandal-only account, or a proven sockpuppet of a banned user. Of course, each situation would be dealt with individually, and I am not one for hard and fast rules. I would always default to a temporary block if I wasn't absolutely sure of the circumstances.


 * 11. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
 * A- It would depend on the contents of the discussion. If the circumstances of certain comments were shady, then I might give them less weight in formulating my decision. However, the first thing I would consider before ignoring any comment is the reasoning and basis in policy behind its opinion. An account with three edits and a two or three-word reason for keep or delete would get most definitely get less weight than an established editor who wrote a well reasoned opinion based on policy. Of course, AfD isn't VfD anymore for a reason. It's not vote counting, and in establishing a consensus the arguments are more important the the sheer number of people who voiced them.


 * 12. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?


 * A- In AfD I think it depends on the article. An obvious case might be decided by five people, anything that isn't clear-cut should be decided by a decent number of people. I don't think I would have a definite number, it would depend on the circumstances and on the arguments being made. It doesn't look to me like RfD discussions typically get many opinions regardless, so it would be kind of hard to enforce a definite number there. On CfDs it's a similar situation. In any situation like this I would try to use my best judgment to determine whether or not I feel sufficient input has been given for consensus to have been reached.


 * 13. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?


 * A- I don't typically let myself get to the point where I'm being overwhelmed by stress. If it does happen, I'll typically walk away from the situation before I do something I'll regret later.


 * 14. Why do you want to be an administrator?


 * A- Because I think I could be useful to Wikipedia as one. I don't typically seek attention, and I like doing background things, but there are a number of things that I could be useful at given the tools that I think warrant my seeking them. I don't seek adminship due to the cool value or the vaunted status, but as a means by which I can do more for Wikipedia. One of the reasons I decided to go for it is that I'm not about to be crushed if I don't make it; I want it and I'm willing to put up with answering questions for a week so I had no particular reason not to.

Question from X ENON 54 | talk | who? | 01 Feb 2008 13:27GMT
 * As you've had a lot of questions, I'll try to keep this one short.
 * 15. You come across the following articles that are tagged for speedy deletion. Do you delete?
 * "Timothy Smith is a well-known tech support guy from Spokane, Washington." (A7)
 * A: Seeing as being even a well-known tech support guy isn't inherently notable, I think I'd delete in the absence of other qualification. Especially if the contents of the article is just that one sentence.
 * A page that was previously speedied. (G4)
 * A: It would not qualify under G4, as anyone is welcome to recreate a speedied article if they believe that they can overcome the reasons for which it was originally deleted. I'd evaluate it to see if it fulfills the criteria under which it was originally deleted, and go from there.
 * Redirect: 1234567890 -> Number (R3)
 * A: Now I'd like to qualify that I haven't done a lot with redirects, nor do I intend to any time soon, so I'm not intimately familiar with what gets speedied and what gets put on WP:RFD. In this case I'd lean towards just deleting it. In my mind redirects are primarily there for when someone types something into the search box that can be reasonably assumed to lead where the redirect goes; I can't think of a single reason why anyone would type 1234567890 into a search box, let alone have any particular opinion about where it would go if they were to do so. I think I'd leave the redirect-related speedies alone at first though, until I've gotten more of a handle on what applies where.

General comments

 * See Dycedarg's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Dycedarg:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dycedarg before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Gaps can be overlooked. Wikipedia editing is not something one forgets. Experience in Wikipedia editing is applicable in a lot of other areas, and is recollected (in the Platonic way) just about every time one reads anything. User:Krator (t c) 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Sorry about the < > Wikipedia Inquisition!! >, but "the gap in editing" is going to be a major oppose point, and I needed to dig deeper. The answers to the Benon et al. questions tell me you are not likely to abuse the tools. You seem instead level headed and one to discuss and work within consensus, even if your personal opinion may be at odds with that of others. The support arguments may not be sufficiently convincing for this RfA to succeed, so I leave you some words of advice if this should prove to be the case. 1) Please wait another three months and 3,000 edits. You don't want auto opposes based on insufficient time. 2)Please continue to build experience in all of the admin related areas. The broader your editing, the stronger your experience and the more people will feel comfortable trusting you with the tools. 3) Please continue to create and build and improve articles. The experience is valuable even if one is primarily a wikignome. Please see User:Dlohcierekim/standards for info on my personal views on RfA. Cheers, good luck, and happpy editing. Dloh  cierekim  15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support This is a unique case. I have never before seen someone gone for a long time, then request adminship (not counting Kelly Martin, but that was different). I think if the prior experience qualifies the user for adminship, the qualifications do not really deteriorate over time, which is why we don't desysop retired admins such as Interiot and Filiocht.  Dycedarg is familiar with various aspects of policy and community workings.  He commented on the Daniel Brandt deletion review last February, if that gives some perspective.  A lot of his edits use bots/scripts/automated tools. My impression is that he'll mostly do harmless, repetitive admin stuff.  I don't think it's wise for him to start closing controversial AFDs. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - no convincing arguments to oppose. I believe he has enough experience to be able to use the tools competently. EJF (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, answers to the questions show experience, thought, and the ability to communicate clearly. And to be quite honest, I'm glad to have an admin candidate who can simply decide "I need some time off" and take it rather than burning out. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - based on his contributions, and his answer to Q1, I think he would use the extra buttons wisely. Addhoc (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support This was a pretty difficulty decision for me. Not enough to oppose, but just barely enough to support. RC-0722  communicator/kills 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Past edits seem to show experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Sf46 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per Shalom and per excellent answer to q15. Doc is right in his assertion that we shouldn't create admins who are "allergic to articles", but I think this candidate has enough substantial mainspace editing experience to be able to do the job competently. WaltonOne 15:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: Good answers to questions, good contributions, good number of contributions, has been registered for a good while... Will be a good administrator.  Rami  R  22:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support solid question answers and good intentions will make for a good administrator Pump me  up  03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Answers to questions show user will use the tools well. Gromlakh (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Well, if this user wants to tackle stuff in the background first, I don't mind. Although there's not a ton of mainspace edits, this user wants to wait until he/she gets more experience to work on XfDs, so I don't think it's much of an issue. Even if this admin never goes out to working on the mainspace, he/she won't hurt anything.  нмŵוτн τ  15:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak Support. This is a really difficult RfA to vote on.  Per my criteria you fail the two B-Class articles section, but pass everything else.  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt with your great vandal proof and twinkle work.   WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN play it cool.  20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Just recently came back, and still somewhat lacking in general experience. Jmlk  1  7  05:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose Yeah... there's been a hiatus since April 2007. Spencer  T♦C 12:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per all the above concerns. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I could not care less about the break - but there is simply a lack of mainspace engagement. If you can't point to half a dozen articles you've significantly contributed to, I will have to oppose. We are all editors first. Administrative specialisation is fine, but people who are basically allergic to articles are problematic. Two or three days of solid article work and you'll have my vote next time. (Remind me if I forget)--Docg 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll change to support in a couple of days? Cool!  Dloh  cierekim  20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Em, that's not what I said. I hope you are not trying to be flippant.--Docg 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Doc, I guess I don't understand.  Dloh  cierekim  22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm simply saying that my threshhold for content contributions isn't that high. If you spent even a couple of solid says contributing to articles that interest you, and writing a bit, you'd probably meet them. Then when you return to RfA next time, I'll probably support. I'm not suggesting you return in 2 days, a month or so would be better. Hope that clarifies.--Docg 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with Doc.  Admins need to be strong editors, familiar with MOS-based editing and referencing.  Though I think that'll take more than 2 or 3 days.  Dispute resolution experience would be good too.  Keep up the good work with vandalism reverting and typo fixing.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm not saying they need to be /strong/ editors, just that they need to be editors of some sort. I spend two years on this project before I glanced at the MOS, I get along fine without it mostly.--Docg 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen! Dloh  cierekim  22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose Come back in a couple of months. I'm worried @ all the above concerns. Perfect Proposal  Speak Out!  01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Doc. Administrators will end up having to deal with disputes surrounding articles, and the best administrators in these situations are those who have experience in article-creation and article disputes. Knowing when to intervene and when not to intervene, when to use protection instead of blocking or vise-versa, and how to deal with SPA's, editors with a strong COI, and how talk page discussions work in disputes are essential for administrators. Daniel (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose (sorry) - a GA or two and you'll be in the 'credit' range for mine next time. I need to see some 'pedia building cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Dead Neutral Wow, this is tricky. Your edits look good, gnomish work and plenty of accurate looking vandal fighting. Contributions regarding usernames show good policy knowledge. Answers to the questions seem okay. But that huge gap is hard to overlook. Things change so rapidly around here it makes me nervous. I really wish you'd held of until say the start of March, at least to give us two months of edits to go through. I'm not going to oppose, but I really can't support at the moment. Sorry. Pedro : Chat  13:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Too true. Well said. Dloh  cierekim  15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Pretty much echo Pedro exactly. I think your contributions are excellent, but I'd like to see you around for another couple months. Trusilver  20:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral A lot can change in several months of inactivity on Wikipedia. To be completely truthful, I cannot trust someone who has taken a long wikibreak and might've changed a lot. I need a few more months' experience to review so I can make a definite support/oppose decision. Tim  meh  !  23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral It's difficult to either support or oppose when there just is not enough recent concrete information to form a proper judgement. Lack of edit summaries is a minor niggle, and would help, but at present I feel it would be wrong of me to express an opinion either way. A month or two down the line, however... --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 00:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - Per Pedro. Tiptoety  talk 04:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral You do good work, but need more recent experience. Pollytyred (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral per Pedro and the opposers' concerns. Also, re my question Q15.1: the article in question had at least an assertion of notability and thus is not eligible for A7. While I don't think that this is enough to oppose, I definitely can't support, sorry. X ENON 54 | talk | who? | 01 Feb 2008 21:42GMT
 * I would appreciate some further feedback on this. I understand the wording of the template, and have seen it implemented. As this seemed kind of borderline, I even checked on WP:N. I simply decided in the end that the phrase "well-known" did not necessarily constitute an assertion of notability. Well-known is an extremely relative term; I could be well-known around a coffee shop or well-known in the national speaking circuit. I don't see the phrase "well-known" or any synonyms anywhere in any policy relating to the topic. They don't even necessarily go hand in hand when well known is defined in the national or worldwide sense; as the size of this encyclopedia proves, tons of stuff is notable yet relatively unknown, and almost as many things are well-known yet not notable in the slightest. One could perhaps say that the phrase implies notability, but then the implication of something is not the same thing as the assertion of it. It may seem like semantics, but this is one of the situations where I like to define the borderline rather tightly; the deletion system is overburdened enough without throwing useless AfDs at it, but deletion of potentially good content is even worse. Is there any better way of knowing where the line is? If it is indeed the will of the community to interpret the wording of the template as loosely as all that, I'd like to know so as to avoid making any related mistakes during my RC work in the future.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The criteria for speedy deletion are listed at WP:CSD, not in the wording of the templates.
 * In WP:CSD, "importance or significance" is specifically said to be distinct from "notability".
 * When there is doubt, you do not speedy-delete. You use prod or AfD. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I'll try to be more lenient in my application of A7 in the future.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listening. I put speedy tags on some things I shouldn't have when I was less familiar with the policy.  Now I realize that deleting a new article can really turn off new editors, who might just leave the project in frustration (like Ggggggggggggggg12 This case has nothing to do with this candidate ), whereas a slower deletion process or even maybe keeping and improving their article could make them feel welcome and they might grow into enthusiastic contributors. So it's important to be careful. --Coppertwig (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. For me, adminship centers around the processes of deletion/retainment.  I think it's hard to fully appreciate the thinking and the emotions of the several parties in any case of deletion/retainment if you aren't (haven't been) yourselves a substantial contributor in the mainspace.  Count on me next time when you come back with that track record.  --  Iterator12n   Talk 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per Tiptoety.  NHRHS 2010   19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I believe you have some very good edits but could use some more experience at of late. I understand about you absence, but I just don't think is quite ready for Adminship. Keep up the good work! Hatmatbbat10,a proud  Wiki ped  ian   (Talk) 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Mainly because of a lack of recent experience despite the 200 edits in January. Only 5 edits from May to December 2007. JForget 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Not enough evidence yet, sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral, needs a grater range of experience across Wikipedia, but no strong reason to oppose. King of the  North East 17:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.