Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dendodge 3

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

Dendodge

Final (61/52/7); Closed by Rlevse at 15:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dendodge (talk · contribs) – I was thinking of waiting until after Arbcom elections to do this, but I don't want him to have to wait because of me, and I think I'm far enough out of the race that it's not an issue now. Dendodge is a pretty solid editor who I've kept my eye on for a while. He's an active contributor to the Wikipedia:Help desk, which I've found a lot of good admins in the past. He's currently working on making George Harrison a GA, and also wrote the Transit of Venus March, so he does know his way around an article. He's also contributed a lot to The Beatles' WikiProject and Portal. He's contributed in many different namespaces and has shown himself to be a very competent editor, and I don't see any reason why he may not make a good admin. Wizardman 23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Malinaccier

I am proud to co-nominate Dendodge for adminship. My first interaction with Dendodge was back in May of this year in a quick review at his editor review. Even then, it was apparent to me that Dendodge was a very capable editor and would make a good administrator in the future. Further interactions with him proved that my assessment was correct. I quickly learned that Dendodge is both a skilled article builder and an intelligent user in several other areas. One of his strongest points is his willingness to help new users. His work at the help desk demonstrates a dedication to being helpful and kind in teaching new users learn the ropes at Wikipedia. His early involvement in commenting on the Administrator's Noticeboard further shows the work Dendodge has done regarding helping other editors. On another note, Dendodge has also done well helping the The Beatles Wikiproject grow, and has done well in the anti-vandalism area. Even before becoming an administrator, Dendodge has made it a point to make comments on the Usernames for Administrator attention page. He has also taken an active role in dispute resolution as a mediator, and has done well. As you can see, Dendodge has successfully done work as an administrator before even receiving the tools. With the knowledge that Dendodge already has had the success demanded of a good administrator, I humbly present him to the community as a great candidate for adminship. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept the nomination, and thank both nominators for the trust they have placed in me. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 11:46, 7 December 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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would probably focus mainly on deletion and blocking, but I will help to clear any backlogs I come across and deal with {{editprotected}} requests. Really, the only thing I don't want to get too involved in is page protection.

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

A: My best contributions are probably my edits to George Harrison and my work on Transit of Venus March. I'm also rather proud of my work on P:TB and in the little pieces of dispute resolution with which have dealt. _Edit:I also like what I did to {{WPBeatles}} - standardising its appearance using {{WPBannerMeta}}.

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: Anybody who has been here for more than a few months and answers 'no' to this question is lying. Even perfect editors (which I am not) will be involved in conflict. I have never violated the 3 revert rule, and always try and resolve it on the talk page or request the help of other editors. I stepped into the The/the debates on Talk:The Beatles and helped to bring the conflict to a close, and try to treat all conflicts which directly involve me in the same way - as if I was an impartial third party. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 11:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Could you perhaps explain why page protection is not an area you would want to get involved in? Not a trick question, I'm just interested.Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A: Mainly because it bores me, and I'm not very good at deciding when a page should be protected. If there's ever an abnormally large backlog I'll help out there, but most of the time I just can't be bothered. I'm not being paid, so why do a job I don't enjoy? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 12:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from GlassCobra

5. This is normally Xenocidic's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. I would probably decline the unblock request and tell them to sit it out_Edit:I didn't notice it said that I made the block - I would ignore it, and would have checked in more detail if it was real. They vandalised after making that one constructive edit, so they probably weren't telling the truth in their unblock request.

Follow-up: What are your thoughts on {{2nd chance}}? Would you consider using it?

Maybe - probably not for that IP, but for a registered user or static IP with some good edits I might consider it. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

6. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. If a user in good standing requested it and consensus seemed to be in favour, I would give up/run for reconfirmation of my adminship. I will also give it up if and when I retire.

Can you be more specific? Would you employ an RFC? Why or why not?

Yes - I would open an RfC to gather an idea of consensus, and if consensus was for me either standing down or running for reconfirmation, I would do so. If this passes, I will add myself to Category:Administrators open to recall and add a note about it on my userpage so everyone knows what steps I will take etc. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Please give a precise explanation of what you believe WP:BLP means. When should one ignore the policy?

A. 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. It is never OK, in my opinion, to ignore it - it is the most important policy we have, and trumps WP:IAR.

Follow-up question by Nsk92: Could you comment in more detail on what you mean by "anything offensive" in the first sentence of your reponse above? In particular, offensive to whom? Could you give a couple of general examples (without names, of course)?

Offensive to the subject of the biography. If a user adds an unsourced statement of "he is a big fat gay who bums men and is disgusting" to the lead, whether the subject is homosexual or not, it could be seen as offensive. If, in the 'Personal life' section, a user mentions a person's homosexuality and gives a reliable source, it is not so offensive - simply a fact neutrally worded in the relevant section pof the article, and so not given ndue weight. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 14:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

8. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What would you do?

A. I would discuss it with the blocking administrator - they may have done it for something I had overlooked. If they agreed the block was unnecessary, I would unblock. If we could not agree, I would begin a WP:ANI thrwad. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 12:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Skomorokh

9. If you had the power to change or get rid of one Wikipedia policy or guideline, which one would it be?

A. It works how it is for me. If I had to choose, it would be whatever consensus supported.

10. Why, in all honesty, do you want to be an administrator?

A. Wikipedia needs more administrators, and I feel that I could help. It's no big deal, but any half decent administrator is a net gain for the project. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 12:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from miranda

11. Why did you nominate Barack Obama for FAR? Why do you think this article is on probation?

A. I originally nominated it because here was a {{proseline}} tag on the article, meaning that it would have quickfailed any FAC, or even GAN. As the FAR went on, I noticed more problems, all of which were resolved by the end of said FAR, so I stimulated improvement of the article. I'm not sure about why it's on probation - probably to protect it from Republicn propoganda/vandalism. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft, another FA, has tags. Should we take the article to FAR, or just clean the article up if the issues are relatively minor? Re:Obama's article probation? Nope, that's not the reason it's on probation. Have you heard of BLP? This is probably enforced due to Obama's high visibility on the national stage, dubious information/sources existing on Obama, etc. It's not due to some "Republican propaganda". miranda 17:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Thehelpfulone

12. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?

A: I don't really think a category is necessary - it should be a requirement - but yes, I will. If I ever do something bad with my tools, I would give them up - should consensus request that I do so - for the good of Wikipedia.

13. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?

A: I would look for a relatively large number of reverts, a high percentage of which show a clear understanding of policy, and other contributions which demonstrate the same. I wouldn't grant rollback to a user who has reverted no vandalism, or who has reverted good faith edits as if they were vandalism, in their last 500 edits.

14. When should "cool down blocks" be used and why?

A: Per WP:CDB, never - they only inflame the situation. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to burden you with another question - I think your short answers cause people some concern as it's difficult to get a decent handle on you, so you then get asked another question! Anyway. Would you please review what is said in WP:CDB and expand upon your comment, giving a more considered view. Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 08:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Really stupid question

15. What have you got against rap music? — CharlotteWebb 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A. To me is seems that it has no melody - I hope it didn't offend anyone, it's just my opinion. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 15:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Spartaz

16. What life experiences do you have that prepares you for handling the stress that being an admin brings?

A. I live a fairly stressful life, but no particular incidents stick out. The great thing about Wikipedia is that when I get stressed, I just have to log out, and I can get away from it all until I cool down. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Question From Dcollins52 (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 17 So, If I was to support you, what would Adminship mean to the whole wikicommunity? I just think that I should know before I say yes or no. Because, if someone wouldn't do alot, I don't think many people would vote for them. Thanks.Dcollins52 (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Dendodge
• Requests for adminship/Dendodge 2
• Requests for adminship/Dendodge 3
• Requests for adminship/Dendodge 4

• Links for Dendodge: Dendodge (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• In case anyone's interested, my admin coaching page is here. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 11:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Trust me, we're not. — CharlotteWebb 12:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• That seems a bit unnecessarily hostile. An admin coaching page is usually of great relevance for a candidate going through RfA. GlassCobra 12:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed. Whatever your personal feelings on admin coaching there's no need to 1) be hostile and 2) assume everyone feels the same way.Ironholds (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dendodge, I'm sorry if this comment's coming out way too blunt, but I'm scared by your views on BLP, and I believe that as admin you will be a liability and not an asset. Here's why: you define WP:BLP in Q7 as banning any offensive content in a bio of a living individual. That's absolutely wrong, since that can easily mean deleting every mention of criminality, for example, in all our bios of living people. Your answer to Miranda's second question showed a shocking lack of insight. You should have immediately picked up on that, IMO, and going for right-wing whitewashers was a very bad answer. Add to that, Question 4: you must have some idea of when to protect articles, especially BLP enforcement. One of the biggest ethical and practical problems facing are Biographies of Living Persons: ethically, what should go or not in someone's biography who's everyone going to see, and practically, how do we (and we must do so!) enforce basic rules regarding these biographies to avoid harming the subject (and then by extension our coffers due to lawsuits et cetera). This is the biggest problem with admin coaching, which in my opinion teaches a bit more about passing RfA than actually being a good and CLUEfull admin. Add to that, this is your third RfA, you haven't authored many high-quality articles, and you've accused people, by extension in this RfA as well, east718 and RHMED of being bigots. You're absolutely not ready for adminship, as your lack of knowledge in some critical areas will make you a liability IMO. Maxim_(talk) 23:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • My definition of 'offensive' is obviously much narrower than yours, since mine does not include neutrally-worded facts about things like criminality. I had no idea about the article probation, and took a wild stab in the dark (I know I could have checked, but I didn't). Why must I have an idea of when to protect articles if it is an area in which I do not wish to get involved? I am more project-oriented than content-oriented, and I don't enjoy the small parts of article building (like copyediting and finding sources). The whole point of my blog was to be an off-wiki medium in which I can express my point of view without it affecting my activity here - a way for me to 'let it out' of my system. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, now it's better, you've narrowed down to offensiveness not including neutrally-worded facts. And what if the entire article is neutrally worded yet negative facts? You should always check if the article is on probation as to why it is--especially with BLPs of especially prominent people., you must be double-triple-extra-careful about editing. For article protection, it is important to be well-rounded as an admin, since even if you don't intend to click on [protect], you should have a rough idea of why you might have use that tab (especially BLP stuff). It's sad you seem to disregard the importance of good prose and sourcing, as those are one of the two biggest things that undermine our credibility. At least show a little bit of interest... As for the blog posting, making unfounded personal attacks against others is inexcusable, whether you do it on- or off-wiki. Maxim_(talk) 23:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Maxim, I don't see where he states that he does not enjoy any article building. He has shown interest in articles about The Beatles, and has not disregarded article building totally. Malinaccier (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see where I stated that he doesn't enjoy any article building. ;-) I was actually refering to the source-finding and copyediting things by my comment "show a little bit of interest." Maxim_(talk) 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• (unindent) Ahh, sorry I misunderstood. When you said "At least show a little bit of interest," I thought you were referring to all article building. Once again, I apologize for the misunderstanding :-). Malinaccier (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. :-) Maxim_(talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Neverthless it was pretty shocking to see a potential administrator say that "copyediting and finding sources" are "the small parts of article building". In fact, looking at all the detailed work Dendodge put into Transit of Venus March I wonder whether that is really what he meant to say.... Pointillist (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. From what I've seen, he looks like a great candidate. Q1 may not be the strongest explaination, but WP:WTHN? Master&Expert (Talk) 11:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Support: no clear reason to oppose. Has clue, will travel.Ironholds (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral.

3. Support - Promise me you'll do a road article if you pass. :P - Anyway great editor. I have minor concerns, but they shouldn't be a problem.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 13:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   I hope that wasn't a serious request - I can't do roads =P Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   Yes I was serious. Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   Does this count as canvassing? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   :P - Not canvassing, but deal-making.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 15:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   If that's a condition of your support, then you'd better swith to oppose, or I'll be up for recall as soon as I get the mop!

   Actually, I guess I could copyedit for you... Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Support Good interactions. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Hopefully, this will be your last RFA. No problems here. Good luck! America69 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Hello, I'm the new proctologist in town and I need to buy some medical supplies -- can I please get a crowbar, a plunger, a...oh, wrong queue. But while I'm here: Support for a highly qualified candidate who embodies the concept of "net positive." As an admin, he won't make an ass of himself (that's a little proctology humour). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Support appears to have grown with experience. Net positive. Instinctive response to tenuous oppose arguments. Dlohcierekim 14:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   Elaboration- review of deleted contribs shows user understands CSD criteria. Despite the use of automated tools, I did not find a large number complaints on user talk page about abuse, hastiness, inappropriate taggings. Writing articles is not essential to learning when to delete, protect, or block. Experience in admin related areas, while not essential or a guarantee, is a better predictor of readiness for the tools. Earlier RFA's were indicators of unreadiness. Admin coaching shows willingness to learn and to work with others in doing so. One does not need to be an experton every aspect of Wikipedia to use the buttons. Dlohcierekim 15:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

8. Strong support - The WP:RFPP thing is the only blemish I can find, and it's not even a big one. Besides, I thought you were an admin already! --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Hello, I'd like a #6 combo meal with extra fries and a chocolate shake...damn, wrong queue! Sam ^Blab 15:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - Knowledgable user, very trustworthy. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. Yes, this one is per nom. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Support The Helpful One 15:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    Support Yes. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Striking due to concerns above and below. – Amicon (Amicon) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

13. Support abf /talk to me/ 16:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. As co-nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Have seen Dendodge around doing good work on Bealtes-related articles; as to the opposes, fair enough but I think nine months is a fair time to wait since the last RfA and the fact that he's had Admin coaching gives me confidence that he's less likely to screw up. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    (Changing to neutral, though I stand by what I've said about some of the opposition) Support with loooooooooooooong rationale. Will do just fine. The "too many RfAs" and "not enough content writing" arguments can only go so far. There were four months between my first and second RfAs but at the time, just 20 months ago, nobody really seemed to care. Times have changed I suppose but I don't think people realize that most candidates apply for adminship because they think it'll be fun to do that sort of work on the project, not because they crave the power of admins. In fact, a candidate who's power hungry is pretty certain to be disappointed by the admin bit. I'd invite anyone swayed by the power hunger argument to reflect about the admins who, in their mind, abuse or at least overuse their power. I think they'll find that these admins had a tendency to get into fights long before they got their mop and this isn't the case here. I have my own reservations about admin coaching because I don't think it makes much of a difference. But it's an option offered to those interested in the job and it's unfair to view it strictly as a negative. Lack of content writing is a very legitimate concern but only insofar as there's evidence that a candidate does not understand (or respect) the problems and frustrations faced by editors. However you don't need thousands of edits to garner the necessary insight about these things. Dendodge has experience at the help desk and has a history of long-term involvement in a few articles. Would he be a better candidate if he had another X months of content writing? Sure. But there's no indication that he's clueless about content writing: he has helped with improving referencing, copy-editing, adding valuable content, assessing quality. At the very least, this shows understanding of various aspects of content contribution. His sysoping would be a net positive. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

16. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Appreciate concerns below, but would rebut with the argument that a candidate who is willing to help out is somebody we ought to be striving to elect, rather than turn away. Status-seeking never looks great, but Dendodge has held of RfA for some months now; it's probably no longer an issue. Otherwise, candidate seems trustworthy and competent. Support. AGK 18:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
18. Weak support. While not someone I am that familiar with, seem releatively reaosnable from the examples or arguments I looked at and the Barnstars, having not been blocked, and being nominated by Wizardman are all pluses.. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. Trustworthy, competent, good nominators. Good firsthand interactions. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
20. Weak support Epbr123 (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
21. Support, decent editor. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 19:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    Uncertain support. I appreciate you have been shown to be a good editor, but I also respect the oppositions' convincing, and largely true, arguments. Caulde 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

22. Support as nom. Wizardman 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - I like a lot of this user's contributions.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
24. Hmm — I do agree with Skomorokh... but you're a good candidate, so what the heck. —Ceran^{»^«} 20:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
25. Support – I've seen his work at the Wikipedia:Help desk, and Dendodge sure knows a lot of Wikipedia policies and understands them well. Obviously loves to help others. Has done some decent work in other places also. Would make a fine administrator. Thank you. – RyanCross (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
26. Support While I will oppose for coaching that doesn't do the job, here it did.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
27. Support The opposes are almost entirely unconvincing for me. I've only had good interactions with this user and I'd support whether it be his/her first, or his/her five millionth application for adminship. The number of fails is irrelevent, look at what the candidate is like now! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    switching to neutral#Support - net positive? Yes. Support? Yes. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

28. Decent count, good mainspace edits and good intentions. Well then, it has to be Support. Andy (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Quality candidate and I believe he deserves this.--Iamawesome800 20:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 21:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' concerns but find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
32. Support GerardM (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - have seen the candidate around, seems trustworthy and sensible. Mostly agree with the oppose 'voters' about problems with admin coaching, however, I don't believe the concerns are sufficient to justify opposing. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
34. As coacher and supposed co-nominator, I must support. Garden. 23:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
35. Support no glaring problems, don't see any reason why I shouldn't jump on this bandwagon. l'aquatique || talk 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. What I read down there in the oppose section was very amazing to me in a sickening sort of way. bibliomaniac15 00:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    Well if you're going to use emotive words like that, then at least explain what you found "sickening". RMHED (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

37. Support (from Neutral) - Reading through the ADCO page and the talk pages give me no reason to oppose, really. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
38. Support. As an long-term admin, I find the oppose reasons below mainly absurd. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 00:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    Well if you're going to use emotive words like that, then at least explain what you found "absurd". RMHED (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    Opposes 1,2,3,4 and 6, are absurd, to begin with. 5 is reasonable, I was slightly mistaken. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 04:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

39. Support Actually was planning to be neutral but after checking the track and rechecking it found that there is no chance of misuse of tools by the user and that the user is nomed and conomed by users I trust and that the fact of the user's age swing votes in this RFA against the candidate in a RFA which even otherwise is close and perhaps heading to the wire .It is impossible to find the age or gender of users unless they mention it or mention they students of a university or school etc but feel candidates should be judged only on basis of there editing track.While I respect the opinion of editors to vote against candidates on basis of there age.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
40. Strong Support There must be no reason for why this third RFA should not suceed. He is a great editor. MHLU^talk 03:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. I haven't seen anything that has convinced me that I should oppose. Candidate's apparent willingness to submit to administrator recall should solve any problems should they arise (which I highly doubt). DARTH PANDA^duel 03:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    Hi Darth Panda, do you have example(s) of "admin recall" ever having solved a problem? — CharlotteWebb 03:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not going to pretend that I'm thoroughly immersed in admin lore, because I haven't had an issue with an admin nor am I an admin, so haven't gotten a chance to do a detailed analysis of everything pertaining to admins. However, I have not seen anything to prove my belief (that admin recall should be successful) otherwise. I would obviously be open to enlightenment, but I would prefer you to take this discussion to my talk page, as I'm sure people here would prefer the discussion to remain about the nominee and not me :D. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

42. Support. I really don't understand the opposes; the BLP business was just an awkward word, and I didn't think his language in the AN thread on Virgin Killer was inflammatory. I often find myself opposing candidates under 16, but this candidate has been working hard on Wikipedia for a long time, and I've always thought his comments were mature. I'm striking my reasoning because, after going through the comments on both sides, I'm coming around to the position that "dueling" short justifications have a net negative effect at RFA. I'd rather see a justification that's so short that it's hard to argue with, or a long boring justification with lots of links and some sensitivity to both sides of the RFA arguments. So, here's mine: I follow that Dendodge sometimes uses the wrong words and sometimes might slip up and make things worse, but I think he's studied and worked hard, I'm guessing he will continue to do the same, and I think he's trustworthy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
43. weak support The answer about BLP concerns me but the followup makes me less worried. Everything else appears to be in order. The rest of the opposes are not convincing. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
44. Support: I've come across him at the Help Desk often, and I have seen enough to know that the user knows his way around Wikipedia. I don't think the age is really a problem, it's not he can't be responsible and trusted. Chamal ^talk 12:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Not convinced by the opposes. No reason to suppose he would abuse the tools.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
46. Support User seems to know what he is doing. Have no reason to believe he would abuse. Good luck. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
47. To cancel out these age related votes, I became a admin at 17. BLP question was a mistake but at least he clafified it. Secret ^account 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
48. Support as per the various reasons cited by Dlohcierekim and Pascal above. Clearly a reasonable candidate who, while not as polished as a solid and experienced admin, is no threat to the project. Has a clue, and demonstrates the ability to adapt and grow. Sad then that this RfA is on the verge of being the next case study on tendentious oppose votes. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
49. Hesitant Support- There are a few slight worries, but I am confident that this user would not abuse the tools. Reyk _YO! 23:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - because Dendodge is a great chap, reasonable and open to communication - he'll start off good, I reckon, and get better with time (like a fine wine really)..... Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)and there's a cookie if he can spot the beatles quote in my post.....

    I presume you're referring to "Getting Better"? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

    no! no soup for you! - I still think you'd be a good admin. - but I meant the bit at the end of Dig a pony - I'll go see if it's mentioned in the article! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    #Weak Support - Q7 and Q11 are shaky, but hopefully you'll be a net positive. RockManQ^{Review me} 01:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC) _{Moved to oppose}

51. Weak support - not the strongest candidate, but he meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. Committed, smart, and helpful. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
53. Support I was originally going to oppose due to some questionable habits of this user and reasons brought up in the opposition, but then I realized something; he's only human. Yes, that's a cliche, but it's true. All of the issues cited could easily be remedied (I'm going to ignore the age issue completely, as replying to that isn't even worth it). "Bad" answer to Q7? Simple, just reread the policy, go check out how someone else deals with BLP, and learn to do it acceptably. There's not much to it, and this isn't rocket science. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 09:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
54. Support I don't see age as any inhibition, only the actions that may (or may not) result from that age. If a 3 year old came to RfA, demonstrating sound knowledge and experience (although I have no idea how that would work) in all the needed areas, I'd vote support (however unlikely that is) without hesitation. It's actions I take into account. Finally, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
55. Support Age should not be a factor in this. Maturity should. Dendodge has shown a considerable amount of maturity, I think he's ready for the mop. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
56. Cautiously. — CharlotteWebb 19:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
57. Support Unless something scandalous comes out from this point on I've decided on a weak support. I've considered the opposes carefully and all the fuss being made over question 4 and 7. While he clearly needs to learn about BLP, the answer to 4 was simply honest. However I would advise the candidate to be tactful in his jokes, as not everyone picks up on sarcasm, especially in written form. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
58. Support The oppose reasons are not compelling. Verbal chat 14:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
59. Support - I do not think that Dendodge will kill the encyclopedia, and I don't really agree with the opposers. Xclamation point 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
60. SupportSome answers are not ideal, but I was a teenager once too. The real question is do I trust Dendodge? And the answer is yes. ϢereSpielChequers 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
61. Support - trustworthy. I echo some of the concerns to the BLP questions, but at least the reply wasn't generic. Anyone can make a generic reply :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

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)

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

   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 - I think it should be changed to 'ignore some rules', because WP:BLP and WP:OFFICE should not be ignored, to name but 2. The main reason I want to become an administrator is because I feel I could help, but also because my real-life friends say I'd be good at it. However, 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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

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

   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)

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)

   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)

   "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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

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

   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)

   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)

3. Oppose per Skomorokh and Ynhockey. AdjustShift (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

5. The candidate's commentary at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses was pretty clueless: proudly "hounding" the IWF with what was essentially a blackmail message reflects very poorly on us. (This just reinforces my belief that having children administrating a top 10 website is a bad idea from a PR lens, but that's a discussion for another day.) Insufficient interest in content writing: 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)

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

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

   FYI, Transit of Venus March was honoured with a DYK. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

   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)

   Dendodge, I'm on your side all the way. Also, RHMED, I'm ready to oppose any RfA you have for that. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 23:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   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. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

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

   You could have used diffs instead of opening up a can of worms, right? - Mailer Diablo 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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)
8. Comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action were immature and escalatory when there was no need to be. And 16 =/= legally accountable, so no, sorry. THE GROOVE 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   Yes, I realise that. Your point? THE GROOVE 23:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   That's pretty impressively wrong, EVula. THE GROOVE 02:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

   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. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
12. Oppose because he made too many foolish posts to User talk:Jimbo Wales, and has too much respect for the guy. For example, in May (yes it was half a year ago, but Dendodge's entire record is open for review) he posted under the heading "It's not fair!" "You signed User:SimsFan/SignBook, you can't expect to get away with signing one and noone else's, so please sign mine or I'll ensure that everyone else pesters you to do theirs...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)" He then clarifies that he meant to say it was only a joke, but he ran out of time "because the school bell went." In July, he wrote a silly message that Jimbo forgot to leave an edit summary, then crossed it out and said "Heh - only joking!" [3] Just today or yesterday, Dendodge wrote on Jimbo's talkpage: "If a user is willing to shout their beliefs on their userpage, they cannot be trusted not to adhere to those beliefs while editing articles." [4] This is simply not the case: it's entirely possible for a user to put their personal views to the side in order to write from a 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.

    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, WP:IAR is Jimbo's rule, and I didn't want to insult his judgement." Excuse me? WP:IAR, like every other policy, is the community's rule. Maybe Jimbo was the first to articulate it (though the oldest version from 2002 was actually created by User:Lee Daniel Crocker), but Jimbo does not own it: the community 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)

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

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)
14. Oppose - For not understanding what constitutes BLP. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
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 Daz 4 Zoe, Stephano (Shakespeare)). Many of his articles show un-reliable sources cited: see I'll Keep You Satisfied (Geocities is cited; the Geocities page is simply the lyrics), Positive Discipline (one in-line citation with four clean-up tags), and 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)
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)
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)

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

    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)

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

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)

    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)

    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)

    User's only edit is this oppose. Do we indent in these cases? Tan | 39 14:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

19. The cluelessness of the candidate as pointed out by other editors seriously worries me. - Mailer Diablo 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

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)

    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)

    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)

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)

    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)

    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)

26. Strong Oppose per most of the above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
28. Oppose - See his alarming answer to Q11. Tennis expert (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
30. Oppose. Per Skomorokh and Ynhockey. Dendodge hasn't quite grasped the ropes just yet. DiverseMentality 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
32. Oppose - lack of maturity. fish&karate 11:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
35. Oppose Q7 and Q11 raise deal-breaker concerns. Not qualified. Townlake (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
37. Oppose. He wants the tools, but he's not ready for the responsibility. — Athaenara ✉ 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
41. Oppose Some answers to questions were pretty bad. Just seems clueless in many important areas. SashaNein (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
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)

    Are you sure you don't mean oppose? You wrote oppoose instead. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Well, what does "oppoose" mean? --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 19:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
45. Due to the concerns echoed above, I cannot support you at this time. miranda 08:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
46. Oppose per Skomorokh. Leujohn ^(talk) 09:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
50. Oppose. Inadequate understanding of policy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
51. Oppose because of the concerns that have been raised about your maturity for adminship.--Berig (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
52. Sorry, no thanks, not at this point. Daniel (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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

   I will stay here, your coaching page says support, but some questions say oppose. ayematthew ✡ 00:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

2. Neutral from support Rethinking...Q5 and Q7 worry me more than I thought. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
5. Neutral, not the best answers to questions. Could use a bit more developing.  Marlith (Talk)  04:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
7. The concerns raised by the opposers, conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action, yes-man concerns, and apparent structuring of conduct in order to become an admin are troubling. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 12 December 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.