Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dendodge 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Dendodge[edit]

Final (51/25/6); Withdrawn by candidate. Dendodge T\C 20:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Dendodge (talk · contribs) – Well, it's been a while since I've nominated somebody, so here goes. I'll start out by addressing D's first three RfAs. He withdrew his first request with a tally of (0/4/0), so for all intents and purposes it was WP:SNOW'd. However, as this was nearly two years ago, I don't believe it should be held against the candidate; the same applies to his second RfA, which was also withdrawn within similar circumstances. His third RfA largely failed because of concerns related to experience and maturity. Nonetheless, I supported. Since then, about nine months' time has elapsed; in that time, Dendodge has significantly matured and improved upon his editing skills, and is now an asset to several areas of the site, most notably WP:TB.

With that said, here are a few relatively boring yet still somewhat significant stats: 12,269 edits, of which nearly 3,000 are to the mainspace, 2,100 are to the projectspace, and 2,400 are to the usertalk namespace. His most active month was March 2008, when he made a total of 1890 edits. His activity in terms of editcount has decreased a bit in recent months, but he still manages to edit daily. Automated tools account for 18.48% of his contribution history. Finally, Dendodge has created 40 pages in the mainspace, including redirects. It goes without saying that most of his edits are in some way related to The Beatles. To me, these figures demonstrate a well-balanced editing career and a contribution history evenly distributed amongst the various areas of the project. He has been awarded with a Triple Crown for his excellent contributions to featured sounds, good articles, and DYKs.

Much like myself, Dendodge is not perfect, yet I fully trust him to handle the extra buttons responsibly. I'm confident you'll agree. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, and would like to thank Julian for the confidence he has expressed in me.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 don't have any specific areas in mind—I'll just help out wherever I can. The tools probably won't make much of a difference to my editing habits. I will probably work with CSDs, ProDs and XfDs, as well as blocking and unblocking users. I do not have much of an interest in page protection (while I consider it valuable to the site's stability, it is not an area in which I have much experience), though I will help out there when there's a backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Many of my better contributions are behind the scenes, to project pages and discussions. I have done a lot of work with WP:TB, notably a complete overhaul of {{WPBeatles}} to standardise it using {{WPBannerMeta}}. I have also had a lot of experience with sounds, gaining a lot of featured credits in that area (although Audacity has been playing up lately, so my activity there has drastically decreased), as well as with images (although my experience there is not so extensive). I have not written any FAs yet, but have significantly contributed to two articles, helping to bring them to GA status: Kristallnacht (as part of the WP:SPOT collaboration drive, of which I was a coordinator) and George Harrison. I have created a number of articles, including The Beatles at The Cavern Club and The Beatles timeline, both of which I am rather proud of, despite both being unfinished works-in-progress. Perhaps my best contribution is the overhaul and redesign of P:TB, for which I was responsible.
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 have been involved in a few conflicts, none of which have escalated to edit wars or reached the point where outside assistance was necessary. Talk page discussion usually helps to gather consensus. I am familiar with the dispute resolution process, having mediated a couple of cases for the WP:MEDCAB. I will always strive to use the correct processes to resolve any disputes in which I find myself involved, submitting to consensus as soon as it is made clear.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: Never. They usually serve to inflame the situation, and blocks are preventative, not punitive.
5. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?
A: If the user has a previous pattern of vandalism, I would probably block (as long as the user has been sufficiently warned). I am usually in Skype at the same time as Wikipedia, so I would probably check with another admin first, to make sure I don't act too rashly.
6. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
A: I'm not quite sure what this question means. Policy is policy, and is all important for the stability of the 'pedia. I will probably be able to give a more detailed answer if you clarify your question.
I think that all the policies regarding the use of administrative tools are equally important, be it WP:BLOCK, regarding only blocking users who need to be blocked, or WP:DELETE, regarding deleting only pages that are not useful to the project.
As for other policies, I am of the opinion that content policies (such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP) are more important that user policies (such as WP:CIVIL). However, these are also very important, as we are here to collaborate, which means not arguing and slinging personal insults at each other. Of course, the most important policies are those which exist to stop us from getting sued (WP:FU, and WP:BLP, for example).
7. What are your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
A: I will add myself to it. If the community chooses to give me adminship, they should be able to take it away from me again. Despite my views in my first few months here, adminship is no big deal.
Additional optional questions from Vicenarian
8. To satisfy those who are concerned with the age of administrator candidates, would you be willing to disclose your exact age or, at least, whether or not you are over the age of majority in your jurisdiction?
A: I am 15, as of 23 June.

Question from Mazca

9. I've been digging through your contributions looking for edits to areas relating to your answer to Q1 - specifically, WP:AFD, WP:AIV, and speedy deletion tagging. However, I've found very little of any of those. Can you point to some contributions where you've demonstrated your knowledge of policy, or any other info that can give us a better idea of where and how you plan to use admin tools?
A: I have moved away from those areas over the last year, in an attempt to focus on content. My deletion taggings are sparse in my contribution history, since most of them were deleted. Therefore, you will have to go back a few pages in my deleted contribs to find it. I have done little work in AIV, but I have experience with vandal reversion, warning and reporting, mainly using Twinkle and Huggle. Dendodge T\C 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from harej

10. What is your approach to tendentious editors? When is it appropriate to block users or to lock pages from being edited?
When users are being disruptive, they should be warned and eventually blocked. Blocking would be something I would not take lightly, and I would only block users in severe cases—everyone deserves a second chance, so they can reform. As for page protection, I have already said that is not an area I have much experience in, nor one in which I intend to work. The way I see it, there is no set formula for page protection; it should be decided on a case-by-case basis: If there is a high level of vandalism (especially of the subtle kind), or a lot of edit warring, page protection is to be considered. Dendodge T\C 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
11. What administrative action is required on File:Brian Epstein Cavern.jpg?
A: None—it simply needs to be scaled down, which any non-admin can do. In fact, I will do it just after I click "save page" here. Dendodge T\C 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the previous revisions need deleting (I didn't know you could do that with images, but I have learnt during this RfA that you can—I had wondered how we avoided the issue of the copyrighted content still being shown. Dendodge T\C 08:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another one from harej

12. Has there ever been an on-wiki episode that made you frustrated to the point that you behaved uncivilly? Describe what occurred, and what you did to make things better again.
I can't remember any cases where I have acted uncivilly. I usually try to keep a cool head during disputes, and carefully formulate responses to avoid my comment being construed as uncivil. Dendodge T\C 22:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Protonk
13. I opposed last time due in part to your response to Question #9 there. I would like to know what your response to the question would be today. I'm not looking for the "right" answer. Meaning I don't care if you like policy XYZ or dislike policy ABC. I want to know: "If you had the power to change or get rid of one Wikipedia policy or guideline, which one would it be" If your answer is none, then please explain why. Thank you.
A: I would probably change WP:IAR to read "ignore some rules"—there are certain policies that should not be ignored under any curcumstances, such as the non-free content policy or WP:BLP. ArbCom sanctions are also a type of "rule", that should not be ignored.
Other than that, I don't really have any major problems with any policies or guidelines—that is the beauty of the community writing and adapting them over time, that a version is reached that suits everyone.
Request from Seddon
14. A serious concern I have is that I see no mention of you building on any administrative area experience in the last 9 months in either your nomination or any of your responses. Please fill us in if you have done any as this seems to be a common sense thing to do, given that your requesting adminship. Diffs would be appreciated.
A: I didn't really expect this nomination, and had been drifting away from administrative work recently. I have pitched in at WP:AN and WP:ANI regularly, and also the village pumps. I have a distinct lack of recent experience in deletion discussions, ANI, etc. These are things I would attempt to remedy before using the tools in such areas—pitching in at discussions and re-familiarising myself with the relevant policies before using the tools there.
Additional optional questions from Emufarmers
15. You have indicated that you would add yourself to CAT:AOR if promoted; please indicate what your recall criteria would be.
A: If a user in good faith requested it, and another user in good faith agreed, I would run for reconfirmation at RfA. Dendodge T\C 07:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]



General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does question 13 have to do with adminship? It seems like asking a question just for the sake of asking a question. iMatthew talk at 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question doesn't have much to do with adminship, the answer does. What frustrates the candidate about wikipedia? Where do they feel the frictions lie between policy and action? Is there some conduit that they see to less cluttered editing if only we could step out of a rut? Also, the preamble to the question was written in some attempt to clarify its purpose and avoid responses like this one. The same question was asked at the last RfA and the candidate gave an insufficiently reflective answer (IMO). It was enough then to push me over to oppose and I want to know if their feelings have changed. It's certainly not being asked just for the sake of asking it. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question: one supporter mentions returning to RFA in 9 months, one opposer says 12-18 months, some of the opposers are opposing because he's 15, which won't change for another 10 months, I'm saying 3 months, and I don't see any other opinions. I need to know whether we're likely talking about a 3 month wait if this RfA fails or a 10 month wait, and I'm having a hard time figuring it out. Any ideas? (Understood that if this one fails, he shouldn't come back until he's addressed some of the problems mentioned, but other than age, these problems could be addressed in 3 months ... should he wait longer even if he's ready?) - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he wants to avoid all age-based opposes he probably needs to wait about six years! However, despite the perception some have, the substantial majority of the opposers either have not considered age at all, or have considered it only as a second concern behind another more concrete reason. If Dendodge does address the concerns of the non-age-based opposes (more admin-areas work, better CSD tagging, etc) I see absolutely no reason why another RfA in 3-6 months wouldn't succeed even if he is still 15. It wouldn't be unanimous, of course, but I think there has yet to be an RfA that was defeated solely due to the age of the nominee. Putting aside the age opposes, this is no different to any other RfA with a few experience concerns, and hence in my view 3-6 months is the standard gap to leave between RfAs. ~ mazca talk 15:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. I think 3 months are plenty of time if he manages to brush up on his deletion policy knowledge in that time. With approx. 80% of the opposes being concerns that he lacks the necessary knowledge in the areas he wants to work in, his next RFA (if this one fails) after addressing those concerns should be a walk in the park imho. He has so far not shown that he would be unwilling to learn from his mistakes, so I think such expectations are justified. Regards SoWhy 15:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that I am not quite ready for adminship yet—I wish to withdraw this nomination. The opposers have raised some good points about my lack of experience, and I fear that I may not transpire to be a net positive. I wish to thank everybody who has participated in this discussion, both for the trust the supporters placed in me and the advice given to be by the opposers. Dendodge T\C 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  1. I know people might raise their eyebrows if they see someone has had multiple RfAs. Howver, IMO, Dendodge is a deserving candidate for the mop. He is trusted and will get my Support. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I believe multiple RfAs are only concerning if the editor seems too eager for the mop, to the extent that his/her other work becomes secondary. This is not the case here. Dendodge appears to be a fine, experienced user with the trust of a respected admin, so I am placing my !vote here. Good luck! The V-Man (Said · Done) 16:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I know this user pretty well, and he is no doubt knowledgeable or responsible enough to have the mop. Mm40 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No reason not to. I read this RfA, and not one from last year, just so you know. He is certainly nothing like what the opposer falsely describes him as. Majorly talk 16:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A good editor who has the best interests of Wikipedia's content at heart. He knows what he is doing and will put the tools to good use quietly, sans drama. NW (Talk) 17:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I am convinced he will be a net benefit. MBisanz talk 18:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I'd trust you with the tools. hmwitht 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Previous interaction has been incredibly positive, although I think age could be the factor to decide this RfA I'm afraid. A net positive for the project despite that.  GARDEN  18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support - Age is a very poor indicator of maturity or suitability. Dendodge will make a great administrator. — neuro(talk) 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, nothing wrong here. He'll make a fine administrator. –blurpeace (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support If Julian trusts this editor to the point of nomination how can I oppose. I trust Julian's judgment, and looking closely at this users, I see no issues that raise a huge red flag. I hate ageism. I don't care about age. I wish people would just keep it to themselves. All it does it make people make biased decisions.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. No problems here, will be a net positive, no concerns about age, since this is a poor indicitor of maturity. AtheWeatherman 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Not much interaction, but I trust Julian's judgment. ceranthor 19:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. (edit conflict) So Dendodge is a teenager. I don't give a crap. All I care about is whether or not Dendodge has improved since his last RfA, and whether or not he'd be a net positive if promoted. Let's see; more mature, more experienced, so checkY on the improvement. DYKs, featured content, GAs, and clear editing experience? checkY Net positive. If you ask me, rejecting a clearly capable teenager for adminship is like failing a 10 year-old who gets every question right on their SAT's. Young does not equal incapable, and for these reasons I support Dendodge for adminship. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 19:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Seems capable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support--Giants27 (c|s) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support After seeing the answers to the questions, and seeing the candidate handle some contention in the neutral section, I feel I can trust him with the tools. ArcAngel (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support A great candidate. He would make a fine sysop. Chevy Impala 2009 20:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tentative Support – Not sure but slightly falling down on support. I'll have another more detailed look at your edit history so this could change. Alan16 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Alan16 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - No reason not to. Dendoge is ready for adminship now, and I'd trust him. Sure, there's a connection between age/maturity, no doubt. However, I hold the opinion "assume reasonable unless there's evidence of judgement problems" rather than "assume immaturity unless proven by some who-knows-what evidence/standard". I know some that are in between those sides of opinion, but when I see a young user who seems suited for adminship, I'll be happy to support and as long as there's no forseeable issues with him/her in that position. I'm familiar with Dendoge's work, and the opposes are not concerning either. JamieS93 21:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the need to re-visit this support. I've read through the opposes, and they are surprisingly weak. If you have a concern about age/maturity, please people, at least point to some cases/diffs where there is evidence of possibly lacking judgement. I can understand if somebody wants to oppose based on a couple of minor judgement issues, coupled with the user being young ("those judgement problems were probably related to being young and I'm not comfortable with that.") I'm very willing to consider opposes that have legitimate maturity concerns. But right now some of the age arguments (with no backing) are beginning to look downright stupid. When people oppose RfAs with an assumption that is backed with zero evidence, I seriously question if they are evaluating the candidate or even looking at their contribs. Some of the opposes are reasonable, but I simply don't agree that the given issue is oppose-worthy. However, many of the rationales (particularly age-related) are quite unconvincing, and I'm no anti-ageism advocate. JamieS93 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Dendodge appears to be an excellent candidate and a valued contributor to Wikipedia's editorial contents. His sincere dedication to the project is commendable, and his ability to maintain a state of grace in view of certain ridiculous opposition comments should offer a reminder that maturity is not measured by the number of candles on your birthday cake. I am happy to support Dendodge's candidacy. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Decent answers to questions, oppose votes are not convincing. @harej 22:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support. I have found Dendodge to be an extremely intelligent and mature editor. There is no reason not to grant his request for the tools. Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support - cut the ageism people. Dendodge is ready to wield the mop, and his age has nothing to do with his maturity.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support. Personal attacks are still personal attacks, even if they are hidden behind the wiki-correct guise of ageism. Frankly, I am disappointed with some of the opposers (I'm looking at you Goodmorningworld and Sky Attacker). Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ageism. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak support Some valid criticisms have been raised, but for now I don't see a problem with letting someone old enough to command men under the British Flag log some admin actions. Sorry if this support invites some complaints that I'm just balancing things out, but sometimes things need to be balanced out. Protonk (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I do not see any compelling evidence that User:Dendodge would abuse the tools and if - to a degree when, everybody's human - they did unintentionally misuse them I think they would learn from the mistake made. Guest9999 (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support As a definite net positive. The age-based opposes, especially those by Roux and Sky Attacker, almost made me want to support without taking a look at the candidate's contributions at all. Can't we judge a candidate based on his contributions to the project and how he's handled disputes, rather than demand exceptional maturity just because he's under 18? I've seen plenty of adult admins that act more childish than Dendodge. Opposing based solely on age goes against everything RfA is about, and opposing based on maturity in conjunction with age is really no better unless you have some concrete evidence. Timmeh (review me) 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support. Yes I read the opposes, hence the strong. For crying out loud RfA... Wizardman 02:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, with the caveat that I understand the opposers. I understand the concern with a fifteen-year-old candidate - hell, thinking back, there's no way I would have made a good admin at fifteen. Too volatile, too wishy-washy, zero confidence. However, Dendodge has not exhibited any of these traits - and really, that's all I can judge by. I don't subscribe to the whole "stop the ageism" babble, and I have to have some evidence that the candidate is mature, even-keeled, and thoughtful. I've looked through more than enough contributions, and I really can't find a damn thing that concerns me. The other oppose I can understand is the admin experience issue, per SoWhy. My thoughts on this are probably not standard - I don't put as much stock in airtight-accurate CSD tagging as most people do. I am not judging other people, and there are probably several reasons why I should consider changing this opinion. However, as it is, I think that ensuring that a deletable article fits snugly into an arbitrary category is secondary to ensuring that Wikipedia contains good, solid, notable, verifiable articles. If an article is spam, but tagged A7, I couldn't give a shit. From what I see, 98% (at least 95%, if we don't want to be exaggerating) of Dendodge's tagging is accurate. From my experience, admins are typically a lot more careful when actually deleting than when they were just CSD tagging. I just can't see any potential of Dendodge becoming an admin who is wantonly deleting articles - and really, that's the sort of thing by which we should be judging a candidate. Therefore, for want of reasons to oppose, I hereby support. Tan | 39 02:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - I've always found him communicable and open minded, even though we have bickered quite a bit. His care for attention, even if limited to only one subject area, is enough when included with the prior attributes. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I know enough teenagers in real life to understand that they are not "little children" and that some are trustworthy and responsible. From what I've seen Dendodge would do well with the mop, but please take the CSD comments onboard, and remember IRC isn't the only place to ask for advice. ϢereSpielChequers 12:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Ageism is worse than editcountitis. To quote one of the above users I think this user will be a "net benefit" with the mop.  Francium12  12:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Qualified candidate. While some of the opposers raise valid issues that I know the candidate will take into account, the rationale of many of the oppose !votes is shockingly bad, to a degree that I don't recall having seen before on any other RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the rationale of some supporters is lacking as well. The general problem is the astoundingly low level of discourse at RFA, and no one group has a monopoly on that. Fix this problem and you'll have my vote for King Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which support rationales are lacking? Majorly talk 14:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, if only to dispel the absolutely nonsensical opposes of some. -- Mentifisto 13:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support normally I would also balk at supporting very young editors for adminship, but if only to balance out some of the spectacularly poor oppose rationales, plus the fact that I don't see any glaring red flags, I support. Black Kite 18:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Looks good. Seriously, Admin is no big deal, it's merely a sign that an editor is trusted, and this one is. Age is far less useful an indicator of maturity than a solid record, which Dendodge has. RayTalk 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - I've read the oppose section, and I'm unconvinced by the arguments presented. From what I've seen he's a calm and helpful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - The rampant ageism of the opposes does not convince me, the nomination does. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Seems okay to me. I don't think it's good to pigeonhole people. If there are particular conerns about some kind of age limiting factor then a restriction can be put in place so we don't have to broadly discriminate against people based on a number. You seem reasonable and responsible. Have fun and thanks for your good contributions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support Real-life age fences and other forms of uncalled-for prejudice, for editors who have clearly proven themselves, are wrong and should never be used as an excuse to oppose an otherwise acceptable editor at an RfA. My comments regarding you in the opposition section were truly beyond character and were also ill-reasoned. Recent Wikievents that have not reflected me as an editor, but have involved editors I have increasing respect for, have emotionally stretched me, and unfortunatley, it would look as though I have allowed it to affect my editing here as of late. This negativity has been used against you, an editor who has done good things here for Wikipedia, and I should've known better. I am truly sorry that you had to be the victim to all of that and I really hope that your RfA does pass, because I've looked at your contributions and age has proven to be irrelevant (in this case anyway) and there was no reason to oppose you because your only 15. Just so you are aware, my decision to cut my oppose and strong support you was not influenced by the comments made by other editors, but my own guilt for my actions against a trusting editor. Hopefully my poor lack of judgement can be looked past and forgiven. I openly apologise to you for my actions on this page and I also support you because you are a good editor and you have been waiting too long for the mop. Fully support. You deserve it. You're comments to others prove that you are a very mature and reasonable editor. Seriously, pray that this RfA passes, because that mop is rightfully yours.--The LegendarySky Attacker 01:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. I'm seeing good work on the project, and the candidate takes time to assist others (as here), which is what I like to see in an admin. Not concerned about the age; there are mature and immature editors of all ages here, a number doesn't indicate anything except how long the candidate has been alive. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Switched from oppose. After reconsidering, I think you'll be fine. iMatthew talk at 01:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Icewedge (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - As promised I have re-considered, particularly given this RfA is going to be a close one between passing and failing, and I have decided to support. It is clear you have done a lot of work for Wikipedia and you have waited nine months, a pretty long period, between RfAs before applying again. You don't have any particular plans on where to do admin actions should you get the mop, that's fine, you can still help the project by being a less specialised admin. I will take this request through my key RfA criteria. For KC 1 you clearly have enough general experience of Wikipedia, with over 12,000 edits and lots of article building. For KC 2 your username and signature is fine, nice in fact! For KC 3 your user pages are fine, and the content on them bars a striking resemblance to mine in places, so I can't complain! No problems with offline activities (KC 4). Your communication is good (KC 5), you use edit summaries and are willing to discuss with users any issues that come-up (KC 7), you have also shown during this RfA that you can learn from mistakes (KC 6). The only potential issue is with KC 8 / 9, but I think you have enough core knowledge to pass here. The Beatles Complete on Ukulele was a slight blip, it was good of you to request other opinions, but isn't that what AfD is for? If a page does not meet a criterion it should not be deleted under that criterion, regardless of the amount of discussion which happens somewhere. I accept that this is not really your fault, incorrect deletion through A7 by some admins has sent a confusing message to admin candidates and it is easy to hold the candidates to account, but not the administrators who are ultimately responsible. You however recognised your mistake, so I hope you become part of the admin group which is getting out there the correct use of A7. The original Q11 answer is not of concern either, I didn't know about that either to a few months ago, I am not expecting you to know everything that you can do as an administrator. So yes the clear conclusion to me is support, and no I have little concern over age (Non-criteria 7). Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. The age doesn't scare me, in fact I think it's an asset. The most plugged in and over-informed generation ever is required to be wifi'd in school and the more our admins can relate to and overcome generational culture divides the better. I encourage you to buddy up and have a mentor or two for a while as you get the hang of each area. Use your inexperience to boldly ask for help; I trust you to wield the mop including mopping your own mistakes should you make any. -- Banjeboi 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. My concerns in the neutral section do persist to a point. Ultimately some sensible comments made above, combined with the fact that we really do need more administrators, sway me to support. I'm not convinced Dendodge is absolutely ready, but who is? He's close enough to be an asset with admin tools, and I trust him to generally operate them effectively and clean up any mistakes he does make - his commitment to ask for help before wading into unfamiliar territory is obviously reassuring. Best of luck. ~ mazca talk 11:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. After working with him on a few articles I have found him to be very sensible and patient; two qualities needed in adminship. Syn 17:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Weak support - technically meets my standards, but as some opposes have pointed out, he may need more training before deleting articles. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Still very young, same as on previous RFAs. Yes, there are some exceptionally mature young people out there. But reading through Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dendodge_3 indicates that this is not an exceptionally mature young person, but rather a young teenager who acts just like a young teenager. Wikipedia needs to grow up now, and promoting childish admins will not help with this goal. Friday (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to dendodge, that RFA was over 9 months ago, and surely in this time, looking over his edits in that time, they have grown up over the period between the two RFA's. Regards. AtheWeatherman 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Friday's more concerned about real world age than wiki-experience. Indeed, nine months is relatively little. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not very concerned with real-world age. Only with people who are not yet adults do I even tend to consider it at all. But here's someone who is very young, and has a record of behaving how you'd expect a young person to behave. I can understand the contention that age shouldn't matter. Fair enough. Considering maturity alone is still enough to oppose this RFA. But, it's pure lunacy to encourage this bizarre notion we have around here that age and maturity have no relationship. The entire rest of the world recognizes this relationship- so why is Wikipedia different? It's time for Wikipedia to grow up, and admitting that young people tend to act like young people is a necessary step along that path. Friday (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Friday, I agree with you—despite some comments I have made previously, younger users tent not to be as mature as older ones, as the laws of many countries recognise. (Note that I am not trying to badger here, but just explain) Since I usually have off-site access to at least one older and more experienced admin (through Skype or IRC) I will consult them before performing any but the most simple of tasks. Dendodge T\C 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion continues on talk page
    PS. For those who dislike consideration of age, again I point you to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dendodge_3 where numerous people pointed out numerous examples of immature behavior. Friday (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oh great, I'm on the same side as Friday... age isn't an issue with me, and the user has done some audited content work. But there are other niggling issues. I can't find evidence of any AfD participation since before his last RfA. Considering the user is saying he would participate in that area if there was a need, that worries me a tad. In the above questions the candidate said he was moving away from XfDs to focus on article work. But he's done relatively little since his last RfA; 88% of his total contributions are represented by the period before then, and the vast plurality of his recent edits have been to the project namespace. In fact, the dropoff suggests that he might have "stopped trying" after his last RfA. His short answers to the questions above (and very little elaboration or change, upon checking his previous RfAs) don't suggest he's gained any more experience or wisdom in the intervening time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. prefer admin candidates that generate content. Having less then 25% of your contributions in mainspace isn't anywhere near enough for me. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to support the candidate but I'd nevertheless like to note that this 25% is in fact close to 3000 edits to the mainspace which seems more than reasonable even if you remove the automated edits. There's something paradoxical in preferring candidates with 3000 edits to the mainspace and 9000 edits to other namespaces to candidates with 3000 edits to the mainspace and 2000 to the others. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance this oppose appears to punish those who build articles in their sandboxes, not moving them into the mainspace until they are complete and referenced, in favour of those who acquire large numbers of article edits with huggle, twinkle, hotcat etc. Am I missing something, Spartaz?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @S marshall Yes, because you assume that I'm incapable of reaching a more nuanced conclusion then looking at the pure stats. Also, generally, users who write content in sandboxes move the articles into mainspace maintaining the contributions history that miraculously by the power of mediawiki turn from user space edits to mainspace edits. I know that this isn't every case but its more common then not. Anyway, my point is I expect admin candidates to show they can edit substantially in mainspace otherwise they find it hard to understand when they get the tools that admins are not gods and that content contribution is paramount. Spartaz Humbug! 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pascal but very limited talk page interaction as well and an average of 2.7 edits per page is symptomatic of someone doing high speed automated edits or vandal fighting rather then content creation. My point remains that building up mainspace is paramount to what we are here for and new admins should have enough experience in content creation to be able to empathise with editors caught up in content disputes losing their cool. I'm not seeing much evidence of this but I'll happily review dendoges content contributions in more detail when I have time. Note that I am not bothered by his age so much as the predilection to hand around user talk pages and project space. When I was nominated to be an admin over 50% of my contributions were in mainspace. Spartaz Humbug! 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose.I remember when I was fifteen; I would have been incensed at anyone who tried to bar me from editing Wikipedia articles, had there been a Wikipedia then. The notion of becoming an admin, however, would never have entered my mind. I knew better than to presume I should hold the power of ending someone's hobby. I am well aware that few of the RfA regulars will agree with me, but I am completely stymied for an explanation that a fifteen-year-old could want this for himself. Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a blanket statement generically arguing against the candidate? What's wrong with the notion of becoming an admin irrespective of age if a person is suitable? "Ending someone's hobby"? That's not done under policy... it would be against the growth of the encyclopedia. Is there a concrete reason to doubt a candidate's relevant skills, possibly backed up by evidential diffs? Respectfully, I think that would sway more people. -- Mentifisto 20:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The candidate wants to work in deletion areas, especially CSD but has almost no record there and the few examples I found were less than thrilling. For example, he tagged The Beatles Complete on Ukulele for A7 after I had declined the same tag previously, which means that he either did not review the history or deliberately wanted to find an admin who will ignore the previous decision (a wish that was, unfortunately, granted). Both interpretations are not exactly good ones. His taggings also include a foreign-language article (La Macachuera) as G2. Since his last RFA, the candidate has participated in exactly three XFDs and has requested speedy deletion eleven times, five of which were G7s, one was U1, two were incorrect (see above), one was a correct A7 and two were F8s (duplicate on Commons). As such, there is nothing to indicate that this candidate can be trusted with the delete button, which is especially problematic as he indicated to want to work in exactly that area. I came here expecting to support or at least neutral but I cannot overlook this lack of activity or knowledge in that area. Regards SoWhy 20:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, SoWhy declined the tag on March 3 and Dendodge tagged in anew on April 28 -- this Oppose gives the impression that Dendodge immediately contradicted the original decline out of spite when, in fact, Dendodge reviewed the article as part of his expertise in Beatles-related articles and determined it did not meet Wikipedia standards. Having reviewed the now-deleted article, I concur that Dendodge was not in error and I commend him for seeking a second opinion on this subject. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to say so, but there is no time limit after which admin shopping becomes legitimate, is there? The deletion was incorrect because it was clearly not an A7 because importance/significance was indicated. The deleting admin even admitted at the WikiProject talk page that they deleted it for failing WP:WEB which is not what A7 is for. I cannot stop someone like Rodhullandemu ignoring policy like that but I can oppose a new candidate if I have to assume that they will be equally clueless about speedy deletions. You do not "seek" a second opinion by ignoring an admin decision you do not like. You seek it by using WP:AFD or talking to that admin.
    And as I said, this is the worse interpretation. I will assume that Dendodge simply forgot to review the history given that I have no proof otherwise, which is not as bad (because it does not carry the assumption that they deliberately tried to admin shop) but still not the way I want people with the delete button to behave. Regards SoWhy 06:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WEB is a notability guideline, WP:A7 is a notability template. I don't see how they are unrelated. I tagged it because I hadn't checked the history, you are right, but there was already consensus on WT:TB that it should have been deleted as non-notable. (I'll try to find a link to it). Dendodge T\C 08:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not unrelated, but they are separate things. Many editors, including administrators, are rather confused on what A7 actually means. The criterion says An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. It means what it says on the tin, if there is an indication of notability, that means the article says something which suggests it could pass notability guidelines, it is not A7. There is no requirement that it needs to pass WP:N or any other notability guideline, and failing this, in isolation, is not grounds for speedy deletion per WP:NOTCSD. After reviewing the article I also conclude it was not really A7, and WP:PROD or even WP:AFD would not have hurt in this instance. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah—thanks for clarifying. I know understand the difference more clearly. Dendodge T\C 09:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a question of "admin shopping" -- though it appears to be a question of a very touchy admin who doesn't appreciate having his opinion overturned by one of his peers and is, thus, getting back at the non-admin responsible for triggering such a result. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea why you have such a low opinion of me. I can only assure you that the person of the declining admin is irrelevant to my !vote. If the same happened with another admin's decision, the argument I make would not diminish, would it? After all, it's a logical fallacy to try to link the validity of an argument to the person who makes it as you are surely aware. But more importantly, Dendodge has clearly stated that he failed to check the history, so there is no way someone could try to "get back" at him - after all, he did not deliberately want to do it, did he? Thus I fail to see the point of your comment and I'd very much like you to explain your reasoning in your comment please (here or my talk page). Regards SoWhy 10:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are trying to sink this RfA primarily because of two CSD tags -- and the first one you cited just happened to be one where Dendodge successfully got an article deleted that you previously declined for speedy delete. That strikes me as a flimsy opposition, especially when you insist that your opinion on the matter is an unshakable fact. And no one has a "low opinion" of you -- take a lesson from our young-but-mature friend Dendodge in regard to accepting criticism. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to drag this out further but pardon me for thinking that you have not a high opinion of me if you accuse me of wanting to "sink this RFA" and wanting to "get back at the user". I have high respect for the candidate and it pains me to oppose this request but unlike his maturity and level-headedness (both of which are very good, no doubt about it), I have to question his knowledge of policy if he wants to work in that area. That is what RFA is for. If you want to discuss this further, would you mind if we take it to the talk page? I don't want to further clutter this page with essentially off-topic discussion, that would be an unnecessary disservice to Dendodge. Regards SoWhy 12:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that incorrect comments about not understanding policy and maturity problems are doing an unnecessary disservice to Dendodge. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Per wishing to work in deletion areas and for failing to demonstrate competency or adequate experience. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't actually mean to express a specific interest in working in deletion—I just listed that as an example. TBH, I don't really have any specific areas in mind. I do have little XfD/CSD experience, and I realise that now (I thought had more than that when I answered the question, but SoWhy has proven otherwise). In light of this, I will work less than I originally intended in deletion-related areas. Instead, my focus will be mainly on other areas. Chances are, I will not sit and monitor a single area, or a selection of areas, instead using the tools only when a need for them comes up in other discussions, or when somebody comes to me specifically. Dendodge T\C 21:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood that you probably didn't actually mean you wanted to work with deletions. My thinking is that if that was the area that popped into your head as your strong suit, it probably means you don't have a strong suit, yet. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moved from support to oppose – I came back after a detailed look to say that I had switched to oppose, but rather than ramble on, it is per SoWhy and Wisdowm89. Alan16 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bangs head against wall. I've always been a fan of Dendodge's enthusiasm for article work, intelligence at RFA, and maturity (for any age). I came here expecting to support, but averaging around 2.5 edits per day for 4 out of the last 6 months suggests that he doesn't feel the same connection to Wikipedia that he used to, and his statement that he will probably work in deletion areas is a red flag. Curse you, SoWhy, I wanted to vote for this guy! If this one succeeds, you probably won't let us down, but I just can't support with that record. If it fails, get your ass back here in 3 months with solid experience in any admin area, and enough recent article work to show me that you still care, and you'll gladly have my vote. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not enough activity lately is a really bad reason to oppose. Do you think he'll be competent with the tools? If the answer is yes, him being competent with them a few times a month is still a net gain. It's pretty normal for someone's interest level and amount of free time to fluctuate over time. Friday (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, lack of activity is a good reason to oppose. It's important that admins keep in touch with the 'pedia, so they are aware of policy changes and the like. Ad as Dank said, it's important that admins demonstrate they care about the 'pedia (both it's article content, and user interaction), for obvious reasons. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - under the age of majority. Sorry. → ROUX ₪ 21:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per many above me. I, like Dank and SoWhy, came here expecting to support. However, I'm not sure if you're mature enough to handle the tools. Being an administrator is not just "pushing a few buttons" as many make it seem. When you start deleting articles and blocking vandals, some of them are going to come to you and bitch. I'm not sure you'll be able to handle that maturely enough. Additionally, I agree with Friday's comments on the talk page. Starting out slow is fine, and asking for help is always good. But you said that you would ask someone on Skype or IRC for advice, which concerns me. Editors, while on Skype or IRC, aren't as focused as they are while actually editing. I don't believe that administrative advice is best given in a chat room. I'd prefer if you get the tools, to ask for advice on-wiki, on admins' talk pages. All of this put together raises a red flag for me. I'm sorry, and hopefully will be supporting you in the future. iMatthew talk at 22:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a good point—I may have to consider finding an online admin and asking them on-site. That gives more users a chance to pitch in to the discussion. Thanks for the advice, I will be sure to follow it. Dendodge T\C 22:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    NO LONGER IN OPPOSITIONThe higher rights on Wikipedia are for adults and not for little children. I suggest that you don't come back here for the tools when you turn 18 in 2012.--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Fifteen is not "little" by any standard, and there are plenty of capable admins who are under the age of majority. There are some admins who are young and immature, admittedly, but if you are opposing for this reason, please say it directly. ceranthor 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus Christ. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting view you have there. Considering there are, perhaps, hundreds of admins/bureaucrats who are under the age of 18, where do you get the idea "higher" rights are for adults only? Oh and most 15 year olds are not little. Majorly talk 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, either way, I'm going to echo Friday now. Wikipedia needs to grow up. In three years time, if this user has matured and has made some great contributions to this website, I'll probably have no reason whatsoever to oppose. But unfortunatley, the only way to ensure that the Wikipedia community has the maturity of adults is to promote admins who are adults. I hold nothing against the user as an editor, only a precaution against their age.--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but please rethink the "little child" remark, which I personally view as needlessly insulting. A fifteen-year-old is a teenager. Goodmorningworld (talk)
    I've struck the word "little" in the above comment. Happy now?--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know people throw the term "lol" around all the time, but I literally just laughed out loud. Your comment so obviously has an undertone of anger; and yet, you accuse Dendodge of being the immature one! Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not accusing Dendodge of anything, nor am I angry. I am merely taking precautions.--The LegendarySky Attacker 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as you believe him to young to be a suitable admin, one would suppose that you're implying he's too immature. Otherwise why would age make a difference? Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish editors would shut the hell up about their age and write an encyclopedia. Judge others only by their on-wiki contributions and not their personal life. I am 100% certain that Juliancolton has blocked hundreds of this editors peers. Teenagers running wild vandalizing the project for a good laugh. If you can prove to me that this editor is like that, then hell yeah he is immature. nowhere do I see this. We are all just proving how old fashioned we are, relying on terribly old and outdated ideologies. I fear for the security of our world when our adults cannot find the maturity to see past the child to a young adult. It sickens me. It really does.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (←)Lol... and you accuse him of being immature? Besides, I find meatspace age largely irrelevant. Judge by contributions on-wiki please, not by age.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I just make a request for the closing 'crat here? Take a nice, long hard look at these opposes before making a decision. That's all I ask. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think you're going along the right lines, but I'm going to oppose for the moment, I'm afraid. On going through your contributions, certain failures to assume good faith such as this sockpuppet investigation, are still a little too recent for comfort; for my support, all of your recent edits would need to show an assumption of good faith. Also, you have created only 16 mainspace pages (plus a number of redirects) in 12,000 edits. Those 16 are for the most part solid pieces of work, and I liked the Beatles timeline in particular; I'm not one of those who usually oppose for lack of content contributions, but I think in your case the situation is quite extreme. I do think you need a little more experience in that area to prepare you for the dispute resolution part of a sysop's work, and I think 16 page creations in 12,000 edits is quite un-productive. I would suggest paying some attention to WP:AFC, WP:MEA or some other constructive, collaborative area in which you could build at least a few more article credits of your own.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - mostly due to my RFA criteria, but also per Wisdom89 and SoWhy. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Admins should be able/willing to perform all admin duties including the curly ones, but your comment above shows you are not ready to do so. Your comment I refer to is "Since I usually have off-site access to at least one older and more experienced admin (through Skype or IRC) I will consult them before performing any but the most simple of tasks." Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no implication of any such thing, perhaps it is just an alternative interpretation of what he said. I see it as a safety net, not an indication of inability. — neuro(talk) 01:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I specified not ready, not inability. Count me out. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this oppose be indented? I'd guess yes, but I don't really understand the above reply by Kaiwhakahaere. Tan | 39 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, so I would imagine so. Indented. — neuro(talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just realised that I was the one that caused the strike (I think?), unindented since it is not really my place. — neuro(talk) 08:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I'm a big believer in letting youth handle responsibility on Wikipedia. Shoot, I was even co-nominated at my own RfA by a teen admin. But disregarding your age in meatspace, I think you need some more experience in order for us to trust you with the mop, particularly along the lines S Marshall describes. If you can give me some more concrete evidence of experience in those areas, then I may switch to support. Steven Walling (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Friday. Daniel (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure four years make a spectacular difference. -- Mentifisto 13:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What does four years have to do with anything? If you're looking for a rule of thumb for when he'll be an adult, 10 years is closer to the mark. Of course, it's not rational to judge strictly by age. Friday (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Friday, my comment went deeper than that, as the subject wasn't the candidate. ;-) -- Mentifisto 16:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Take your trolling elsewhere, Mentifisto, unless you want all your PM's to end up plastered on various pastebins. Also, why don't you repeat that personal attack you used against me on IRC yesterday, here on-wiki - or are you too afraid of getting blocked for it? Daniel (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any trolling here. Please don't threaten people with blackmail - you're acting like a bully, Daniel, and there's no need for it. Majorly talk 21:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you knew the backstory and the timestamps you would. Daniel (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Not due to age or maturity, but due to concerns raised by SoWhy. Get more (recent) experience in administrative areas, and come back. I like that you are very open to asking more experienced admins for help and advice, but you seem to be using that as a crutch. PGWG (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Not enough experience in XfDs (read: very, very little), where Dendodge wishes to work. Aditya (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Previous RFAs and age don't really upset me, but I am seeing a lack of demonstrable experience in admin-type work. Not that such things really upset me either, but they do leave me unable to say with confidence that this candidate has what it takes. Shereth 16:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Minimal AfD contributions. Inadequate understanding of CSD (as demonstrated by SoWhy). [For what it's worth, I regard Dendodge's age as irrelevant.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Axl. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Axl as well. Again Dendodge wants to work with AfDs and CSDs but hasn't shown the knowledge or experience to give us confidence in his judgement of such matters. -- Atama頭 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Regretful Oppose Though I'm not in the same bandwagon as those opposing due to age concerns. Put simply, I dont think this user is ready for the tools. Although the article contribs he has are good, I do not believe that they are extensive enough to make up for the apparently severe lack of experience in key admin areas. Get that experience and I'll support you, but I think your gonna have to wait 12-18 months at least before the community will appoint you as an admin. Good luck, and if there is any way I can help you, you know where my talk page is. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 00:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 46 supporters, 20 opposers (including me); he may pass this one. What would you like to see over 12 months that's definitely not going to happen in 3 months, if this RFA fails? - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I couldn't care less about the age issue. But minimal participation in AfD is a bad sign when it is an area that you said you would be interested in. Overall activity is not too bad, but not great either. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - For several of the reasons stated above by others. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I expect someone to first learn the difference between Speedy criteria and WP:N criteria, and demonstrate this in practice , before applying to become an admin. To get it wrong here, with everyone watching, is not a good sign for reliable deletions subsequently. (FWIW, I think age is irrelevant.) . DGG ( talk ) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per DGG and SoWhy and inasmuch as my concerns about the candidate's conversance with policy and ability to evaluate consensus-based discussions correctly prevent me from concluding with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Sorry. Joe (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oposse partially based upon the reply to Q9, but also due to a number of concerns raised here. I would expect a potential admin, especially one who has failed previous RFAs, to be working more in administrative areas before accepting a nomination, not stepping away from them. Whilst I understand the spirit of the reply where the candidate he / she would double-check on Skype, it makes me uneasy. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral, primarily based on Q1 and Q9. Focusing on content is to be commended, but I have trouble reconciling a visible lack of any use for admin tools with another RfA: Dendodge expresses in Q1 an intention to work in various areas, but has visibly and intentionally not done anything in particular in any of them in recent times. I appreciate that "no need for the tools" is in itself a poor reason not to support an RfA, but it certainly makes the whole "net positive" calculation less favourable. Valid potential concerns about maturity have been raised in the past, and while I don't oppose younger candidates on principle, I do appreciate that there's an extra element of risk involved. Ultimately, putting these things together I find no sufficiently compelling reason to oppose, but equally I'm not quite comfortable supporting. ~ mazca talk 17:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support. ~ mazca talk 11:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Mazca and Q6. This was an answerable question as-is, and I would have liked (and still want to) see an answer to this. Tan | 39 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't quite understand what the question was asking. Could you elaborate, please? Dendodge T\C 18:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Important policies relating to administrator tools? Seriously? policies which directly pertain to the tools you're using. The block policy, f'rinstance, is unlikely to matter to anyone but a tool-bearer and, well, a tool. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not my question. However, I personally consider WP:V to be more important than, say, WP:CIVIL. This is my opinion, YMMV. Tan | 39 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ah—I can't believe I was stupid enough to not get that! I'll go and answer it properly now. Dendodge T\C 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral because of the response you just posted under Friday's oppose where you say you'll consult with a more experienced administrator when you don't know what to do. Which is good ... we all need a little help from our friends sometimes, but it makes me wonder what you'd do when you have to make a tough decision by yourself. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's urgent, I'll make a decision and consult others later. I trust my own decision-making ability, but would feel slightly more comfortable consulting other people (as I do in real life) until I have more experience with the tools and making adminy decisions. Dendodge T\C 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect answer; also, I can't really think of a situation that is so unbelievably urgent you couldn't consult with other admins before taking action. This is Wikipedia, not an emergency room. There are no life-or-death scenarios on here. Tan | 39 19:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I've had to make some pretty difficult and controversial decisions here on Wikipedia, but nothing to which I couldn't respond with "Sorry, I'd rather hear what others have to say first". –Juliancolton | Talk 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oversighters, for example, might need to make snap decisions. I don't see it as relevant to adminship.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was the wording of his statement that got me. I will consult [an older or more experienced admin] before performing any but the most simple of tasks makes it sound like he doesn't have any confidence in his own abilities. But I'm willing to chalk that up to just the choice of words, which I may have misinterpreted. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With that statement, I meant I would ask for second opinions on complex or controversial decisions, rather than (as it probably seemed, given my wording) routine tasks such as AfD closures and editprotected requests. Dendodge T\C 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral mostly based on A5: it would be best if the admin lets someone else do the actual blocking when they're directly involved like that, if nothing else than to avoid the troll-feeding appearance of retaliation. Otherwise, the user's age and their past RFAs (over 9 months old) do not concern me; this user seems as mentally mature, reasonable, and experienced as many adequate admins, and they seem to improve rapidly. If this RFA is unsuccessful, I would be happy to support with a few months of good editing and slightly better understanding of blocking etiquette. -kotra (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I opposed, perhaps harshly, last time. I really wanted to support this time but the CSD misunderstanding in the oppose section leaves me feeling uneasy for the moment. In any case age does not concern me, and I am not going to oppose over one tagging incident, with Dendodge being otherwise qualified for the tools as far as I can see. I will certainly reconsider supporting within the next few days. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-considering as promised and switching to support. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. On the plus side, what communication I see is great. Polite, helpful, really I couldn't ask for more. On the negative side, I like to see admins around more. I see quite a few gaps of several weeks with no edits. While I don't expect anyone to be here every day, any time the mop is pulled out, there's a potential for a frustrated editor. Asking that editor to wait weeks for an answer on a regular basis (because most of them don't email) is not something I'm comfortable with. Also the CSD issues brought up by SoWhy trouble me. Not checking history is a mistake anyone can make, but the article version that was nominated just wasn't an A7 candidate. (And a wet noodle to the admin who deleted it.) If the tools are granted, everything will probably be just fine. Dendodge seems to be a level headed editor who will take all these criticisms to heart. But I just can't work up enough enthusiasm to put myself in the support column.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually check my talk page every day, I just don't edit unless there is a clear need to (e.g. somebody leaves a message on my talk page that requires an answer), or unless I am in the mood for it. The A7 was a mistake—I have learned from it (though I do not expect this to change your view—it is something I should already have known), and will AfD instead in future. Dendodge T\C 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not convinced either way at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I am pleased that you are learning during this RfA, but I am still concerned that you may have jumped in with the initial wrong answer to Q11 too soon before checking the facts that you needed to know, and figured out yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. More XfD experience is needed. Otherwise this is a great candidate. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dendodge_4&oldid=1091463643"