Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dylan620#Questions for the candidate

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

Final: (11/19/8) - withdrawn by candidate at 14:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Withdrawn - I agree with the users in the oppose and neutral sections that now was not the right time to run. Therefore I would like to withdraw this RfA, with thanks to all those who participated for their input. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 14:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620 (talk · contribs) – For my seventh nomination, I would like to present... myself!

Let me start by admitting that I wasn't always the editor I am today. Back in January, I was reported to the administrators' noticeboard. That was back when I was still new to the site, and I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I have since learned from my early mistakes of MySpacing; for instance, while content building is still not my forte, I wrote Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season and Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season from scratch. I also played a small role in building William Thompson Lusk. For a full overview of my article creation achievements, see User:Dylan620/Content.

With that out of the way, allow me to detail the basics; I've had an account since September 2007, and I have been active since August 2008. I am a rollbacker and accountcreator with over 10,000 edits. So, why do I want the mop? Since content building is admittedly a weak spot for me, I resort to maintenance tasks. Among these are the creation of 70+ accounts at WP:ACC, vandal fighting and broken redirect cleanup. Among these, I consider broken redirect cleanup to be my forte. I often go to Schutz's tool to look for broken redirects to tag for deletion. Most of my taggings under the appropriate category for broken redirects (WP:CSD#G8) are deleted – see Special:DeletedContributions/Dylan620. In addition to my redirect cleanup work, I also have experience in vandal fighting (having made over 2,000 edits with Huggle), account creation (again, over 70 accounts created there), and DYK clerking, although I haven't been quite as active there as I have been in the past. Still, I could be of assistance there from time to time.

I hope that you will all consider my request, and I wish you all Happy Holidays. Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 03:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: My main motive for requesting adminship is to use the delete button for broken redirect cleanup, though I also plan to use the block button on vandals. I might also help out at WP:DYK, though I wouldn't be the most active admin there.

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

A: The contributions that I'm proudest of would have to be "Believe", Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season, and William Thompson Lusk. My first article ever was on "Believe," while the 2001 AHS timeline was sent to FLC – however, I withdrew after multiple concerns began piling up. Eight months later, I created the 1996 AHS timeline, and successfully shipped that one off to FLC – it is my only piece of featured content to date, and on top of that it was the first of my 3 DYK credits. After the timeline passed DYK, another editor requested my help on the William Thompson Lusk article with converting bulleted notes into prose. The article would become my second DYK credit. (In case you're wondering, my third DYK credit was just a nomination of an article created by another editor (Hurricane Bill (2009).) Aside from my limited content contributions, I would also have to be proudest of my broken redirect cleanup work and my anti-vandalism work – each time I revert a vandal, I protect Wikipedia's intergrity, whether it be on userpages or on articles.

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 with many conflicts during my time here at Wikipedia. The ones that I regret most can be located here and here (from November 2008 and April 2009, respectively). During the 2001 AHS timeline FLC, I responded rashly and immaturely to an editor's calling the timeline "ugly", and then I began swearing out of anger. I think I might have even unintentionally violated WP:OWN in the process! Later on during the FLC, I apologized for my misconduct, and withdrew. For proof that I have learned from my mistakes at that FLC, I would like to direct your attention to the 1996 AHS timeline FLC from July - August 2009. There, I considerately and civilly responded to concerns, and the FLC passed. WRT the Ottava Rima RfA – I admit it. I was very rude to Ottava both here and here, and I am deeply sorry for my misconduct there. Back then, I was still jumpy – I've matured very much since then. I suppose an example of this would be at the What If (Coldplay song) page. Several users were restoring the article for that redirect against consensus obtained at this AfD, and I was one of the editors who were reverting the article back to its redirected form. The content dispute ended with me successfully requesting a temporary full-protection of the page. In the future, I plan to continue to learn from my early mistakes, and deal with disputes in a calm, civil manner.

Additional optional questions from JamieS93 (stolen from Coffee)

4. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until tomorrow to answer this question, when I'll have more time (I'm going to bed in half an hour).

5. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A.

Additional optional question from Katerenka (stolen from Steven Zhang)

6. Do you, as a potential administrator feel that it is more important to abide by and enforce the letter or the spirit of policies and guidelines. Additionally, if a situation arose where policies ans guidelines conflict with a better solution that you could achieve by using common sense and administrative judgment, would you do so? If possible, please give an example.

A. Yes, I do feel like it is important to abide by policies and guidelines. Overall, I feel that policies and guidelines are created for protection - no specific type of protection, just general protection. Allow me to elaborate - in my opinion, the personal attack, civility, harassment, biting the newbies, and assumption of good faith policies/guidelines are maintained to protect users' credibility or self-esteem. For instance, say a well-meaning editor who is new to Wikipedia adds unsourced information (or at least sources it with an unreliable source) without being aware of the verifiability and reliable sourcing policies. A bitey editor reverts the edit on sight, scolding the newbie with an uncivil warning filled with personal attacks. Feeling unimportant, the newbie leaves Wikipedia. Not only is the newbie's self-esteem hurt, but the reverting and warning editor's credibility is also hurt, because s/he resorted to incivility, personal attacks, and bitey-ness, scaring off a potentially helpful contributor in the process. Meanwhile, the policies on verifiability, reliable sources, external links, and vandalism protect the credibility of the encyclopedia itself by preventing the introduction of disreputable or libelous content into articles.
With regards to the other part of the question, hmmmm... I'll think about that. I'll try to have an answer prepared by the end of the night.

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

7. In your last Editor Review in October, Coldplay Expert said you should go for an RfA, and you had to see what your former coach had to say. I want to ask the question that Soap asked there: Even just now, you had to ask Julian for advice on whether to run or not. If you can't make a decision like that by yourself, how can I ever trust you with the duties of an administrator?, and what has changed in the last 2 months to make you feel ready to self-nom?

A: Two things. Firstly, Julian's advice was to wait until toward the end of the year – with there being only three weeks left in 2009, I felt that now was the right time. Secondly, upon self-reflection of my editing career (August 2008 - December 2009), I feel like I've learned a lot from my past mistakes, and have become an editor who could benefit Wikipedia with the tools.

Just a note with my opinion. Julian is one of the more respected editors that has ever edited here at EN, so I think turning to him for advice was an extremely smart thing to do.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from User:Keepscases

8. You're an administrator, and you come across a user page in which a user has apparently hotlinked to various pictures of naked people from Wikimedia Commons, and below each picture has a sentence "rating" the peoples' attractiveness. There is absolutely nothing abnormal or wrong with any of the user's other contributions. What, if anything, do you do about the user page?

A: Since pictures of naked people would likely cause disrepute toward the project, I would warn the editor that their user page is inappropriate, citing WP:UP#Images on user pages as reference for the user. If the user failed to respond in a timely manner or responded incompetently, I would delete the user page.

Additional question from User:Coldplay Expert

9 While I have already !voted support, (see below as to why) I would still like for you to answer this question if you will. As you pointed out in you nomination, you used to be an editor who would get into a lot of trouble. Even getting you reported to the AN. So what caused you to abruptly turn your actions around and why?

A: Thank you for asking this! All along, I had regretted my early flaws. I was tired of letting them make me feel badly about myself, so in February I began to tag pages for speedy deletion and revert vandalism. A couple days later, I was granted rollback rights – I became an avid vandal-fighter for about a week before slipping into a month-long wikibreak. After that, I thought, "Hey, maybe I can help with account creation!" That is how I became an account creator. About a week later, I curiously rummaged through some old RedirectCleanupBot (talk · contribs) archives, and found Schutz's tool. I became addicted immediately, tagging broken redirects left and right (which is why broken redirect cleanup makes up the vast majority of my 2,000+ deleted edits). Then, in July, I began using Huggle and made hundreds of edits per day through combat of vandalism. Lastly, in August I began reviewing proposed DYK hooks (achieving my first featured list around the same time). As for my previous issues (MySpacing, immaturity, etc.), I just stopped those because I was sick of making the same mistakes I had in the past.

A nice little anthology, isn't it?

Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana

10. What is your take on cool down blocks?

A: According to WP:CDB, cool-down blocks should never be used, as they tend to only make matters worse by making the blocked editor angrier still. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive may be blocked for disruption.

Additional Questions from FASTILY

11. Would you ever consider blocking a registered user without any prior notice or warning? If so, why?

A:

12. A user uploads various screenshots from a copyrighted video game, say, Halo 2. The user adds all of the images to the article, Halo 2, in a gallery. Explain the problem with this situation and why it is a problem.

A:

13. During your duties as a sysop, you come across an article regarding an upcoming film. You note that someone has uploaded a screenshot from that upcoming film and that it is obvious that this image has never been published anywhere. In a detailed, manner, explain your course of action.

A:

14. A user crops an image of a turtle from a copyrighted album cover for usage in the article, Sea turtle. When is this allowed (if ever) and how is it potentially a problem?

A:

• Links for Dylan620: Dylan620 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dylan620 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dylan620 before commenting.

• Editing stats are available at the talk page. @Kate (parlez) 19:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note that I will gladly explain my answers if requested to do so. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow me to explain the William Thompson Lusk issue. NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) was working on the article when he congratulated me on my first DYK. He offered to collaborate with me on the article, asking me to convert bulleted notes into prose. I accepted, and that's what I did. Nothing more, save for a couple headers I added. ZooFari's perception of the matter is correct - I mentioned it in my nomination statement (and my answer to Q2) because I was proud that I gave NW the help he requested. I did not mean to come across as having unjustly taken credit for NW's work, and I apologize if I did. For more information, see the following discussions (1, 2). --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 01:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've seen a lot of Dylan's work and I'll be very surprised if something turns up that changes my vote, but I'll keep an eye on it. The comments about Ottava are regrettable, but they're a long time ago and I'm positive Dylan takes a different approach at RfA now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I have to say Dylan. You had a pretty shaky past but you have learned quickaly. You have done wonders in all areas that you have contributed in and furthermore you have have admited to your own mistakes. It takes guts to admit that you were wrong...even if it can fail your RFA. More admins these days need to be humble and realize that they are admins, not supermen. If everyone here was like you then the project would be a better place. Im proud to !vote support for you. Good job and Good luck.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Support (switch to neutral) Let me say it clearly: I remember Dylan being immature when he started and I know thus where the opposing !votes come from. But I also know that people can change and that Dylan has stopped his immature behavior, thus demonstrating both the maturity and the cluefulness to learn from past mistakes and change one's behavior when needed. I have not seen any recent indications that would justify assuming that Dylan is still immature (I would request those opposing about immaturity concerns to present diffs that prove otherwise in case I am wrong). On the other hand, Dylan is helpful, knows his way around the project and has no record of blocks or misusing tools (like rollback) that would be reason for concern. Regards SoWhy 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support Pleased with the well-thought out answer that Dylan gave to the first half of my question, and seriously doubt that he could say anything in the response to the second half that would negate the opinion I have from seeing him around. Smart, competent, and clueful editor, who takes the time to help out people who need it. I have no reservations about giving him a few extra buttons to push, as him assuming the role of administrator would be a net positive for the project. @Kate (parlez) 23:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Looking at your contributions and how well you've been teaching your adoptees (I've actually started borrowing your method =P), I'd say that your initial immaturity is behind you now. Keep up the good work. Cheers!--Twilight Helryx 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Recent contribs look good. Ignoring the past and anticipating the future, I would love to see you as an admin.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. While WP:UP#NOT 4/11 would apply to Q8 better (images of naked people can't be fair use, and Commons doesn't host fair use), I feel that Dylan will be a great sysop. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support You remind me of me when I was younger on here, and we have both learned from our mistakes while editing here. I admire your enthusiasm. Good luck. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Great user. -download ׀ sign! 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Illegitimi non carborundum I must admit that I'm a tad annoyed about the "gut instinct" and "perception" opposes, It must be the school/weekday banner on your user page... many ageist rednecks hang round RFA so dont be too disheartened. To the opposes I wish to note that my gut feeling is that negative gut feelings based on no evidence is a reason not to support, but not a reason to oppose - especially when you cite no reasons or evidence that justifies it. RFA should be the candidate and not omens, mythology, astrology or other pathetic things such as gut feelings (Just imagine it "Oh its a solar eclipse, bad energies, better oppose everyones RFA today"). All jokes asside, from what I can see Dylan is a helpful contributor who does good and means well, accordingly I wish him the best of luck with his RFA.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hey I'm all for young people taking on responsibilities. 'round here in redneck land we try to get our daughters married off before they turn 14! Gigs (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Weak Support:Dylan is a helpful contributor who does good work and means well. Some of the opposes caused me concern, but over all a net positive - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. ad vitam aut culpam - Some concerns per nom statement. Creating 71 accounts @ WP:ACC and then going inactive for nigh 6 months [1] is not a strong selling point and is especially not worth mentioning twice. That being said i find that Dylan620 would be a net-positive admin so why not. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Concerns over the user's maturity and types of contributions. Perhaps a little more time, and possibly more work in article mainspace :)  IShadowed  ✰  20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak oppose, still concerned about maturity, though a lot of the issues are dated. Wizardman 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sorry, but I have maturity concerns here. Adminship is a big role and I don't feel you are quite ready for it, sorry. Additionally, your answer to Question 6, where the question says, "...is more important to abide by and enforce the letter or the spirit of...", as opposed to "will you abide by and enforce X", to me, neither shows sufficient thought or understanding. I do have strong opinions on how admins should act, and the characteristics they should posses, and I am afraid you have showed you do not posses those qualities. Updated at 00:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm trying not to respond to the opposes, but I'm still curious - can you please direct me to any recent instance where you believe I have been immature? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This is going to sound mean, but I am afraid it is just my perception of you. I know that might seem unfair, but I just don't feel that you have demonstrated exceptional maturity in proportion to your age. Sorry. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. It's very clear you're here to help. I've seen you all around the project, and it's obvious that you're trying to be as helpful as possible. It is also clear you're here for all the right reasons- you seem to have stuck your head into the wrong places early in your time here-and therefore, would be a net positive. Nevertheless, as many have said earlier, the real question at RfA is "do I really trust this candidate with the tools?" At this point, I don't think I could fully say that I could trust you, Dylan. You do seem to be a bit immature, and seem to be prone to rely on others for decisions. Maturity comes with experience and I am sure that you will eventually make an excellent admin candidate, just not at this time. Best, ceranthor 22:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weakest of weak opposes - going with my gut. Don't think the candidate is suited to the tools. Really sorry.  GARDEN  23:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Maturity concerns. I also don't feel it's appropriate for you to take credit for William Thompson Lusk, as you did in your nomination statement. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   By my interpretation, Dylan felt proud of his edits made to that article. I don't think he was asserting that his contributions were among the best or anything like that. ZooFari 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Mentioning an article that one did not do many edits to isnt really a good reason to oppose. However you do make a point about maturity. I myself have many of the same issues that Dylan had in the begining. However in the 2 years that he has been editing, Dylan has learned alot. I cant think of a single instance since I joined (late July of 2009) were Dylan has been uncivil, rude, attacking, defending, or anything else. As stated above, people can change, and Dylan has made that change for the better.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Your contributions to "building" William Thompson Lusk was converting some notes into prose and adding headers. It was not worth mentioning in the opening statement. Also, I've noticed this user demonstrate poor judgement on numerous occasions. It's fine wanting to be an admin, but being an admin wannabe definitely is not. Majorly talk 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. I agree with everything ceranthor said. To avoid repetition, I'll leave you with "per ceranthor." iMatthew ^talk at 01:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. I think you are a great guy, but I'm unsure whether you would be suited for adminship because of maturity. Best of luck anyway, Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose - Whilst Dylan has always been polite and kind to myself i dont think nows the time for him to get the mop as ifear he wouldnt be able to handle it.Jason Rees (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - I am concerned by the user's grasp of the policies admins must implement. Specifically, I see two issues with the answer to question 8. First of all, the link to WP:UP#Images on user pages discusses images, not links to images -- a subtle but important distinction. More worrying is the willingness expressed to engage in unilateral deletion of the user page without going through the MfD process to determine community consensus on the question. I'm also underwhelmed by the answer to question 6. I strongly suspect that the word "or" was missed by the candidate, or possibly interpreted as an inclusive or. My interpretation of the question is that it presents an exclusive disjunction. A generalization like the one put forward -- that policies are about protection -- should showcase a structure to the candidate's views on policy, preferably one that allows voters to understand how the candidate will act in the admin role. However, what is there is unhelpful in this regard, and merely provides a lightly annotated list of some WP policies. For these reasons, I must oppose this nomination. — æk^Talk 03:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose - Per Q8; summary deletion wouldn't be the answer, even if deletion were eventually decided as the community response. (Such result is far from certain.) I don't think the fabric of the universe would necessarily be rent asunder, but this judgment doesn't sit well with me, and it doesn't inspire confidence that admin tools would be used in a net-positive way.  Frank  |  talk  04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How would you know "that admin tools would be used in a net-positive way." considering that deleting userpages isnt what he said he wants to do with the tools? irc, he plans on working at AIV and cleaning up broken redirects.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose Question 8 really killed it for me. That would be a drama filled DRV if he really did do something like that to a constructive editor without discussion. Adminship seems to be a big goal for Dylan, which seems to be particularly common among less mature users. When adminship itself becomes the goal instead of improving Wikipedia, then we have a problem. Gigs (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose per A8. ArcAngel (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course it was a silly answer, taking away a mans porn / link collection will never get you any supports, right?   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose - Not enough mainspace work. Most of the work has been on community related pages. A very rough estimate of article space edits that aren't twinkle or huggle (Article edits - (Huggle + Twinkle) / 2 (one for main one for talk)) leaves less than one thousand main article edits, which could be fine, but it doesn't count the numerous whitespace edits I see in the history. Compare that to over 1,000 user page edits. I have no problem with those kinds of edits and those are good things, but I think they need to be discounted appropriately and I don't see a lot of broad based article work. I could support in the future, but not yet. Shadowjams (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose - He needs more mainspace work, and many of his edits are from Twinkle and Huggle. December21st2012Freak (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose, concerns about maturity, knowledge of policy, and breadth of overall experience. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose A record of tactless behavior is the deal killer. Warrah (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose Maturity concerns along with the answer to Q8.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral I'm undecided for the moment. The incident with Ottava makes me reluctant, but the incident being so long ago is what's preventing me from opposing. I'm planning on deciding once I get to see the answers to any subsequent questions that might be asked... The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 20:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral I've always had questions about Dylan's maturity which the Ottava thing is a minor part of, Q7 could change this but at this point I'm leaning oppose.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Moved to oppose.Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neural - I just have too many issues in the maturity department that I don't want to support. I don't want to be harsh and oppose, so I am neutral.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 20:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Also currently undecided. Consider this a placeholder, I will make an oppose or support comment soon. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think Dylan is a very nice person, has nothing but good intentions, and I doubt he would abuse the tools. What sets him apart is his high level of enthusiasm, which of course is sometimes taken for callowness. Admins need to be held to a high standard of maturity, and while Dylan may or may not quite meet that standard, the perception he gives is not particularly compatible with adminship, unfortunately. I appreciate all the work he does in making the Wikipedia community a more welcoming one. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral - I am a little stuck on this one. I feel the opposers aren't giving enough evidence but I feel a support isn't right, unfortunately. Good luck nonetheless. smithers - talk - sign! 02:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral. I like you but I just have a few niggling doubts at the back of my mind that won't let me support. However, come back in a few months and address some of the concerns raised by those above me and I see no reason why you shouldn't be successful. Oh, and since we're all quoting Latin- per ardua ad astra. HJMitchell You rang? 08:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral (switch from support) The answer to Q8 is highly worrying. I cannot support anyone for adminship who would delete out of process without a very good reason to do so (I have no problem with IAR deletions when needed). As Gigs says in their oppose, such an action, apart from being against policy and without discussion, would also very likely cause drama on a large scale. Regards SoWhy 10:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral Dylan is getting close to the point where I would support. Some of the answers should be tweaked a bit, especially Q8 (why not get consensus or at most just remove the content without deleting the page?). Royalbroil 14:09, 12 December 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.