Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dynaflow

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

Dynaflow

(7/10/6); Ended 01:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dynaflow (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you for your consideration for promotion User:Dynaflow. This editor has, as you will discover, been editing under this name only since the beginning of March 2007; he has, however, amassed a significant amount of experience editing prior to this under an IP address. Since opening an account, he has amassed over three thousand edits, spread across mainspace and namespace. He has an excellent contribution record in wiki-space and wiki-talk, and has also shown competence in image and template work. I have interracted with him on several occasions, and have found him to have a thorough knowledge of wiki policy, together with a clear knowledge of how to apply it. He is a committed vandal-fighter, among other things, and when given the tools will be able significantly to assist in maintaining the integrity of the project, and indeed to enhance it. Anthony.bradbury 10:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination for adminship and am flattered to be considered for the opportunity. --Dynaflow babble 01:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Just starting out as an administrator, I would like to help with resolving cases brought to the Administrator noticeboards in concert with other administrators, from whom I can learn the finer points of sysopsmanship. I would also like to help clear the CSD backlog and watch TfD, AfD, and the COI noticeboard, where I have recently gained experience working as a regular editor. Further on, after I have become more practiced, I would like to work with and try to solve problems with abusive accounts at SSP and elsewhere. For now, though, I want to start slow and avoid making the rookie mistake of diving straight into the deep end.

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

A: It goes without saying that one can only rarely be the best judge of his or her own work. Posterity is a far better judge, especially in such an ever-changing environment as Wikipedia. In light of that, my additions to the List of female bass guitarists that I made while I was an anonymous IP editor are as likely to be the contribution that's still "intact" five years down the road as anything else I've done.

However, there are certain contributions of which I am inordinately proud, so I'll substitute those for whatever may turn out to be the "best." In the realm of material contributions, I have been working on college articles lately, both in editing text and creating templates. Cooperating in a concerted effort with a couple other editors, and with the aid of a cast of dozens, I helped make the University of California, Santa Cruz article the first University-related article to achieve GA status (Talk:University of California, Santa Cruz) in Wikipedia:WikiProject California. A side project related to that effort, the "de-awkwardification" of UCSC's navigation template, led to two different series of navboxes which are now sported by articles on all the schools of the the University of California system, the California State University system, the Oregon University System, the University of Hawai'i system and (coming soon), the University of Alaska system (see User:Dynaflow/Crap-I-Made).

I am also proud of less-material help I have given to the Wikipedia project, both in generating goodwill between Wikipedia and potentially disgruntled users through diplomatic efforts, dispute mediation, and mentoring; and in helping plug holes in the intentionally-leaky dike that keeps the fertile polders of the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit from being innundated by the "contributions" of users who wish to test the limits of what, exactly, is meant by "anyone."

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've gotten into one 3RR dispute since I've been here, and, more than anything else, it was more of a dumb misunderstanding with an absolutely uncommunicative editor amidst the chaos of trying to fend off the waves of vandals attacking pages related to the Virginia Tech massacre in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. I was blocked for a few hours, and then unblocked by Coelacan with the agreement that I refrain from going back to fighting vandalism on VT massacre-related pages until the block would have worn off. If you wish to read through the details of the case, they are still on my Talk page here. I learned quite a bit from that experience, and it's not a mineshaft I intend on falling through again.

I have also, of course, been accused of personal vendettas and other malfeasance by users who have seen articles they made or (especially) articles on bands they like taken by me to AfD or speedied, but that comes with the territory. This and this were particularly charming emotional responses in the face of which I remained calm, professional, and matter-of-fact, as is my pattern when dealing with any conflict situation. From just a day or two ago, this case from ANI, which I took the lead in handling, stemming from this fracas, was a situation I again dealt with in a spirit of utmost professionalism.

Occasionally I have had a user intentionally try to cause me stress, such random vandals I have warned who try to take a swipe back , only to be met with more stoic (if biting and somewhat entertaining) professionalism [1]. I have also been the primary human point of contact (the latest, if you keep track of them as they go by) in SummerThunder's ongoing war against Wikipedia. While it is somewhat frustrating to have another user following your contributions to revert and/or add nonsense (with bonus taunting edit summaries) to whatever you've been editing recently, if you think of him as an annoying but harmless gnat in an exceedingly large kitchen, all his crap shifts into perspective and shows itself as the pathetic quixotism that it is. One disturbed jerk with a vendetta and a talent for changing his IP address will never be able to make even a dent in this great project. That is an attitude I intend to keep whe dealing with similar cases in the future. --Dynaflow babble 00:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[Addendum:] I have taken a lot of flak for my answer to this question, in particular for what seems to have been interpreted as a dismissive attitude of my single, if temporally recent, Wikipdia 3RR incident. That I filed an AIV report in relation to it has also raised some hackles. I wish to repost the AIV report here in its entirety:

• Che829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be someone's sock puppet. Has been engaged in an edit war at Cho Seung-hui against the consensus on the naming convention for the article subject. Has not left edit summaries or responded to messages, so I don't think s/he's really in the revert-war I thought s/he was at first -- s/he just seems to be screwing with us and vandalizing the page. What do you suggest we do?

Some explanation of my respective levels of experience in Wikipedia's various realms of activity at that time is required to fully appreciate why I left this note where I left it. I have been editing Wikipedia articles on and off for over a year, but I only started to really "get into it" over the Winter Break period last December. When I finally got around to getting a username and "formalizing" my participation, I had yet to step behind the curtain that divides the major public areas of Wikipedia from the administrative and behind-the-scenes framework which makes this whole thing run, but which the average reader or dabbling editor will probably never even realize is there. I soon found and started participating in a couple of WikiProjects, and had made one major foray into reverting vandalism after running across WP:VAND by accident. As of the day of the VT massacre, when the 3RR incident occured, WP:AIV was the only place I knew of to get an administrator's attention and help, mainly as a result of finding it through WP:VAND. I was also unaware of the details of the 3RR Rule, merely thinking it was just another warning criterion on the templates at WP:UWT.

The day of the Virginia Tech massacre was the point at which my heavy Wikipedia participation really started in earnest. Having had the experience of doing the anti-vandalism patrolling once before, I thought it might be a good service to Wikipedia to help out at the articles related to the massacre, as they were sure to be beset by vandalism (they were, and then some). The Talk pages were particularly chaotic, and there were often several threads, with their own sets of editors, discussing the exact same problems. I believed, based on the thread I read on Seung-Hui Cho's name order (Korean-style or American style?) that the consensus was that his name should be used in the American style, so I said on the talk page that I would change it (many discussion participants seemed to be new users and could not edit the semi-protected article).

Immediately after changing the name, I noticed someone was changing it back to the Korean style, "Cho Seung-Hui." I attempted to contact the user [2] and changed it back to how I thought the consensus would have it (in what turned out to be the majority opinion in a minority thread). The same user immediately reverted what I had done. I left a message on the article talk page asking what was going on [3]. I left a 3RR warning on the user's page, again mainly because I wasn't fully aware of what 3RR was. It kept changing back. So I went to get an administrator to ask what to do. I found a 3RR noticeboard, but couldn't figure out exactly what to do [4] there, so I went to AIV, mostly because the interface there was simple and my chances of screwing it up were less [5].

I expressed my confusion to Coelacan [6] and, in my blundering "n00bness" in the world behind the curtain, continued to mistake the other editor's actions for trolling behavior. About half an hour later, I realized that the consensus I had seen on one thread amongst the dozens that had sprung up within the space of a day was really illusory. I immediately went about organizing a straw poll, including everyone who had expressed an opinion on how then-Cho Seung-Hui's name should be arranged on any thread related to the massacre so that we could get the issue settled once and for all. I contacted three dozen or so users thusly [7], and we got the matter sorted out.

The next day, I was contacted and told that I had violated 3RR in the incident and had to be blocked. I engaged in a long dialogue with Coelacan, the blocking admin, in which I essentially agreed to plead guilty and to stay away from VT-related articles for the rest of the day in exchange for the ability to do some work with templates elsewhere, which I had intended to do on the day of the massacre, but had been pushed aside by the news-driven chaos. The conversation is available for inspection on my Talk page. It was only in the aftermath of this block that I came to realize the full meaning of 3RR and was able to appreciate its simple, brutal necessity for Wikipedia community.

Since that incident, as I have been between projects (I do research and write), I have had a huge amount of time available to explore Wikipedia and participate all over the project. Even my favorite psychotic Wikipedia stalker, banned user SummerThunder, has commented on my zeal in participating in Wikipedia on his blog (see his 6 May entry here: [8]). I have put in possibly as many as 1500 to 2000 edits since the 3RR, in Article, Talk, Template, and Project space; and I have learned an incredible amount about Wikipedia. I have progressed from making moronic blunders like this to advising new Wikipedians why doing things like that is unwise [9].

I believe wholeheartedly in the ideal that, if one is willing to learn from his or her mistakes and sin no more, he or she should be forgiven and be allowed to proceed with a clean slate. We're all about second chances here. Hell, we even allow vandals to come back time and again in the hopes they'll "reform" and become productive editors. I don't believe this one mistake should be counted against me to the extent it currently is. It was an edit war, it turns out, but it was mainly a stupid mistake on my part, which I learned from and have no intention of ever repeating. I have, in fact, adopted more of a 1RR-and-discuss philosophy [10]. I've said my piece, so let the darts fly as they will. If this continues to be problematic, I will voluntarily withdraw my nomination, with apologies to my nominator and those who have voiced support for my adminship. Thanks for reading. --Dynaflow babble 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Ryan Postlethwaite

4. Could you elaborate on you IP edits, and if possible, disclose the IP address you were editing from? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A: The last IP address I was editing from was 71.193.218.54. Before that, I was doing copy-editing on random articles now and then from a series of dorm-rooms' connections, and I wouldn't know where to start looking for those IP addresses. Most of my IP edits were copy-editing, adding to established lists, and other beginner-level (though important) tasks.

Optional question from Funpika

5. Do you feel your password is strong enough that it won't be easily compromised? Funpika 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A: Though I of course won't reveal the details of why, my password is quite strong. It was last changed immediately after I read about the recent sysop account hijackings on ANI.

General comments

• See Dynaflow's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for Dynaflow: Dynaflow (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dynaflow before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator--Anthony.bradbury 21:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support No significant controversy, seems to have learned from his short block, and hard worker. I'd trust him with a mop and bucket. Coren 01:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - Time with an account? Not that impressive I've got to say (the IP relieves some of those concerns, but not all), however, I've been checking through your contribs (even before this went live) and I can see you have a firm understanding of policy and have thorough contributions through all namespaces, can you be trusted? Of course. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - I'm willing to give a pass on a 3RR block at Seung-Hui Cho. In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, there was a lot of emotion involved. There was later unanimous agreement here that Dynaflow's name was correct. Unless there is something more, I am willing to overlook this single transgression. This particular crisis affected a lot of us, and I would bet that if someone looked closely at the history, they could find a lot of 3RR violations in there. The main massacre article was getting edited 15-20 times/minute at points even while s-protected - it was all rather chaotic. Does that excuse a 3RR violation? No, but knowing the circumstances, I consider it understandable. --BigDT 04:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Default support per Ryan Postlethwaite. —AldeBaer 23:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - I believe this user won't abuse the tools, and I can easily overlook a 3RR block on a current event article - Jaranda got a block editing Super Bowl XL, when his versions turned out to be correct. Same thing, different users and articles. I can also overlook the time given his editing from an IP address. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 01:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Deserves a chance; being an admin should be no big thing.--Osidge 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I'm very unhappy with your answer to question 3. Looking at the relevant difs I think you either misrepresent what the block was about or have not understood it. You were revert warring, plain and simple. The issue wasn't vandalism to an article but a dispute over naming conventions. You reverted a number of editors to put forward your prefered view. I don't see how you can characterise what you reverted as vandalism. The unblock was not conditional on your not dealing with vandalism to the article, it was conditional on your not going back to reverting the name of the perpetrator to your prefered version. It was also made based on your agreeing that what you did was wrong and not to do it again (not because Coelacan's block was incorrect in the first place). The issue raises for me two problems. Either (1) you will makes mistakes as an admin as to what you characterise as vandalism or (2) you will make mistakes as to what a 3RR block is for - neither is acceptable. Frankly, I would oppose any candidate with such a recent valid 3RR block. WjBscribe 02:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   That is a valid concern, and if you feel the need to take an absolute position on editors who have had 3RRs within a given amount of time, I will respect that. However, I did not characterize Coelacan's actions as incorrect. Far from it. As I said above, perhaps not clearly enough, it was a dumb misunderstanding on my part in a chaotic context. As detailed in the exchange between me and Coelacan linked above, as soon as I realized my mistake, I made extraordinary efforts to make things right. Indeed, the accidental revert war (and it was both a revert war and accidental) and my efforts to fix it led to the centralization of conversation on a contentious issue and moved things forward in such a way that that issue did not become a problem again. If anything, it proves that I am a human being who makes mistakes, but it also shows that I am freely willing to admit my errors, learn from them, and work hard to repair whatever damage may have been caused by them. Also, the temporal recentness of my mistake should bee seen in the light of the huge amount of editing and other work I've put into the project since then, without another problematic editing conflict. On the question of discerning vandalism, I don't think my ability to tell vandalism apart from constructive edits has ever been called into question outside of that one incident. --Dynaflow babble 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose. I have to agree with WJBscribe here as regards your characterization of the block. I'm bothered by the rest of the answer to Q3 as well. It's fine to link to topics that show your actions in a case of conflict, but it would be much better to let others decide whether or not they show that you dealt with conflict "in a spirit of utmost professionalism". Even if vandals are on the prowl or other users are upset, I don't like the tone of calling your interaction with other users "stoic, biting, entertaining professionalism" - it seems quite condescending. Can you show me, instead, situations in which you admitted that you made bad choices? Something showing a spirit of compromise? Dekimasuよ! 03:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   These are ones I thought of off the top of my head: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], . I'll bring more to the table if you ask. I just have to look through more edit histories to find the relevant diffs. Again, I do make mistakes, but I'm always learning, and I'm always willing to admit it if I screw up. --Dynaflow babble 03:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to neutral... more comments below. Dekimasuよ! 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose Comments like this are unnecessary and perhaps even counterproductive. The ensuing talk regarding the same on their own talk page does not show the "utmost professionalism" that they claim they have. And the "squash the dumb bastard" statement on their talk page, albeit about a vandal, is inappropriate IMO. And I am not satisfied with the answers to the questions regarding the 3RR block. - TwoOars ^{(T | C)}|06:04, 13 May 2007

   I have now addressed that particular edit in my addendum to Q 3. The "squash the dumb bastard" comment was made in a spirit of ironic overstatement on my own talk page with an editor with whom I had interacted before and who seems to have taken the comment in the humorous light in which I had written it. --Dynaflow babble 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   The 3RR violation is not such a big deal I guess as there were mitigating circumstances and you have agreed that you were wrong. But regarding that other comment: I get the impression that you are excesssively bothered by vandalism; I have seen you refer to someone (a wikilink to what is probably a sockpuppet account) as "this asshole" (can't find the diff at the moment). Vandals should not be handled with kid gloves but calling them names like that will put their backs up and make them come back for more. You may intend them to be humorous but when someone else reads them, they don't come out that way. (For example I might have sounded curt in my statement above although I didn't mean it that way). Any editor involved in vandal fighting has to take a lot of shit but its no big deal, you have to get on with it. The more you mention Summerthunder in your conversations, the more he would feel like bugging you (or at least thats the way my twisted mind would work if I were a vandal :). Just observe how admins like Coelacan, Riana, Alison, Walton, etc. are reacting to troublemakers and you'll learn a great deal. Other than this, I do not have any objections and I think you are doing a very good job. - TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 08:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   The "asshole" comment was made in reference to the afore-mentioned SummerThunder long-term abuse case, who was (not for the first time) following my contributions list and attempting to systematically vandalize every one of my contributions that he could before someone discovered and blocked his latest sock puppet, while at the same time marking me and others as his sock puppets and sabotaging AIV reports. Specifically I asked, "What is this asshole's problem?" I was communicating with someone who was also being targetted by the banned user, and was simply making my feeings felt in an attempt to commiserate with another who was having similar frustrating experiences that showed no sign of letting up no matter what we did or didn't do. --Dynaflow babble 10:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   Meh. You take the good with the bad, and don't let it get under your skin. This is probably just something you need to get adjusted to - there'll always be trolls, and you can't compromise your own dignity by letting them get to you. – Riana_ऋ 05:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose Dynaflow is generally an even-headed guy, but seems to react badly to vandalism. The examples cited by Twooars are not isolated. My deepest apologies, but I'll have to oppose at this time - I sense a rather trigger-happy admin. – Riana_ऋ 14:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose I don't have any particular issue with this user's relatively short amount of time spent here at Wikipedia, since my RfA itself passed even though I had only less than three months of experience. However, some of the issues brought up by other editors are a bit troublesome. As Coelacan pointed out, you submitted an AIV report that no admin would ever consider a blockable offense. Your response to Q3, especially the 3RR incident, looks problematic. The Seung-Hui Cho incident was an edit war, and saying it was a "dumb misunderstanding" seems to be underestimating the whole situation. I don't think anything involving AIV reports against users can be a "dumb misunderstanding". Anyway, it only happened a few weeks ago, and given that you've been here for such a short period of time, you should expect to be involved in many more equally troublesome situations in the future. As for the rest of your response to Q3, you need to choose your words better and not make them appear so negative. Also, I just want you to know that administrators will face more "accusations" and will be treated harshly by other editors who are upset over deletions/blocks/protections, etc. As Twooars pointed out, there's no point in provoking another editor with language that the other person may take negatively. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - per the point made by TwoOars. Real96 10:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose due to recent block and example provided by TwoOars.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per Riana.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose - also per Riana. --pIrish ^Arr! 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
9. I don't feel this user has enough experience to deal with the higher-level trolling recieved by administrators, when I analyse the diffs provided above. Per Riana. Daniel 05:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose. I'm going to have to oppose per Riana. Sr13 17:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I have to take issue with your characterization of the 3RR between you and User:Che829 as a "dumb misunderstanding". It was a revert war, and you thought Che829's edits constituted vandalism because the user was uncommunicative. But it certainly was not obvious vandalism, and I'm afraid you might be too quick to jump on ESL editors who shy from communication due to their poor English skills. Failure to use talk pages is not a blockable offense, yet you filed a report for essentially that.[16] ··coelacan 09:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   Remaining neutral after nominee's clarification. Doesn't help matters to call a harassing editor "psychotic". Start employing wikipedia:do not insult the vandals and wikipedia:deny recognition, instead of potentially inflaming those situations, and I might support another RFA in two or three months. ··coelacan 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   To clarify my use of that term, it was not intended as an insult. Based on the interactions I've had with that banned editor and on perusing his off-Wikipedia postings to cNet, Uncyclopedia, his blog, and elsewhere that have been found by me and various others, I actually do believe him to be disturbed. The combination of pushing the same issue over and over again, and the messianic zeal with which he's pushing it (I'm beginning to think he actually intends to "save" us) is not typical troll behavior. The additional stalking behavior against me, AuburnPilot, Grandmasterka, Khoikhoi, and others indicates that there is something else at work in the frequent puppeteer's mind, and that should be taken into consideration when dealing with him. I am fully conscious of the need to deny vandals recognition, but this is an atypical case, suggesting some kind of psychosis-driven separation from reality. Simply reporting and reverting in this case are leading with increasing frequency to things like this, which indicates to me that a new strategy that takes his state of mind into consideration might be called for. Psychosis is simply my model for how I think he sees his "efforts" qua us. Again, I'm not insulting so much as I'm trying to comprehend. --Dynaflow babble 08:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   I'm just saying it's not helpful. WP:DITV, WP:DENY, WP:RBI: these methods work. Commenting on someone's suspected mental state does not. As a corollary of Wikipedia is not therapy, it's also not psychoanalysis. ··coelacan 08:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I'm having real problems making a decision here, as I don't know the candidate. I was all set to support (as per usual), but the opposers have brought up some worrying diffs, and due to the fact that Riana (who is usually one of the few voices of sanity at RfA) shares their concerns, I cannot support at this time. Although I'm all for a tough line against vandalism, the 3RR block shows a propensity for controversial editing which mildly concerns me. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral The oppose concerns are too great for me to support, but not great enough for me to oppose. Captain panda 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral — Evidently a dedicated contributor despite the relatively short time since registering (also an eloquent writer); however, the responses to the 3RR, the AIV report, and other examples noted above all raise concern. --Paul Erik 03:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Sorry, the 3RR block combined with a lack of experience means I have to go neutral in this RfA. GDonato (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral, changed from oppose. I recognize that you are well-intentioned here, but I think a little mellowing would go a long way. Dekimasuよ! 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.