Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dr Dec

Dr Dec

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (2/1/1); Scheduled to end 12:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Dr Dec (talk · contribs) – I have been an active editor for 18 months. My primary interest is in stopping the legion of vandals that besiege the project minute after minute, hour after hour, and day after day. I've been involved on the reference desks, on policy discussions, and on project discussions. Besides my vandal fighting I have created several articles; although I'm not the most prolific, or most talented, article creator on the project. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: To being with, I want to work on vandal fighting and blocking. I have spent many hours warning and reporting vandals, and many time a vandal has been allowed continue because of a lack of admins. The back log on this AIAV page was 42 minutes. The back log on this AIAV page was 17 minutes. During this period a large amount of time and effort can be wasted reverting and warning vandals until an admin arrives to put a stop to it. I also intend to learn and to diversify. Eventually I would like to work on page protection (WP:PP). I have noticed that this is an area with a very large back log; sometimes there's never an admin around for hours. The back log on this PP page was over 5 hours. In that time this edit history (01-Sept-09) shows that multiple acts of vandalism has been reverted (by myself, mostly). All of that time and effort could have been saved if I'd have had the power to protect those pages. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

A: I would say that my vandal fighting, in a very Wikignome way, is my biggest and best contribution to the project. Although vandal fighting does not build an encyclopedia, it is necessary to maintain it. Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits: Barack Obama would be 307 year old Chinese farmer with 29 children, born in Sydney Australia. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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 many conflicts during my time here. To be honest, my earlier encounters were quite simply embarrassing, with far too much Wikidrama. Over time I have come to terms with the fact that editorial conflict is not necessarily personal conflict: if someone doesn't like an edit of mine then it doesn't mean that they don't like me. After all; they don't know me! I try to rely on Wikipedia policy as much as possible now, and not to let my emotions take control. I must admit that I have recently allowed my emotions to get involved, but all the while I have remained civil^[1]; but please remember that I do not intend to work in copyright policy. It's important to stay calm and to understand why the conflict has arisen. I won't pretend to be without emotiona; I invest a lot of time and effort into the project. It means a lot to me, and I am very proud of the project as a whole. The important thing to remember is to stay calm. In terms of admin duties: if I were to see a conflict arise between an editor and myself then I would try to address the problem on an editor-to-editor basis. If I found my admin status might cause a conflict of interest then I would ask for a second opinion or withdraw altogether. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Optional question from Soap

4. It would seem that you had your talk page deleted in early October of 2009. Would you be willing to restore it to enable people to better understand your editing history?

A:

Questions from ArcAngel

5. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?

A:

6. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?

A:

7. What is your opinion on WP:3RR, do you believe that an attempt at communication should be made after the 2nd revert or the third?

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I wouldn't be surprised if you get some opposes based on focusing on vandal whacking, but considering you've been here for 18 months and plan on working in an area where you have obvious knowledge and clue, there's no way I'll oppose.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support While you don't appear to have much experience in XfD or any of the other various areas admins are expected to know backwards and forwards, I find those de facto requirements patently ridiculous. You are a dedicated vandal-fighter, and we are in constant need of more admins in that area. Having another editor with the bit protecting the project can only be a good thing. As a huggle user myself, I have often been frustrated when tracking a single dedicated vandal and reverting their edits while waiting for an admin to block them. I would more than welcome another admin to help shoulder the load at AIV. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, just another 'vandalism' reverter. Garibaldi Baconfat 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. ..Pending some further investigation and particularly answers to some of the optional questions. I notice you would have blocked another admin barely two hours ago[2], blocked a user after minimal warning for vandalising a vandalbox,[3] and may think that deleting user talk pages is generally OK. I can see some good things though. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I read the report on Xeno as a good faith, albeit misdirected, attempt to protect the integrity of an admin account. It may raise questions as to the applicant's judgement, but I still feel that the applicant is, on the whole, a positive force on the project. As you yourself are surely aware, AIV is in constant need of more admins and I can't see Dr Dec abusing the bit, and so my vote remains #support, despite your valid concerns. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)