Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dr Dec

Dr Dec

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (2/11/3); Scheduled to end 23:38, 23 January 2010 (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: The page deletion was because of a change of user name for privacy reasons. I used to edit under my real name and wanted to enforce my right to privacy. I would rather the page not be restored in order to protect my privacy. My edits from my real name account were carried over to my current user name, so you'll be able to access them via my current edit history. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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: I'd like to provide some hypothetical examples if I may. The obvious one is insufficient warnings. It's normal to require vandalism after a recent, and correctly issued, level 4 warning. If appropriate warning hadn't been issued then nor would a block. Sometime a first and final warning is appropriate, for example when sexual or racial abuse is involved. If the report to AIAV seems to seek to punish the reported user; blocks should be preventative and not punitive. Also reports involving stale warnings would be unsuccessful. For example if a level 1 and 2 warnings came a month ago and the level 3 and 4 warnings came today. Finally, incorrectly issued warnings, e.g. for good faith edits, shouldn't be taken into consideration. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

A: Technically speaking, no. A COI would arise if one were to make edits to an article when one was directly associated with the subject of the article, e.g. editing one's employer's article. Having said that, I personally would no block a user for vandalising my user page. I would report them to AIAV — or let the current report stand — so that another admin could deal with it. It would be a moral conflict of interest to block the user, and I would like an uninvolved admin to take control of the case. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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:

Question from Mkativerata

8. In what respect do you hold copyright in this photo? I note it appears on this webpage. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A:

Additional optional questions from Shirik

9. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user that was reported at WP:AIV that did not yet receive a total of 4 warnings?

A:

Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana

10. In cases where a user has done nothing else that would warrant any block, is a cool down block ever acceptable?

A

Additional optional question from Phantomsteve

11. In your answer to Q1, you made no mention of CSDs or AfDs. Does this indicate that you have no interest in these areas, or would you be involved in them if you were to get the bit?

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)
• Does anyone here object to a SNOW close? Aditya Ex Machina 08:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  I'd like to wait and see how the candidate answers the questions first, if you don't mind. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 09:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sure. That's perfectly acceptable. Aditya Ex Machina 09:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would ask that the discussion not be SNOWed. I would very much like to get feedback from this whole process. If a SNOW closure seems in order then I will request the closure myself. Thanks. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:58, 17 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)

   Support. Well rounded user. Probably over-qualified if anything. Brazilnode (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC) This editor has made few edits outside this topic. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

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

   What is wrong with that? smithers - talk 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you. AIV is in desperate need of more admins, particularly during "off hours" when not many are on. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Sorry, but I've still got a bad taste in my mouth from this issue, and I don't see any overwhelmingly positive article or dispute-resolution contributions to outweigh it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   I'm also rather concerned about this, which strikes me as very hasty and ill-considered. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   Regarding the last link: I thought that someone was trying to assume Xeno's identity, so I passed it on for the attention of more experienced users. Xeno hadn't put any mention of Xeno on an iPhone, and had not put any links between the two accounts; as is required^[2]. Given that Xeno is such an experienced editor I would have assumed that s/he would have followed policy regarding alternative accounts. This further enforced the impression of a bogus account. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Julian and previous interaction with the candidate. Vandal-fighting is stated as candidate's primary need for the tool, but only 70 reports to AIV. Also, as noted above, very little work in the XfD arena or with article creation. GlassCobra 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Regardless of what the user says about "just fighting vandalism", I don't buy it. The tools are bundled. Outside of reversions, I don't see anything that helps me gauge the clue of this user. Also, julian's diff shows a very worrisome immature tone. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   Oh and this doesn't demonstrate sound judgement. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

5. Weak Oppose. I'm with Wisdom on this one. The vandalism reversion is definitely not a bad thing, but there isn't a whole of other stuff to go off of. I took a sample of maybe ten edits and got this and this, which didn't instill in me much confidence of maturity. I do intend to take a closer look when I get a chance a little later, but from what I've seen so, a little more time would be of use. Useight (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   Regarding the first link: Why does it show a lack of maturity? I admit my past failings and ask for closure on something. As for the second link, well, that user's closure of the discussion was later over turned and the discussion bloomed into a very productive one. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose The situation Julian pointed out shows a real lack of ability to handle conflicts as recently as August. Gigs (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose. per above. Troubling concerns with policy knowledge, experience, and lack of common sense. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose - This user is not ready to use the admin bit yet, as they are lacking in sound judgmen in several admin related areas; as was shown by Julian and Wisdom89; and they are not mature enough yet. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   The only link I can see that shows lack of maturity is Julian's one from August. I have already admitted that I was inexperienced at the time, I have already apologised, I have already asked for closure on the matter, and I have been getting to know the project ever since. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose ~70 edits to AIV aren't much to judge a vandal-fighting admin-candidate. Combined with the diffs Julian and Wisdom89 point out- no, not this time. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Julian's first link, it doesn't reflect the way an admin should behave. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 09:04, 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[3], blocked a user after minimal warning for vandalising a vandalbox,[4] 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)

   In my opinion most of the typical backlog at AIV should never have been reported there in the first place, and blocking simply because you can or because you're asked to causes more harm than good. I await the answer to question 5 with great interest. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral For Now - Answer Question 4 please. smithers - talk 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Per JC, but would not pile on. Tim Song (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)