(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dr Dec

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.

Dr Dec[edit]

Final (9/32/11) - closed as withdrawn by candidate at 20:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC). Close fixed by -SpacemanSpiff 21:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

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)[reply]

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: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: It depends on the circumstances. If the editor has previously been a by and large good faith editor then an attempt to communicate after the second should definitely be made. They may not be aware of the 3RR, or they may just be getting carried away by their emotions. I've even seen editor make three reverts because they thought that the limit was per solar day and not 24 hour period. However, if the user is a clear vandal and/or troll then I wouldn't attempt to communicate, per WP:DNFT. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
A: Wow, this is an old image. Like I said, I'm not very good with this copyright stuff. He was my PhD supervisor. I asked him if I could use the image from his website, and he agreed. So to be honest, I don't hold the copyright to the image. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the link above is now red because an administrator has deleted the image under F9. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: As I've mentioned above: if the vandalism involved sexual or racial abuse. In these cases a first and final warning should be issued. If they vandalise again, and it's of the same nature, then they should be blocked. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 No, cool down blocks are a bad idea. They will often make the problem worse. It might even incite sock puppetry. It's better to try to reason with the parties involved and to help them find a solution. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: My primary focus is on AIAV. In time I intend to diversify, but right now I don't have enough experience in these areas to feel confident to get involved at an admin level. I have been involved in CSD at an editor level, and this would continue. So to cut a long story short: once I have the experience I would start to get involved. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk
12. Do you have any article contributions (apart from fighting vandals) that you are particularly proud of?
13. I see that you have a PhD in Mathematics. Fringe science is a contentious area of Wikipedia. Would you perform blocks, page protections or rollbacks in any fringe science articles, or do you feel that this would be a conflict of interest?

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Let's call it a day
  • 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)[reply]

Let's call it a day, could someone please close this RfA. I hadn't realised that I was such an arsehole. Thanks for pointing out how much you all hate me. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    This is not to say that it's a sock. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Impressed by your contribs , as well as the valuable anti vandal work youve made useful improvements to the clarity of maths articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support This user has stated that he needs to learn more about the areas of Admin where he lacks experience. For the purposes that he requests the tools I trust him. RP459 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral Support. I like you- for being a vandal fighter, for giving considered answers to the questions, for having the bollocks to nominate yourself and proving the size of them in keeping it open despite the opposes to get feedback- it shows sound character and, hopefully one day you'll make a good admin. The number of AIV reports is an inaccurate way of measuring your proficiency at vandal fighting, but you would do well to gain more experience there and related areas and with other areas of the project- essentially, show us what you can do without the tools so you can show us that you'd be even more useful to the project with them. Don;t be put off, though! HJMitchell You rang? 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral Support for the future. It is fairly clear that this RfA is not going to succeed, but I think this is a "not yet" rather than a "not ever" (as Tan put it) case. Tireless vandal fighting is appreciated. Plus I have seen the candidate at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics where the candidate is a frequent and constructive contributor; he has also made some good contribitions to math articles. The incidents from Aug 09 cited by JC and Tan show unfamiliarity with some of the conventions and inexperience more than anything else; time and a constructive contrib record can certainly heal that. Same goes for Q8 and the photo copyright issue (please do fix that). Spending a bit more time in other areas of the project apart from vandal-fighting would help for the next time around. Nsk92 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I think theres alot of opposes pileing on here though im not convinced yet to oppose based on the reasons given. I think the user has some potential. To me there is nothing wrong against vandal fighting I find that reason to oppose unconvincing. Without vandal fighters we couldnt build wed have to repair constantly. You have to have an eye for constructive/unconstructive edits it can be difficult and sometimes comes with mistakes, and I challenge anyone who hasnt fought vandalism in the last year who did so in the past to start again and see first hand the difficulties these users encounter today. To Dr Dec, some more article work would help put other users at ease over this and demonstrate yourself a well rounded editor (I think your on the right track). Ref desk/ help desk work admirable and my reason for supporting. I would not belive Dr dec would abuse tools. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I think this candidate will be a conscientious administrator. None of the opposes have convinced me otherwise. — Athaenara ✉ 03:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Looks okay to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose, just another 'vandalism' reverter. Garibaldi Baconfat 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is wrong with that? smithers - talk 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    I'm also rather concerned about this, which strikes me as very hasty and ill-considered. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    To be fair I've seen admins block accounts like this, and the means to check the link between account is quite obscure. I'm sure that now Dr Dec is aware of it it's unlikely to happen again. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Also per rather worrisome answer to Q8, shows serious lack of knowledge. GlassCobra 14:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Oh and this doesn't demonstrate sound judgement. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I just felt better word choice could have been selected when conveying your message. Useight (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. Oppose. per above. Troubling concerns with policy knowledge, experience, and lack of common sense. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    But that incident was only about four months ago. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    But I've made thousands of anti-vandal edits including reverts and warnings. I can't get an exact figure because Soxred93's tool doesn't seem to be working for me. Going off AIAV reports is a bit misleading. I could revert and warn four times, but then another user picks up the post level 4 edit and makes the AIAV report. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 12:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  12. Oppose - sorry dude, but I don't trust you with the tools. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Not enough deletion discussion/CSD work. Also per the image that user claimed to have the copyright of. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per above. I can't really hold Q4 against you, although I can't support someone who has only 3 months of talkpage history available either. I'm also confused why you would want your talkpage deleted for privacy reasons, but make no attempt to hide the edits that you made during that time; you know your username still shows up in the edits, right? (Even if it's not the sort of thing someone would often run across if they weren't looking.) There's really no way to ever get rid of the connection to your old username, unless you abandon this current account and start a new one (and that would lead to a difficult situation it itself; see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam for an example of an admin candidate who's struggling on RfA even though his change of name was 18 months ago). I do sympathize with you, because RTV seems to be a "no way out" situation and I think that administrators, like other users, should have a right to keep their identities private. But again, that's not a factor in my oppose rationale; the oppose !votes above me are. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I would be willing to consider support in a future RfA even if you decide to keep the early archives of the talkpage always deleted, but can't do so right now because those deleted archives are more than 3/4 of your edit history; and I can't !vote neutral either because of the concerns raised above me. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm pretty sure the candidate was expecting this !vote from me, but I strenuously oppose per what I consider a complete lack of common sense. This is my obvious example that culminated in this series of edits. Then, of course, we had the call for revolution thread. Absolutely not; not ever. Tan | 39 16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was indeed Tan. I wouldn't even expect anything else from someone like yourself. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep digging. You will never be an admin on this project. Tan | 39 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean for your second and third links to be the same, Tan? If so I don't understand the 'revolution' reference. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tan was referring to this thread, in which Dr.Dec calls for revolution against the perceived old boy network of admins.--Atlan (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Not fully up to date with policy. Sorry, try again soon. —  Cargoking  talk  18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Question 8. Admins should take copyright with the utmost seriousness. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Only joining the pile-on because of this request, as while I don't think you're a suitable candidate you're certainly not problematic enough to warrant a full-blown flaming-off-the-project. Of the 11 questions you've answered above, you've given (in my opinion) a clearly wrong answer to eight of them. If you had a fantastic contribution history, to provide evidence that you understand what we're trying to do here, I'd be prepared to overlook such a wildly different interpretation of policy to my own, but I see virtually no content contribution whatsoever. Sorry, but I can't see any good reason why you need admin buttons, and the general "Ignore all rules applies to me, not you" tone of your answers above (and your hassling of what seems to be every other oppose voter) makes me think you'd be another addition to our many admins who understand out rules precisely, but have no understanding of the carefully nuanced compromises and discussion which went into the making of those rules, or of which rules are ignorable "it would be a good idea" guidelines and which are firm legal and/or ethical boundaries. – iridescent 18:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, changing to flat-out oppose. I hadn't noticed "Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits". We have far too many arrogant admins who think the place would fall apart without them as it is. – iridescent 18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that this !vote was supposed to be a discussion. If it's a discussion about me then am I not not entitled to reply? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just digging the hole deeper with comments like that. Numerous people have suggested this be closed, and your response was "no, keep it open, I want to hear what people think of me". Whenever anybody's actually given you an honest answer, your response is a barrage of "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" complaints to everyone opposing. Wikipedia adminship isn't like sysop status on other web boards, or even other wikis; the job brings with it a non-stop torrent of abusive nutcases, trolling cranks, other users bitching about every single thing you do, and well-meaning but clueless comments. Going by your "if we can't use my ball I don't want to play" reactions here to even the mildest criticism – and, as previously mentioned, the sheer without-me-you're-nothing arrogance of "imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits" – there is no earthly way I'd trust you-as-admin not to block people for daring to disagree with you. – iridescent 23:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, you are totally missing my point, and putting words into my mouth. The remark about my vandal fighting was intended to highlight the importance of anti-vandal work on the project; mine and every other vandal fighter's. It's making me really sad to see people nit picking and twisting my words to prove their points. You've totally misjudge me. Maybe I haven't explained myself properly. It's just so sad, you ignore 18 months worth of work and turn to flat out oppose because of one sentence. It's just petty, and it misses the point totally. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Julian and Wisdom above have clearly demonstrated a lack in sound judgement and maturity that are critical parts of an admin's job. Sorry.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per answers to questions two (quite an arrogant statement, you're not the only vandal fighter), five (particularly the stale warning part), seven (you still need to warn vandals/trolls). Also, I don't get the deletion of your talk page, because as you mentioned anyone can go back and easily go into your edits and find your old account name. ~DC Talk To Me 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if my comment came off as snarky. I'd like to add that you have good intentions, and do a good job with vandal-fighting. I think you'll be able to learn from this, and come back again with a better grasp of policy. ~DC Talk To Me 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I had a sort of feeling and reading the discussions noted above just seem to confirm that. Sorry, Fetchcomms (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per demonstrated lack of policy knowledge in regards to answering the questions. Take a few months to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies in the areas you wish to work. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain how I have demonstrated a lack of knowledge? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of your answers do not jibe with the relevant question answered. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Oppose. To me, this candidate comes across as arrogant, immature, and inexperienced. He has made virtually no contributions to any area outside of anti-vandlism work (which is good, as far as I can see), especially to content, and apparently has little to no understanding of policy, particularly copyright, per Q8. I recommend closing this RfA per WP:SNOW. Laurinavicius (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be interested to see why I am arrogant and immature. Since when has admitting one's inexperience been arrogant? Since when has admitting one's mistakes, apologising, and asking for closure been immature? Your comments simply reflect why RfA is broken. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits" ~DC Talk To Me 02:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose: Per regards to answering the questions. South Bay (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Imperfect process knowledge is not disqualifying by itself, but combined with a combative temperament (which the user has demonstrated even during this RFA) is a dangerous combination in an admin. So I need to oppose this candidacy even though I appreciate Dr Dec's anti-vandalism work and contributions at the refdesks. Abecedare (talk)
  26. Oppose. It was last August that the candidate showed remarkable lack of knowledge of Wikipedia processes. From his reply to Tanthalas here, it seems like he still has an axe to grind with him after all those months, even though Tan did no more than point out his ignorance of AIV at that time. I certainly don't want grudge-bearing editors like that to become admins.--Atlan (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have missed his hounding which culminated in outing. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong oppose per request that WP:SNOW not come into play without Dr Dec's say-so. Why do we have the SNOW policy if hopeless editors like this can overrule it for no good reason? Why in hell are so many doomed RfAs getting these kinds of demands lately? Şłџğģő 07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose I was veering towards a neutral to avoid pile-on, but when a candidate shows the arrogance that this one has ("Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits", "If a SNOW closure seems in order then I will request the closure myself" (which seems to imply that only you would be able to judge when it is in order)), the inadequate answers to some of the questions as pointed out above, the fact that you appear to be bearing a grudge against Tan which is something that would be unbecoming in an admin. Incidently, I disagree with your reply to one of the neutrals below - "I could reapply in seven years and the same links would be presented" - they could well be presented in future RfAs, but if your behaviour/attitude is different in the few months beforehand, I would expect most editors to basically say "that was then, but it doesn't apply now". Looking through the RfA archives, you can find many examples of people who applied at RfA a couple of times, and got it after that because they had shown that they listened to the comments and responded in a positive way. If you can do that, then perhaps there is hope for a future RfA - if you can't, then there is no hope. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Editor appears to be growing, but I don't think he's experienced enough yet. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose I'm afraid. I find the above concerns about attitude and lack of policy knowledge worrying. In particular, no matter how unreasonable you thought Tan was being, edit warring is not a productive response; that would be the case even if it weren't for the fact that talk page policy was on his side. Although that incident was several months ago so I could normally overlook it, your comments to Tan here suggest that you haven't moved on. I suggest that you don't take the outcome of this RfA too badly and take PhantomSteve's good advice above: change really is possible. Best of luck, Olaf Davis (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Oppose - at first, I was going neutral to avoid piling on because 70 AIV reports is nowhere near sufficient for a candidate to pass RFA based on anti-vandalism work alone. However, I then saw the "Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits" comment and decided to oppose. This became a strong oppose when I saw that Dr Dec thinks that a valid oppose rationale is "why RfA is broken" - no, that's why it works. In sumnmary, definitely not. Recommend WP:SNOW. Ale_Jrbtalk 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Good experience, not sure about the edit count, but what I don't like is you making negative statements during an RfA nomination, like this one: "although I'm not the most prolific, or most talented, article creator on the project." Since you already have the rollbacking tool, it's better to stick to what you're doing at the moment. Minimac94 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  2. Neutral For Now - Answer Question 4 please. Again, I feel like a tug-o-war rope. There are good reasons to oppose and good reasons to support. I'll stay here. smithers - talk 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per JC, but would not pile on. Tim Song (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Again, per JC but won't pile on. Recommend WP:SNOW closure. (Or not, looking at user comments) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Question answers are generally good, but judgement calls shown by an opposer make me worry. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral at this second. It's probably best to apply around 25 months of editing or so. ConCompS talk review 20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral The answers to questions are good. I see reasons to support, but links provided by the opposers leave some doubt. I would not be opposed to coming back a little later. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean, but given the nature of RfA, I could reapply in seven years and the same links would be presented. Once you rub someone up the wrong way you're stuffed. It doesn't matter that I realise my mistakes, that I learn from my mistakes, and that I try to move on from my mistakes. Mark my words: if I make another RfA the same links will appear, but with different rational. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral for now, based on concerns raised above. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Normally I would oppose, but you seem to know what you are doing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. Although I like the answers to some of your questions, the Q8 issue (regarding image copyrights) very much concerns me. Admins should know about the OTRS system. Plus, I can't see too many edits in the field of deletion - although I can't vouch for CSD work (can't access deleted pages... not an admin), I can see there's only been one AfD edit from you in nearly the last three months. I'm sorry, I have to go with neutral right now. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral Not enough comfort to support, not enough disappointment to oppose. Warrah (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2010 (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/Dr_Dec&oldid=1091449671"