Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Delldot

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

Delldot

Final (65/0/0); Ended 03:43,

Delldot (talk · contribs) - I have come across this person many times in vandal patrolling, as well as in editor reviewing. Just recently I checked the list of administrators only to find that this user wasn't one, to my surprise. She has over 10,000 edits here, and she's one of those uncommon candidates with some help edits. She participates anywhere needed for an admin, and I am certain that she would be great at this position. Honestly, her adminship is overdue, let's just go through this and give her the tools :) Wizardman 20:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks Wizardman! I accept. delldot | talk 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone's curious about the huge drop in my participation from April to September 2006, I had to take a break while I was writing my undergraduate thesis, but that's done now, thank goodness! delldot | talk 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I'll of course keep doing RC patrol, and I'd like to not have to bug admins for blocks anymore. I'd also like to keep an eye on

Editprotected

}} requests. There are a number of other areas that I'll probably take part in from time to time if I think it's needed. But I plan to be very conservative with the tools, at the very least at first. I also don't want to let article writing and improving fall by the wayside, so I'll try hard to keep a balance in my activities.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I'm fond of

WP:ER

which I think are in-depth and which I have been told were helpful.

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 certainly haven't been in any edit war type conflicts (I'm much too shy for that type of thing!). I've had disagreements (though very few, since the articles I edit are usually about obscure biochem and neurobio topics). With disagreements, I discuss them and that has so far worked fine. Once I reverted a new user's edit to Illegal immigration which I thought had NPOV problems. We discussed it and it concluded on very friendly terms. Another time, a user was making edits to Shaken baby syndrome that I thought were problematic because they were giving a fringe view undue weight. I discussed it with them briefly but then stayed out of it after I asked another user that I knew had medical and Wikipedia knowledge to get involved, and s/he and others began to discuss it more actively with the user. Of course people sometimes get angry at you for reverting their edits as vandalism. In cases I believe to be nothing more than trouble making, I ignore it and keep an eye on the user's contribs to make sure they're not continuing to vandalize. If I think they're being at all sincere, I discuss it with them. I have a lot of faith in discussing stuff in a friendly manner; it's always worked for me so far. If in the future that should fail, I'd go through the steps of dispute resolution (or back down if I found the issue to be minor enough to not be worth the trouble). I admit I tend to back down from conflicts and should work on being more assertive (though I'm not a total pushover; you can see my vandal fighting and AFC work to verify that!). I think with potential disputes, it's really important to get input from neutral parties who can hopefully give some perspective.

4. (question by xaosflux) What is your opinion of using autoexpirations when applying protection to pages, including examples of approriate times for cases (or not using it at all), now that this feature is available. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A:As I mentioned above, my editing style is conservative, and my use of the admin tools will be also if this should pass. Thus I'd opt to protect pages for as short a time as possible, only as long as necessary to prevent the disruption, and I'd be sure to discuss with others any cases that could be controversial. Thus I'd set protections to expire on the soon side, and put it on my to do list to check back after the expiration to make sure the page wasn't still having problems, in which case it would need a longer protection.

• Full protection - templates transcluded onto the main page and other high-visibility pages are fully protected as long as they're high visibility because of the likelihood of vandalism to these pages and the potential for serious damage caused by it. Permanent full protection is also used for legal reasons to things like copyright documents to which changes could be very harmful. Deleted pages that it is agreed are inappropriate are protected permanently to prevent recreation. Temporary full protection is used during edit wars, and IMO should be as short as necessary to stop the edit war. I'd suggest a day or two at first unless there's evidence that the editors have no intention of stopping, in which case longer times would be needed (this is of course an area where I'd get a lot of input from other neutral parties, as I've said I plan to be very conservative with the tools).
• Semi-protection - Semi-protection is appropriate for short lengths of time (like a day or two) for articles that are high profile right then (e.g.
  Superbowl during superbowl weekend, or the page of a public figure who has just died or gone to jail or something). Semi-protection for longer periods is unfortunately sometimes necessary for articles that are the target of constant heavy vandalism, e.g. the infamous George W. Bush
  article. When one user is vandalizing from various IPs, the protection can be removed when activity from those IPs or vandalism of that type (if the IPs make the same edit repeatedly) ceases. Jimbo Whales has brought up semi-protection in cases of controversial articles about living people that are poorly watched, which I took to mean on a somewhat permanent basis, but again, I would avoid this wherever possible and would probably choose to watch a page closely myself rather than do that. The reason I think it's important to protect for as short a time as possible is that we stand to gain good editors when people realize they can edit a page (not to mention good edits), and the high-traffic pages are the ones these potential new editors are most likely to be seeing. If others see a given case differently, I'll always be willing to discuss, and back down if necessary. I think discussion is really important in this area as in most others and pledge not to make any unilateral decisions in potentially controversial cases.

5.

WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. You can have a look at the full counter spam efforts on meta at m:User:Eagle 101/Spam

.

A: I think spam is a serious problem indeed, in fact maybe more serious even than vandalism, since it can be harder to detect and identify. In addition, some people stand to gain financially from spam, whereas most vandalism seems to me to be just people messing around. I predict that vandalism will decline as people get over the "gee whiz, I can edit the internet" phase, but spam stands only to increase as more people use Wikipedia. And spam definitely cuts down on our credibility. Further, I don't know if the nofollow tags will solve the problem, since a lot of spammers just want people reading the articles to visit their sites (not that this is a blinding insight!). So yes, we certainly should have clear rules about what can and cannot be allowed in WP pages and enforce them strictly (while of course being kind; in my experience a lot of spammers don't realize they're doing anything wrong). And no, we should not allow "every myspace, youtube, blogspot" link; we should keep in mind the purpose of external links: to provide access to further, reliable info pertinent to the article that could help readers. Some external links go into more detail than the articles themselves and thus serve as further reading. Links must not provide unreliable or false information, so sites like myspace that would be easy to fake are usually unsuitable.

Optional question from llywrch

6. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Sure, I can imagine that. My editing style is pretty diverse; some days I focus on things like RC patrol or AFD, other days I mainly work on things like copy editing or adding info (as I have been today). Putting together or really expanding an article frequently takes most of a day, leaving little room for other stuff, and I hope to keep doing that. I don't know if I'll necessarily go an entire day without using the admin tools even once, but I can certainly imagine it. As I mentioned above, I plan to be pretty conservative with the tools, since I tend to be terrified of messing things up. However, I'm asking for the tools since I anticipate that I will use them a good amount, in the areas that I mentioned in question 1 (and others, probably to a more minor extent). This is partially indicated by how often I have to tug on an admin's sleeve to get something done, e.g. the amount I tag speediable articles and report to

WP:AIV

. So I think the amount that I use the tools will end up benefitting the project, even if I don't focus exclusively on admin duties.

General comments

• See Delldot's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Yes, beat the nom and everyone else.
   Review
   )00:23, Sunday, 11 February '07
2. Beat the nom but beaten by the nom-beater support. Definitely has the necessary experience and judgment. WjBscribe 00:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support HeShe's a great vandal fighter and also a very friendly contributor, would do great work with the mop RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. I've seen you around and think you'll be a good sysop. Oh look, I beat the nom too. Picaroon 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Supporting another great pick from teh Wizardman! Good luck. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support A good vandal-fighter and an active contributor to the article namespace. Nishkid64 01:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Technically the nom supported in the nomination and beat you all support! and oh yeah, the candidate looks good too.
   ^{On Belay!} 01:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Support, everything looks pretty good here, give 'em the mop! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Must be a good candidate - the nom has several spelling mistakes in his nomination, therefore he must have been in a hurry to get this person mopified :).
   Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Support - seems to be a trusted user. --BigDT 02:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Possibly one of the latest support as nom votes ever, lol. (in my defense I was edit conflicted)--Wizardman 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hehe, I believe I was vote #25 or something for one of my nominations a while back. Nishkid64 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Support Yet another good candidate for the admin tools; no problems here. (aeropagitica) 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Good candidate. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support -- will be a good admin Semperf 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Finally. A non-ideological potential admin. You definetly deserve my vote. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Cbrown1023 talk 03:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, definitely. Thought user was administrator already (oops) –
    Qxz 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Support. I have some medical knowledge and the articles are well written and referenced. - Dan D. Ric 06:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. ^{wat's sup} 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Support - read above -- Tawker 07:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support looks good. VegaDark 08:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support I can't see any problems here... The Rambling Man 10:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support trustworthy. User has a good record of article contributions. I see no problems. - Anas ^Talk? 11:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Support Delldot is the finest editor I have ever encountered in my 37 years of editing Wikipedia. Tnuocca ladnav 15:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, this is this user's first and only edit. delldot | talk 16:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    His name is 'vandal account' backwards... --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Very funny, even the scum of WP support this lady. Hendry1307 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I shouldn't laugh, but '37 years of editing Wikipedia' made me giggle.

    ► 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

25. Terence Ong 15:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Nice answers :) --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. No problems here. –
    man 18:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29. Support, per the fact you're willing to take only trusted votes and reject ones from vandals. Got a dell? Hendry1307 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Good Lord, I'm such an idiot - and I'm a chemistry major! I'm very impressed with this nominee's overall record. YechielMan 20:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support, solid answers to the questions, great RC patrol work and participation at AFC. Kuru ^talk 21:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support excellent contributions and excellent answers from someone who is consistently thoughtful and polite. It's also nice to see a candidate explicitly state an interest in helping new users. Opabinia regalis 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I see no problems, she would make a good admin. James086^Talk 23:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Replies to questions are great, I don't see any reason why this user would violate the community trust. ——
    Need help? 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
35. Support, as the answers to the questions are excellent, and demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support.
    ► 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Support. Overdue. Thanks for agreeing to serve. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support per above, she would be a great admin. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 16:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. Lots of quality edits on complicated articles. No reason to oppose. Seems like she'd make a good admin. Coemgenus 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Not even gonna list my reasons either, as they should be obvious and they've been stated 40 times already above me (and probably more below me, soon). -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support, because the fine and upstanding editor Tnuocca ladnav supports Delldot. Sounds good to to me, I've got to agree with their wise words. Who am I to disagree with 37 years of editing wikipedia?! Mathmo ^Talk 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support She's not already an admin? Give her the broom, the mop, the bucket, and any other Wiki tool she needs. An amazing editor!--Alabamaboy 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support per ... pretty much everything. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Solid. Good work. Great. Groovy. --
    talk 08:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
46. Support fully qualified candidate.-- danntm ^T _C 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Without question... a great editor in all respects. Katalaveno^T_C 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. You will do well. Dar-Ape 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support qualified editor, wasn't being nosy but her talk page has several users asking for help, that denotes a good knowledge of policies and general editing and it shows she's trusted. We need an admin that will be open to regular editors when we need help.--John Lake 02:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - many of the above reasons --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - certainly, for all the reasons above. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 10:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Happy
    Valentines Day. BuickCenturyDriver 10:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
54. Support per above. Prodego ^talk 01:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support sounds like a fine candidate. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Looks solid, with excellent article writing credits. Crum375 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support, per above.
    T/C) 06:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
59. Support per nom and all of the above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support per
    WP:SNOW. Karim Prince1

    —

    talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits

    outside this topic.

62. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 12:39Z
63. Support See no reason this candidate should not be an admin.
    IronDuke 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
64. Support Good candidate. Dionyseus 02:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, this was added after the time had technically expired. delldot | talk 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65. Support for handling a flammable (flaming?) situation very coolly. – Chacor 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, this was added after the time had technically expired. delldot | talk 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Please keep criticism constructive and polite so that she can address these concerns after this is over.

Neutral

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.