Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DO11.10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

[edit] DO11.10

(47/1/0); Scheduled to end 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

DO11.10 (talk · contribs) - DO11.10 (named after a strain of transgenic mice) has been editing since January 2006. She is an expert on medicine and molecular biology, with particular expertise in viral diseases and immunology. These interests are reflected in her contributions to the featured articles Poliomyelitis and Immune system. DO11.10 is also active in Peer review and biographies, and made characteristically calm and informed contributions to the AfD on Trevor Marshall. A mature and thoughtful editor who has demonstrated an impressive commitment to the project, I think DO11.10 will make an excellent admin. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am honored to accept this nomination.--DO11.10 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to help clear the backlog at Copyright problems. I would also like to help by deleting images that have been moved to the Commons, and with speedy deletion candidates. I will also likely be an active participant in patrolling new pages and at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My featured articles were very fulfilling, and I have throughly enjoyed working with other editors in this process. I have also enjoyed working as a wiki-Gnome—adding images from the Commons to hundreds of articles, and helping with the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive.
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: Very rarely. The Trevor Marshall AfD and the associated issues with the Vitamin D article were probably the most distressing to me. Ultimately I learned much about conflict resolution and communication, and think that these early experiences will help guide me in future situations. I truly value the input and ideas of other editors, and have learned that really listening and responding civilly is the best way to deal with conflicts. I will strive to apply these ideals to future conflicts.

Optional Question from Icestorm815

4. A User creates a page with "John Doe (this name is merely an example) was born in 1895 and died in 1963. More information coming soon." How will you handle this issue? (Ie: Do you give the user time, do you list a prod, list it at WP:AFD, Speedy delete, etc.) Icestorm815 (talk)
A. Oh, I would definitely give the user time to work on the article. But if I saw no changes in say 24 hours I would tag the article for speedy deletion as non-notable (CSD A7) and inform the creator. --DO11.10 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
followup But in 24 hours someone else will have almost certainly tagged it for speedy--suppose you come upon this in reviewing WP:CSD--what do you do then? DGG (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would delete it, and ensure that the creator had been informed. This gives the author a chance to recreate it when they are more prepared to assert notability.--DO11.10 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from DGG (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC):

5. As you wish to work with images, do you think we have the policy on fair use exactly right? could you discuss at least one disputed question in that regard. 01:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
A.Exactly right? No probably not, and I doubt it will ever be perfect. But I think the fair use policy works well here, and is within the scope of fair use legislation. One instance of dispute with regards to fair use images is their placement on the main page, in conjunction with the article of the day section when no freely-licensed alternative exists. Personally, I agree that they should not be used to decorate the main page, and that this usage does not fall within the scope of the law.--DO11.10 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/DO11.10 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support, as nominator. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support No concerns whatsoever. Excellent article work, clear-headed, and my interactions with her so far (although I thought I was working with him :) have been excellent. DO11.10 seems to have the collaborative nature of Wikipedia down to a science (no pun intended, I promise!) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support, clear and concise answers to the questions. I am sure someone will complain about your low amount of Wikipedia namespace edits, however, but this doesn't bother me. --Aqwis (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Obviously intelegent and good-faith user can learn the admin ropes as she goes along. ➪HiDrNick! 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support A sensible and well-informed editor who I would trust absolutely with the tools. Namespace edit count is in fact more than adequate for me, and general experience is excellent. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Involved in actual improvement of the encyclopedia. Good at otherr stuff too--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I liked the answer so you get my support. Icestorm815 (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - yep, great editor. I've seen her work on Poliomyelitis and some of the pharma stuff. Her edit history shows an editor who is polite and patient with others, yet knows the rules here. A copyright admin? Yes, please! - Alison ❤ 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Cailín? Ní raibh fhios agam é sin--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • lol!! Mé féin, freisin. Was that a !vote, BTW? - Alison ❤ 23:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I've already commented above. Gor those of you who don't speak Irish that meant "A Girl? I didn't know that"--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. No concerns. Great article work. Jack?! 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Jmlk17 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. I believe that DO11.10 will make a good administrator. Acalamari 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support no reason to oppose this user. S/he has a golden Wiki award already. NHRHS2010 talk 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support I believe this quotation from User:DO11.10 speaks volumes: "You've reminded me of the goals of Wikipeida, which many of us sometimes forget in the process of writing, editing, and critiquing articles. It really is about the people who read them." She exhibits the traits of a great editor: diligence, honesty, a striving for accuracy, courtesy, and humility. User:DO11.10 should prove to be an equally great administrator.--Dan Dassow (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Great editor. Will make great admin Alexfusco5 03:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support No problems, although recent months edit counts are lowish. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support, another fine Tim Vickers nominee. Does great work and will be an asset to the admin community. --Bloodzombie (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support No problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support: Get on that backlog! - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support No problems forseen Mbisanz (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support doesn't seem to be any greeblies hiding in this user's contribs :-) Good luck, -Pumpmeup 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Speedy en-mop Solid all round candidate, flicked through the last 1,500 odd contribs and all looks solid. Excellent in fact. A pleasure to support. Best. Pedro :  Chat  10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support without reservation. Excellent user, will certainly make an excellent administrator. PeaceNT (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Very patient and calm editor. Deals with conflicts very appropriately, plus knows her way around more than most. Has my vote. --businessman332211 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support seems to be a prolific user. Sushant gupta (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Speedily please - Rudget.talk 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Always a pleasure to deal with. Colin°Talk 17:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support speedy deletion need not mean hasty deletion. And as Pedro says, a pleasure to support. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Slight support. More Wikipedia-space experience is always helpful in assessing candidacy, which makes this one a bit tough. I'm confident, though, that DO11 can be trusted to exercise proper caution in using tools that may be unfamiliar. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Majoreditor (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Has been around since Jan 2006 and the user has a good track with no concerns with over 4000 mainspace edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 19:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Do want. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. I think she has done a great job. I wish we can have more Wikipedians like her. This is my first vote in RfA. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support A committed editor. Shyamal (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support A good mainspace editor, too. Spevw (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Looked through your last 500 contribs and didn't notice anything bad. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Epbr123 (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  39. Slade (TheJoker) 03:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 06:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support, yes, will be fine. Neil ☎ 11:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support I don't know why, but part of me wants to say "weak support" but since I can't conceptualize my concern, I'll leave it as supportBalloonman (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  43. Warm support I haven't had the pleasure of collaborating with my fellow MCB-er DO11.10's as much as I would've wished to. However, our time together bringing the Immune system to Featured Article status (with several others) left me with a profound impression of her intelligence, expertise and friendly nature. Since then, my experiences with her have only strengthened my first impressions. I feel that she can be trusted to use the admin tools well and for the good of the encyclopedia. Willow (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support - I share DGG's concerns. However, we need admins who can help resolve disputes in the big brain matters such as medicine and molecular biology. I'm going to put DO11.10 in my Rolodex as a medicine/molecular biology go to admin (once the 'crats elevate her to admin). -- Jreferee t/c 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support I have no concerns. — Wenli (reply here) 02:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  46. Changed to support' on the basis of an evident willingness to go carefully and to learn, as discussed below. DGG (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC) . Oppose' I really regret having to say it, for she is an truly excellent editor. But I see no involvement in policy -- neither in policy discussion, not in XfD, neither about article nor images. A knowledge of WP policy is at the basis of the work of an admin.DGG (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    I wholeheartedly agree. However, knowledge of and involvement in policy are not synonymous. Going over an editor's contributions and finding no breaches of policy is, in my humble opinion, a better indicator of their familiarity with policies and guidelines. For what it's worth, she's been involved in more AfDs than I had by the time I was given the tools :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    Saying that somebody doesn't know policy because they have never written any is like saying that somebody must be ignorant of the law because they have never drafted a bill or debated in parliament. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    It is true that I have not been involved in policy discussions, not because I am unaware of them, but because this is really not my forté. I would rather leave policy making to those who are better suited for the task. I am, however, quite familiar with WP policy. I think that my contributions to articles, in the small number of AfDs I have been involved with, and my interactions with other users have shown that I do understand and can uphold WP policy.--DO11.10 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    I didnt say you had to write it--said you had to display her knowledge through the demonstrated ability to discuss it correctly. It is perfectly acceptable for an admin not to want to be involved in making policy--nor is there even the slightest need for adminship in order to do so. But being able to discuss it correctly is essential, and needs to be shown through substantial participation somewhere. Writing articles while observing policy does not imply the ability to judge on doubtful cases. You want to patrol new pages--how will you judge the numerous debatable policy violation which are found there. DO11, please understand that I do not intend this in the least as a reflection on your general abilities--or on the likelihood of your ability to learn correctly. Just that you have not yet done this. Can you cite any substantial discussions of policy? The rvv I see are perfectly good, but also very obvious. DGG (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    Hello David. I am relatively new to Wikipedia. You have more experience than I have. I disagree with you. DO11.10 has made several contributions to articles related to medicine. Remember, Wikipedia is still very incomplete. We need more people on Wikipedia. It is quite clear that DO11.10 will not abuse her power. I think she should be an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what your definition of substantial is, but a few instances occurred while I was working on the Bio-tagging project, during which I learned a lot about WP:BLP policies. This is one example. Addition of innapropriate links and EL canvassing have also spurred discussions with other users, involving policy. See here and here and the follow-up here. An early attempt at spam removal can be found here. I realize that I do not have a lot of experience in XfD and policy issues, but I know that there are lots of people out there who do and whom I can ask really stupid (or really hard) questions with impunity.--DO11.10 (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    I am quite happy that DGG has decided to support DO11.10. I really feel that DO11.10 will do a great job. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - Shudde talk 06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. oppose did not like the response to the conflict question --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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.