Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Doktorbuk


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Doktorbuk
Final  (9/19/17) ended 21:25, June 25 2006 (UTC)

– I have been an editor since later 2005 and have taken an active role in Wikipedia since then, contributing to many articles across a number of subjects. I am a unsuccessful Arbitration Committee candidate doktorb | words 14:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted

Comment - Thank you and good night! Heh heh - thank you to all who voted, both Aye, Ney and Otherwise. I have learnt a lot about the Administrator roles and the expected standard from existing editors here. I am a committed Wikipedian, and one who will continue to fight the good fight following this Request. Many thanks to those who gave me the thumbs up, but thanks too to those who gave opposing votes - you have given me food fot thought. Onwards! doktorb | words 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Nacon kantari  18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Answers to questions are now acceptable, hence my change in vote. --Wisd e n17 18:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I agree with the neutral people that most of the tasks you listed arent admin tasks. Still, you've been here for a while a seem to have made a large number of productive edits...not mostly vandalism reverts either.  That impresses me.  --Alphachimp  talk  20:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - an enthusiastic and constructive editor who I would happily trust with adminship. Warofdreams talk 02:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. This user is clearly very experienced, and I was going to support initially, but the answer to question 1 left a bit to be desired. However, the candidate has put a fair bit of effort into answering the subsequent optional questions, and I am satisfied now that the user will be a good admin in terms of helping out with AfD. DarthVad e r 10:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Most of the opposes and neutrals are obsolete or misguided, seems like a great candidate. --Rory096 21:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support (moderate) This editor certainly doesn't know all there is to being an admin, but gives every indication of being willing to grow into the role through learning 'on the job'. Existing history shows responsible attitude to doing this. He will be an asset as an admin, not a liability. Tyrenius 13:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak support per answers to optionals. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak Support per above. G .H  e  02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Serious Oppose. It's a self nomination. Myrtone15:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought this user was blocked? robchurch | talk 11:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Only temporarily, for some reason. Community ban, anyone? --Rory096 21:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Another unusual oppose from User:Myrtone86 care to expand on why being a self nom would be a serious oppose. --pgk( talk ) 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't suddenly oppose if it is a self-nomination. Sure, it's based on the opinion of the person who adds this nomination, and so they may think they are good on the Wiki, when in reality they aren't. But that isn't a good reason to suddenly lash out and say "I object!". It is better to consider everything before depositing a vote. A lion always thinks before pouncing, as does a cheetah before running
 * Thanks. I totally agree.  If a person feels strongly they should get admin, the community should be able to decide.  --Alphachimp  talk  20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The user has been banned temporarily for disrupting RfAs, and their votes elsewhere have been stricken. I'm doing it here as well. Grand  master  ka  08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The answers to the questions below are poor and display a lack of knowledge of the role and duties of a sysop. --Wisd e n17 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support. --Wisd e n17 18:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. Your e-mail is not activated, Your answers are overly broad and don't indicate an understanding of administator tasks (even the newest answer.) and I generally would like to see more experience. I don't see very much vandal-fighting at all in your contributions, although that's the one (almost) specific thing you've mentioned in your answers. Also, I often forgive <300 Wikipedia-space edits if the editor has a large number of great article contributions, but I don't see any evidence of that... Keep up the good work though. I'll gladly support you if you in a couple months if you address these things. (By the way, I think Myrtone86's oppose is pretty silly too.) Grand  master  ka  22:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fails my newly-created Admin criteria. Grand  master  ka  19:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: not enough experience. Jonathunder 00:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose experience, answers, my criteria. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The answers to the questions are quite weak. joturn e r 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Simply not enough experience. AdamBiswanger1 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Answer to first question doesn't even show that he would have any use for the sysop bit. Does he even know what admins do?  -- Cyde↔Weys  03:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Cyde. Yanksox (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Lacking experience - and by this I refer not to the edit count but rather due to not having a grasp of basic fundamentals of an RfA; The Simple things like email not being enabled for one, but more that your answers show either you lack experience or (worse) perhaps a lack a desire to make an effort (eg: clear backlogs - which specific backlogs?). If you can't show proper care now (of all times) then when would you? Happy to support in time however - Gl e n 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, simply not ready; lack of experience. --Mhking 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Sorry, the answers to the questions don't seem convincing enough. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose There seems to be a lack of experaince to give adminship now. Answers to questions are not convincing. I would suggest reapplying in a few more months and see. — The King of Kings  20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Anyone can "assist in wikifying articles, helping newbies, clearing backlogs". Low level of Wikipedia namespace edits suggests possible shortage of policy knowledge. Low level of talk-namespace edits suggests a lack of interaction with other editors, and good interactions are absolutely essential for admins. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, weak answers to questions.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Not enough experience. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Answers to questions aren't satisfying...very low on detail.  Noble eagle    (Talk)   09:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Clear political conflict of interest, has used it to try and gain an advantage for the Liberal Democrats. Had an issue with him on the page Paul Offer. Not a suitable candidate, as he may find it difficult to stick to NPOV. Abcdefghijklm 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have also nominated failed LibDem candidate articles for deletion, and have participated in the on-going debate on AfD regarding failed candidates. As for "difficult to stick to NPOV", I recently deleted LibDemcruft from an artile (can't remember which, please check).. there is no need for bias political viewpoints on Wiki and I will do the best I can to remove such content where I can. doktorb | words 11:31, 21 June 2006(UTC)
 * I have seen him prodding LibDemcruft too. &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The answers to the questions are quite hazy - I'm not convinced you have a clear idea what admin is. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 09:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose fails my RFA criteria Anonymous_  _Anonymous  16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per Stifle. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Plenty of time here and edits in all spaces to satisfy me, but answers are unconvincing - most of the tasks you say don't require an admin. -Goldom (t) (Review) 15:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Brief intro and answers to questions don't give much of an impression to me of who you are/what your are about. Answer to question (1) : Wikifying and helping newbies are not admin tasks, you can do them today without admin buttons. "Clearing backlogs" is far too vague. Doesn't indicate to me you have much knowledge of what adminship is about, and why you think you would need/be of value with adminship --pgk( talk ) 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. You look like a great user, but the answer to question 1 shows that you don't really quite understand what admins do. DarthVad e r 16:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. DarthVad e r 10:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Enough edits, but there is not enough "stuffing" for the answers. If they were longer, then that would be good. The intro doesn't explain why he/she wants to become an Admin. Jean-Paul 16:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me!
 * Neutral. Please enable email. G .H  e  19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to Weak Support. G .H  e  02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Meets a lot of my criteria, but not the most important bit (has been around for a year). SushiGeek 20:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Good editor, but weak answers. Roy A.A. 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Wikipedia email not activated. done. Will consider changing vote after answers question and checks out otherwise. Still thinking about it. FloNight talk  22:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) M e rovingian { T C @ } 02:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Answer to question 1 is insufficient, as per pgk. Looks good otherwise, so I won't oppose. BryanG(talk) 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral The answers to the question just feel to bare. If you answer they optional questions I will re-asses. Eluchil404 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. Does not meet my "combined 300 edits in main & user talk namespaces" requirement. <font color="#A8A8A7">Kala  ni <font color="#919191">[talk] 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Interesting answer to Tawker's question #8. robchurch | talk 12:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because he already answered it in Jean-Paul 1. --Rory096 21:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There doesn't seem to be too much need for administrator tools for this user. He certaintly has experience, but his answers are also a bit bare and some answers to the optional ones are a bit hazy.  Cowman109 Talk 17:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - concerned about some of the edits-- specifically, the uploading an Excel file. I think that was less than good judgment. Nephron T|C 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral -- great answers but low edit count --T-rex 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per T-rex, but the other way around. --Mr. L<font color="Green">e fty Talk to me! 16:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Candidate gives me no reason to think he will do anything meaningful with the admin tools.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Not enough comments to other users for me to see if he treats others fairly. Other than that this user seems like a good contributor. --HResearcher 05:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments

Username Doktorbuk Total edits 2732 Distinct pages edited 1306 Average edits/page 2.092 First edit 17:22, August 4, 2005 (main) 2005 Talk 159 User 40 User talk 127 Image 4 Template 68 Category 1 Category talk 1 Wikipedia 288 Wikipedia talk 36 Portal talk 3 G .<font color="#666666">H e  00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See Doktorbuk's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC) (Update*) using Interiot's tool*:
 * See Doktorbuk's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.



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 voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I would assist in wikifying articles, helping newbies, clearing backlogs.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A:  I created and maintain Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election, creating dozens of new articles from this. The UK constituency pages continue to provide a great wealth of articles in need of expansion which I have been working on with the help of others in the constituency project. I have helped the UK railway project too,and am pleased to have expanded articles on lines across Lancashire and the North West in assistance with others in the project.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: There have been some issues of names of UK constituencies, but this is an on going problem, discussions about which started long before  I joined Wiki. One-on-one communication did not occur with other parties, I admit, but there was never any danger of serious repucussions.

Question from Jean-Paul
 * 1. What are your reasons for Requesting Adminship on the English Wikipedia?
 * A: I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience of contributing to Wikipedia, and have learnt during the experience the great value of an end product after days, weeks or months of working. I understand how deflating it can be to watch vandals run amok throughout the project, and now I feel comfortable with working within Wiki, I would like to request admin status to enable me to continue my work with the extra tools available. I agree with a phrase I read in the text prior to putting forward this request - being an admin should not be seen as a trophy, it is a privilage, not a right.

'''Question from --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) :
 * 5. You have a userbox on your userpage which says "This user supports userboxes". What do you mean, exactly?  If as an admin you were discussing problematic userboxes with an editor, what policy would you suggest they read?

A The userbox reflects my personal view that userboxes on user pages should be accepted where they provide information which informs others of the kind of person the editor is and what interests they may have. I have not contributed in the userbox debates becuase there seems to be a multitude of discussions with varying degrees of decision making.

Question from Jkelly
 * 6. Why did you upload a Microsoft Excel file to Wikipedia?

A That file was a graph showing changes in vote in a British parliamentary constituency. It was removed from the article, with my agreement, because it was a rather crude attempt that could have been done a lot better!

Question from FloNight
 * 7. Your Wikipedia email is not activated. Why? Will you activate it now so users can contact about Wikipedia issues?
 * A It has been actived now.
 * Comment Glad that you want to activate it. : - ) You need to try to do it again, because your Wikipedia email is still not activated. FloNight   talk  22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Copied from my preferences page - "E-mailYour e-mail address was authenticated on 07:52, 19 June 2006.

Enable e-mail from other users" doktorb | words 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Question from Cowman109 Talk
 * 1 After a look at your edit count, it appears that you have 126 edits to user talk and 280 to Wikispace pages. Some may view these numbers a bit low and to me it seems you have not had much involvement in the community. Could you elaborate on how you've been involved in the community?
 * A: I believe my work on Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election and related pages, including recent work on UK byelection articles, shows I have been a part of the community. I am a communicator with other editors which may be the reason why I have so many user talk pages. I am now a member of Esperanza which should help with my work within the community.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)


 * 1) You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * A Use the Administrator Noticeboard to flag up potential problems and work with that editor using the vandal processes.
 * 1) An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
 * A This appears to be a very complex problem. I would naturally open conversation with the other admin to ensure I remain in contact with this issue and if necessary contact the parties to ensure they, and I, can submit any relevant statements. I am not fully aware of all points of the Arbitration process.
 * 1) If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
 * A With regard to policy discussions, I would prefer them to be more streamlined. Look at the ongoing userbox debate, for instance.
 * 1) Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
 * A There would have to be extreme circumstances and absolute evidence, and I doubt even them I would act without discussion with other admins.
 * 1) Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
 * A I follow AfD debates closely and is one of the areas I would work on as an admin. It is often very clear where sock/meat puppets have voted and would make my decision based on the votes of registered users as well as my own view on the consensus.
 * 1) Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
 * A There is in my opinion no minimum number for any discussion but there should be a consensus based on a range of views, so if there was, say, single digit responses it may have to be closed as "no consensus".
 * 1) A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
 * A This is a somewhat hypothetical question! The project has its frustrations but I don't know if I can say what I could do..However I doubt I would make any stupid decision based on stress on Wiki: I know how hard people work  on here.
 * 1) Why do you want to be an administrator?
 * A
 * 1) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * A Technical. Politics should be left at Town Hall

Optional Question from Noble  eagle   <font size="0.5"> (Talk)  
 * 1) Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?

A I don't think it is appropriate to name any user with whom I have troubles. Wiki can be frustrating in that some templates, tables and technical aspects can take a while to get used to, and it is not always quick and easy to do a simple task (tables, for me, still have a blindspot). Adminship would not help here, of course.

All answers doktorb | words 09:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.