Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Edokter


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

Edokter
Final: (26/3/1); ended 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

- Edokter has been on Wikipedia since Sep 2006. I have encountered on several pages and find him to be calm, competent, and level-headed. He has been active on WP:AN and WP:ANI since almost the beginning and has experience with templates and scripts. He has quite a range of interests, including movies, cooking, and animals. He is also quite involved in the Dr. Who project and in reverting vandalism. Wikipedians, I present Edokter. Rlevse 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rlevse for nominating me. I am Edokter, a 37 year old Dutch guy. After some IP editing I registered in september 2006, but only started actively editing since early 2007. Since then I have taken interest of the running of Wikipedia, so I often hang around the admin noticeboards and the technical village pump. Though my daily edits are not as high as others, I am certainly present every day reading and watchlisting. Most of my edits are copy editing, which include reorganizing articles and fixing citations, reverting vandalism (I hate that word, as most of them are actually done in good faith), as well as maintaining some navigational noticeboard templates that need regular updating. I'm not a man of long speeches, so please ask questions. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: First, I intend to keep doing what I do best, which is general housekeeping. I often come accros pages that needs deleting to fix redirects, page moves and disambiguation issues (SCD G6), so often I am confined to putting a DB tag on the page. Next to that, I expect to be busy in CAT:CSD myself, first to facilitate other in general housekeeping, then move on to other categories as well as honor protected edit requests. While these are mostly deletion related tasks, I do not regard myself a deletionist (or an inclusionist for that matter), just someone who wants to keep things organized. Other then that I haven't really planned a roadmap for other administrative tasks yet, but will jump in whereever there is a shortage of hands. The rest will come naturally.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Content-wise, I don't have anything to be superproud of; my main contributions are usually copy-editing. My 'biggest' article would have to be The Black Stallion (film) which was just a stub when I found it (and I still feel I need to finish it). As my intrerest also lies in the technical aspects of Wikipedia, I've created some small templates, just to learn how everything works, and this gives me the knowledge to fix broken or misbehaving templates, especially the protected ones.


 * 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 can only remember two occasion that were a little stressful; one minor issue was with an admin over the naming of an article, the other was with an editor which was behaving quite WP:POINTy. In that case though, I simply decided it was not worth the stress and simply walked away and let others deal with him. I have the tendency not to get involved in an exsisting conflict if I can help it, though I may step up as a mediator.


 * Optional questions from Melsaran:
 * 4. How would you treat single purpose accounts/meatpuppets in deletion debates? Would you fully consider their arguments, give them less weight, remove their comments, add spa tags, semi-protect the page, or ...?
 * A: If their argument has merit, their opinion should have some weight, but considerably less then those of other trusted editors. SPAs will only try to tip the scale in their favor. If an SPA actually has some solid arguments, they wouldn't need help from SPAs or meatpuppets. Ultimately, decision should be based on original arguments, and SPAs rarely have any in my experience.


 * 5. Do you still stand by this edit?
 * A: Yes and no. No, because I did admit to the editor afterward I should not have called his nomination bad faith, and yes becuase he did state his account was created for the single purpose of nominating unreferenced for deletion.

General comments

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


 * Links for Edokter:
 * Edokter's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Edokter before commenting.''

Discussion


Support Oppose
 * 1) Support as nominator.Rlevse 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) A great vandalfighter - but I'm a bit concerned that you haven't been at AIV in a while. Get back there, and you'll have my full support :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) The answer to Q4 shows a good understanding of the XFD process, and the answer to Q5 shows an ability to admit mistakes. The diff above was my only concern; other than that, I am confident that Erwin will make a fine administrator.  Melsaran  (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  CO 2 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) support Adminship != big deal  Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See WT:RFA Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  02:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Not a big deal. Looking through the contributions may turn up a lack of experience in some areas, but not too concerning and I have all confidence the user will not abuse the tools. It ain't no big deal, y'all -- Ben chat 05:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Mike.  T Rex  | talk  05:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support No major concerns here. Glad to give him my support. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I'm not sure how much the candidate really understands about adminship, but it's not that complicated. No major problems; no big deal. Shalom Hello 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Edit count is fine, and the editor won't abuse the tools.  •Malinaccier•  T / C  23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, no good reason not to. Neil   ム  08:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support and strongly protest the notion that less than 3000 edits is a sign of inexperience. Pascal.Tesson 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support &mdash; I see nothing to indicate that this user will execute the tools in anything but an intelligent and mature manner. Not that I'm implying you're a "mature person" at only 37...erm...you know what I mean ;)  --Haemo 20:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) That's a lot of edits! Backsigns 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. We'll need admins like him if the Cybermen try to take over. Nick mallory 04:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Having had the pleasure to edit a number of articles with this user, he has my full confidence that he would use administrative tools with maturity and consideration. And he's a jolly pleasant chap, too, which would be handy in situations when diplomacy is required. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) No problems here. Acalamari 21:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - I would normally oppose candidates with less than 3,000 overall edits, but what you've achieved in both the mainspace and Wikipedia-space is just excellent. :-)  Lra drama 08:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you normally oppose candidates with less than 3,000 edits? Is there something wrong with the contributions of every single one of them, which of course you have checked carefully?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, candidate can be trusted with the tools. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk  05:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cannot see anything to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support solid contributor. Tim! 11:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I simply think Edokter will be a fine admin.Sumoeagle179 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Knowledgeable, articulate in answering RFA questions, good contributions, and no evidential diffs provided to convince me of the merits of opposition. A strong candidate. Van Tucky  Talk 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support As per VanTucky and no concerns nothing wrong in track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 09:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Good answers to the questions, and I found myself not being convinced by any data given by the Oppose voters. The uproar at Talk:Compact Disc (evidenced from one of the Oppose votes) would suggest that Edokter might have a fresh example to add to his answer to Question #3 above. I see that he participates at some of the admin noticeboards, and has good knowledge of policy. EdJohnston 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per lack of overall experience. Jmlk  1  7  23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of overall experience? He has nearly 3000 edits, and has been active since 2006. I don't think that this would be an issue. See also WT:RFA.  Melsaran  (talk) d23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For one, I am a stickler for edit summaries, and Edokter, while using them more often than not, sometimes doesn't, and I disagree with an admin doing that. Second, while I know I am going to get hit with editcountitis, -3000 edits is not a lot, and I don't feel comfortable supporting an editor who hasn't quite edited prolifically, and widespread enough (2.72 edits per page with 2914 pages is the 1071 unique pages number we see).  I believe admins should have a much more widespread area of editing.  Don't get me wrong; Edokter is a great editor, and is well on his way.  If this RFA fails, I will almost certainly support in the future, but I am not able to now.  Jmlk  1  7  00:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3000 edits is a lot. Ultimately, when we decide whether to support or oppose a candidate for adminship, we decide whether we trust them. I don't think that Edokter has a lack of experience that makes him unsuitable as an admin.  Melsaran  (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the trust issue. I just believe I personally cannot decide to trust or not based off of what I have seen.  Jmlk  1  7  00:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Would you care to point out some of the edits that make you distrust this person? --Kim Bruning 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point that Jmlk17 is trying to get across is that there aren't enough edits with which to prove/disprove that the editor is trustworthy enough to get the tools, so he wouldn't really be able to answer that comment. Correct me if I'm wrong. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, seriously? You can review three thousand edits and still not consider it enough? That's quite a lot of effort for you to go to. And here I thought you were casting meaningless votes based on a number.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Spot on DM :). Thank you.  Jmlk  1  7  05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's interesting seeing how all the admins who made it 18-24 months ago only "needed" 1-2k edits to pass an RFA. See the aforementioned edit count inflation chart.Rlevse 09:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I remember when I thought 1000 edits was an unreachable goal. I also remember opposing an admin nom for only having 2500 edits. That nom turned out to be a very good admin. I think the point of Adminship is no big deal is that we can presume a nom with around (arbitrarily set at first but now time tested) 2500 edits who has not demonstrated an inability to use the tools will use them constructively. Most of the defrocked admins seem to have gotten into trouble not out of ignorance, but because of making inexplicable decisions that went against consensus or angered a large number of editors. So, unless I see someone has been rash or maybe did not exercise due care, I tend to support. I'm more likely to support now than when I first participated in RfA. That's not to criticize anyone else's choice to oppose at some other edit count level. We all have to decide for ourselves where we feel comfortable.  Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  13:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - not enough experience. GreenJoe 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of experience are you looking for, noting your support for a candidate with only 1000 edits? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * GreenJoe, this is indeed a good question considering it's only a few days ago, and looking at this and this, particularly since you mention experience in both RfAs. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 09:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - bias and cavalier attitude toward contributions (e.g., deleted Compact Disc Logos section). (And mangled numbering of this Oppose section with his response, now fixed.) --John Navas 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at that. He was merely trying to enforce wiki policy.Rlevse 10:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. He exhibited the kind of rush to judgment that has turned off quite a few would be contributors to Wikipedia. His assessment was clearly debatable. No authority was cited. There was no meaningful discussion. --John Navas 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * John, this is hardly the place to bring a content dispute. However, I have pointed you to Non-free content criteria which states that use of copyrighted images should be limited to a minimum. None of the logo's actually apply to the Compact Disc, but to their derivatives, and (most) articles for those derivatives already have their respective logo (if not, add them). Listing them all on Compact Disc merely functions as a decorative gallery in my opinion, and other editors have agreed with me. I removed the logos once, as did two three other editors. I agree policy is sometimes discouraging to new editors, but choosing to follow policy is not optional. And I don't think I was rushing to judgement. You have been trying for months to get the logos posted; Compact Disc logos was already deleted once for being non-encyclopedic, why should including them in Compact Disc be any more encyclopedic? I ask you again, please read WP:NFCC thoroughly, it is a key policy. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a "content dispute" (and your attempt to mischaracterize it as such does you no credit) -- this is an objection to your actions in this matter, in summarily deleting material without prior discussion, even when I've responded in substantive detail and asked you not to, WP:DR be damned.
 * I have read WP:NFCC thoroughly, and have responded to your specific objections in detail, with no further response from you. I believe the Logos section meets all of the criteria in WP:NFCC. All of the logos do apply to Compact Disc, each one to a specific and different physical or logical format.
 * Your comments strongly suggest that you don't really understand the subject material, so how and why then are you presuming to debate it with me? I suggest you take the time to properly inform yourself before rushing to judgment.
 * (As for history, these logos were moved to the Logos section in response to a specific recommendation to do just that. A big part of the problem on Wikipedia in my experience is conflicting and contradictory advice. I'm now revising the Compact Disc article to remove bias toward audio CD and make it much more complete and balanced, matching the logos with relevant text. Yet even that is running into flack from overeager wikicops. No good deed goes unpunished.)
 * --John Navas 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be continued at Talk:Compact Disc. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The content discussion is at Talk:Compact Disc. This discussion is about your actions. --John Navas 20:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "There you go again." [with apologies to Ronald Reagan] Even though we are actively debating the Compact Disc logos issue; even though I'm actively editing the Compact Disc article to appease you; and even though I've asked you to discuss things with me in advance, you removed the thumb attributes from my logos without a word of warning, explanation, or reason, wiping out the borders and captions. I thus renew my opposition here. --John Navas 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral.  It seems likely you will pass, and I think you will probably do fine.  I can't quite support based on the diff given in question 6 and your response to that question.  I can understand your initially thinking the nom was bad faith, but I think you should have done more to retract or apologize for that statement once you learned otherwise.  I think we ought to deal strongly with true bad faith, yet also be cautious about making the accusation.  However, I won't oppose and I wish you the best of luck.-- Kubigula (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * there is no question 6, I think you meant question 5.Rlevse 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right - question 5. I toyed with asking question 6 and got that number in my head. Thanks for the clarification.-- Kubigula (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What question did you want to ask? Always happy to answer, and we still have an hour left. I expected more question to be honest. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:41, 23 September 2007 (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.