Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AYArktos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] AYArktos

final (67/0/0) ending 10:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

AYArktos (talk · contribs) – AYArktos has been a regular contributor to Wikipedia since February 2005, although it certainly seems a lot longer. During that time she has not only contributed a great deal of content to the encyclopedia, she's also active across most namespaces and amassed 5828 edits in the process. In addition to her article editing, she's active with policy matters, afd, discussions across many different issues and also on other projects such as Wikinews and Commons. Having already been nominated once for adminship, she kindly rejected the offer, but now feels ready for the added responsibility. I feel it's high time to offer this excellent editor the mop and bucket. -- Longhair 06:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Many thanks to Longhair for his nomination (and to User:Pfctdayelise for the earlier suggestion); I accept --A Y Arktos 09:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support -- as nominator. Well overdue in my opinion. - Longhair 06:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support An active and hardworking Australian Wikipedian.Capitalistroadster 09:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Waggers 10:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. As another Australian Wikipedian, I have seen how valuable this user is to the project. --Bduke 11:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support seems like a good contributor, and uses edit summaries which is a plus.--Alhutch 12:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support: yes. --Bhadani 13:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support excellent contributor. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. David | Talk 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support per all reasons listed above. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support --Terence Ong 14:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. support. Solid contributions, calm and considered in zir interactions with other users. Is an asset to Wikipedia in every way. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Perfect candidate for an RFA. Moe ε 16:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 16:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support --Ugur Basak 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per above. JPD (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. 'Support per above. --Firsfron 18:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support A fine contributor --Fir0002 www 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose - this place is slowly turning into Ockerpedia! Support a fine, fine Wikipedian. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support --Latinus 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Glad to support a great Wikipedian. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Geoff/Gsl 04:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Seen her around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 05:42Z
  28. Support. Excellent contributor! --Dragon695 07:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support DaGizzaChat © 07:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Agnte 07:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support --Khoikhoi 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support -- Didn't know AYA was a she. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support a hard working Australian Wikipedia of the highest quality. Blarneytherinosaur 08:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support —Wayward Talk 10:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support —Ruud 20:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support why not? Computerjoe 20:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Edit history looks good. She seems ready for extra responsibility --Dakota ~ ° 22:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support, per above. A well-rounded user. --tomf688{talk} 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Has kept a cool head in some edit wars. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support — Adrian Lamo ·· 03:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support - Excellent Australian editor (another Australian).Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. We've had our disagreements, but she'd nonetheless make a good admin. Ambi 07:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. No issue.--cjllw | TALK 07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Top editor. michael talk 07:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support wonderful user. Raven4x4x 08:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support I don't always share her views, but she would surely be a great admin. Her extensive and invaluable contributions over the past year have proven that. Good candidate. --cj | talk 08:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Good work.pschemp | talk 08:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Is it just me, or do female Wikipedians get a far easier ride of it on RfA? Is this, a) because they are nicer and more civil or b) Because they're girlies. I'm assuming good faith and going with a). AYArktos definitely deserves the mop, though, not impugning that. Proto||type 09:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Will likely make good use of tools. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support per nom. One of those editors who seems to be everywhere doing useful things. --bainer (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support per above abakharev 00:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. Dedicated wikipedian. --Fang Aili 15:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  56. You mean she wasn't one already? Support. +sj + 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 16:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support well overdue. She is a great Aussie editor across several projects. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support--Jusjih 00:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support Looks good to me. Ghostieguide 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Joe I 05:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support sounds good, gets my support, good luck to you. Gryffindor 14:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. SupportdoN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 18:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support Mjal 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. It's getting mighty full up on this wagon...Harro5 05:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support --Prodego talk 14:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support if there's still time. JIP | Talk 15:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 93% for major edits and 91% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 10:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See AYArktos's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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 voters:

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. In the past I have reverted tests, the roll-back button would help when those tests have been to a few articles. I have monitored "recent changes" a few times. More frequently though I pick up inappropriate edits through my watchlist - which hovers around the 1,000 mark. In particular I would be willing to help with Wikipedia:Copyright problems; I would be prepared to review the sources against the wikipedia articles listed and help keep the backlog under control.
Other clean up work I have done to date (eg cleaning up dab pages) would not be made speedier with sysop tools as far as I know.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have contributed to many articles, I intend to contribute to a lot more. It continually amazes me how much I do not know, wish to research and then put down my findings. As an example of a recent exploration, see Max Stuart. An example of my work on Australian architecture which was mentioned on Template:Did you know on 2 February is the article on the Sydney Observatory. Work in progress includes Arthur Upfield, New South Wales Government Architect, Court houses in New South Wales, Australian architectural styles, many articles on Australian places, for example, Narooma, New South Wales.
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. As my nominator, user:Longhair, put it: I am "not a controversial editor, although [I] do make a stand on issues". When in doubt I move on - there are plenty of other areas in the wikipedia. I did tangle with User:Internodeuser but survived :-), I did not intend to upset the user but ...[1]
I anticipate dealing with any other similar issues in the future by also concentrating my energies elsewhere for the duration if it becomes necessary - with a reasonably diverse range of interests, I believe that is a manageable approach.
Most recently, I have not been happy with some of the issues at the Deletion reviews and AfDs of List of interesting or unusual place names. My response was to ask for the debate "be closed by an admin who has not expressed a view in any of the debates to provide some impartiality". Android79 was prepared to take on the challenge. I believe asking for a previously uninvolved editor or admin to review is a useful way of de-stressing the situation.
I accept that I have still a lot to learn and am happy to take on suggestions and pointers to policies and guidelines. I have found the Wikipedia policies and guidelines useful, and have attempted to familiarise myself with them and apply them.
--A Y Arktos 09:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • did you mean to put the questions above the votes? It was a little confusing when I first looked at it.--Alhutch 12:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That may be my fault. I nominated this editor using the new submit form for nomination, which produced some weird output at the time, like sections rather than bolding, and the layout you see above. I'll look into why shortly or if it was a user error on my behalf. -- Longhair 12:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
All cleared up, thanks.--Alhutch 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


The above 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.