Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aarktica 2

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] Aarktica

Final (44/1/1); Originally scheduled to end 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Aarktica (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate Aarktica (talk · contribs) for adminship. Aarktica is a dedicated, helpful, civil editor with over six months of experience and 4000 edits. You'll find that this editor has broad contributions that display a knowledge of policy (AIV, XfD, etc.) and a willingness to collaborate. Aarktica has been especially proficient with work at the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests desk, assisting new editors in a wide array of activities. I am confident that Aarktica—a cooperative editor always looking to improve Wikipedia, and ever-willing to accept constructive criticism—can be trusted and will not abuse the tools. — Scientizzle 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Aarktica 00:52, 2 October 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 have experience participating in various XfDs and tagging articles for speedy deletion, so I intend to work with on AFD, CFD, RFD and CSD. I've also done a fair amount of vandal fighting, so I think I could be useful at AIV. I'm interested in learning the ropes at IfD, and would like to help out with copyright violations at WP:CP. Seeing that many of these areas are prone to backlogs, having the additional access will make it possible to participate more effectively there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As the ninth editor to sign up for WP:EA (shortly after it was created), I have participated extensively over at WP:EAR, often following up to confirm resolution of requests for assistance. I have created a few articles (Mae West hold, Namdroling Monastery, World Eskimo Indian Olympics) but have also spent a fair amount of time copyediting the work of others (101 Battalion). As part of WP:WWF, I have helped improve articles upon request (Haleigh Poutre, List of Japanese Army Military Engineer Vehicles (WW2)).
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 don't know if it qualifies as a "conflict," but I was threatened with a block for my efforts to volunteer with WP:UAA. I simply found other places to participate. I don't know that I would have done anything differently, either.
4. Question by Miranda. I have noticed that you have created articles upon request, but what is your interpretation of BLP?
A: Given the ethical and legal responsibilities, all such articles must be treated with care, adhere to standards of verifiability and reliable sources. As an admin, I will be sure to delete any article which qualifies as an attack page or happens to run afoul of OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarktica (talk • contribs) 10:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Optional Question by Nick
5. Given your history of making inaccurate username reports, do you feel that you can now be trusted to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable usernames, and deal with unacceptable usernames that have been chosen in good faith in such a way that you don't alienate potentially good editors ?
A: My brief foray to WP:UAA (over the course of a week, about three months ago) involved the submission of 45 names in total. Of those submissions, about a third were reverted -- these include submissions that I _voluntarily_ retracted after conversing with other editors. This shows (I hope) that I can admit when I err and dutifully attempt to rectify mistakes.
As I see it, participating at UAA is more of an art than a science. There was at least one instance where other participants reverted each other over a submission that I made. I did my best to follow the Wikipedia:Username policy with each name I submitted, providing rationales derived from policy, but now realize that some were perhaps not sufficiently blatantly inappropriate and may have been more appropriate for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Usernames. I have since better familiarized myself with the relevant policy, but may not, as an admin, participate much in that realm. If I do, rest assured that I will avoid alienating potentially good editors by exercising judicious restraint in doling out username blocks as prescribed by policy; I will also work to avoid alienating already good editors that make good-faith mistakes in UAA submissions by offering assistance and advice, rather than brusque block warnings. --Aarktica 04:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Question by User:Rspeer
6. I want to know more about your approach to the username policy. Can you give examples of cases where you would (a) ask the user to change their name, (b) report the user to UAA or indefinitely softblock them, and (c) hardblock the user, preventing them from creating another account? As many users have many different interpretations of the word "blatant", what criteria would you use in deciding whether to block?
First, let me re-iterate that I intend to be of service to the community elsewhere -- away from UAA. Administrative activities will most likely be conducted at the areas mentioned in the first question. That said, here are responses to the questions you asked:
a) An example of an instance where I would ask the user to consider a change is user:pradeepshitole. While some might [understandably] find it vile, its meaning open to interpretation, and depends on parsing. As such, it would be proper to assume good faith here.
b) An example of a UAA-worthy report would be Mesohornyfordick, a nomination of mine.
c) Hard blocks are extremely heavy-handed in my opinion. However, according to the wikipedia:username policy, such blocks are permissible for cases of "bad faith", such as attack usernames (see Rspeer drinks the haterade.)
As for blocking criteria related to the subject matter, I refer to the wikipedia:username policy: Blocks may be used for inappropriate handles (i.e. Confusing, Misleading, Disruptive, Promotional, or Offensive.) Therefore, I think that a block may be appropriate where a handle's meaning is devoid of any plausible, good-faith, alternative interpretation. Finally (and perhaps most importantly,) when in doubt, refrain from blocking. Instead, reach out to the account holder in question, and make an effort to congenially enlighten said holder of relevant policy. --Aarktica 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
(For the record, I had to work at a remote location today. The question was posed yesterday, and while I had prepared a response, I was without the means of posting a reply. --Aarktica 01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Aarktica Requests for adminship/Aarktica 2

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. — Scientizzle 03:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. My experience of this editor has always been very positive. He seems to have a good knowledge of policy and spread of experience. Should make a good admin. WjBscribe 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Good candidate. Daniel 03:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Daniel-supported :p --DarkFalls talk 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Comments at Wikipedia:Editor assistance demonstrate good willingness to help users and an awareness of policy. A review of deleted edits shows good tagging of speedy-deletable material. The conflict at WP:UAA could have been handled better if someone had patiently explained the username policy, rather than threatening a block, which was excessively heavy-handed. I think this user would make a fine admin. Aarktica would no doubt be near the top of the list (well, this list of admins sorted alphabetically.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    See the discussion that ensued after this incident. --A. B. (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Confident that Aarktica will do well with administrative abilities. ~ Sebi [talk] 04:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. This editor is experienced, aware of policy, and I believe he'll do well with the extra tools. No reason not to trust. Useight 06:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support With full confidence. Excellent and diverse editing, and your deleted edits show good knowledge of policy. I was also disapointed by the reaction at UAA by Nick, but respect that you just left it alone - which shows a good temprament, and a willingness to "rise above it" - vital for an admin. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  08:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Glad to give my support. This user will definitely make an excellent admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support per nom. nattang 10:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I believe you have bettered your editing since your last Rfa, and my gut feeling says "support", so here it is! Jmlk17 11:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. support per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - far from the best RfA I've seen, but still worthy of a support I think. Lradrama 13:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support with a good number and high quality of edits, willing to withdraw from an RfA before, and no problems. Bearian 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Per all of the above, this user is trustable with the tools. Phgao 17:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support. I work with this editor at WP:EAR (without Aarktica, would anything get archived? :)). User remains cool, helpful, and never bites newbies. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Particularly impressed with the way you handle abusive comments and question in stride ;) Ronnotel 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support although forgetting to sign an answer to a question is silly, good luck and I hope you get the mop, you deserve it :) --Benchat 05:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support- Miranda 10:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support A good editor. You'll do well as an admin. ;) -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. That an editor I like to support becoming admin! Honest answers to the nomination questions, not holding back anything. No reasons for any concerns about him in his diffs, as far as I can see, but lots of examples of helpful responses and support. Keep up the great work, Aantarktica! Gray62 13:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support- Hard-working contributor wanting to make Wikipedia live forever. And about the critics- when reporting massive amounts of usernames, sometimes there is mistakes - I'm sure he learnt from that, too. I didn't find the misses I found to be disqualifyingly silly. Greswik 22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support --Hirohisat Kiwi 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Understands the policies. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Plenty of xfd experience, definetly nows what they are doing. Without a doubt, I support this user. --bobsmith319 00:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support east.718 at 02:49, October 4, 2007
  27. Support: Answer to my optional question has reassured me and there was literally nothing else that concerned me with Aarktica. Good luck. Nick 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support: Your answers on your failed RfA helped convince me you have a more holistic view on 'pedia building than this RfA suggests. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Weak Support per answer to nick's question. --WriterListener 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - Most admins don't participate much in WP:UAA. As the user denies herself any right to be active there, I see no reason why her bad reports there should be a problem. Od Mishehu 21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support your answers are OK to me, you have my trust. Good Luck. Carlosguitar 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - Definitely looks like an excellent candidate! FolicAcid 03:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Everything seems fine. --Kudret abiTalk 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support The WP:UAA thing bothers me a bit, but not enough to oppose. The pros definitely weigh out the cons. Good luck! нмŵוτнτ 16:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Any mistakes should be forgiven if the editor listens to advice, and makes the necessary adjustments. - Jehochman Talk 18:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Will make a great admin. STORMTRACKER 94 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Support Good candidate. AS 001 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Note: User registered today and has very few edits. Miranda 22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    User:AS 001 is a sock puppet of the blocked User:Bill Ayer. Corvus cornix 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Should be able to handle the tools well, although my only concern was the a bit-low mainspace contributions.--JForget 00:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support although I'm sure I speak for a few of us here as I say you might want to hold off on acting on UAAs and the like until you get a bit more acquainted with the guidelines there --Pumpmeup 22:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support; Low mainspace contributions do not worry me— I'm mostly a metapedian myself and I can understand why someone would feel more confortable doing the behind-the-scenes work. Given that the janitorial work you've done is good, the mop seems very adequate at this time. — Coren (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support John254 21:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. This editor gets extra credit for a posting at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests which appears to be a grand tour of most of the Wikipedia policies. Evidently his policy knowledge is good. I went through his work at Editor assistance back to mid-August and I liked all his responses. EdJohnston 00:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  43. Not every admin is an expert everywhere... I've never done any SSP work and I don't intend to do it for a rather long time. Aarktica seems to me like a mature and responsible user and able to help the project with some extra buttons. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support, as per nominator. Good editor. --Carioca 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose 15 out of 45 UAA reversions is unacceptable as a potential sysop. I want to see a better track record here before I'll be convinced to support. Rackabello 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. The last thing we need is another admin who enjoys playing Whack-A-Noob on UAA. I'm not sure that's how he would turn out, of course, especially since he didn't answer the question, but his track record on UAA implies to me that he would be overzealous with blocking. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to neutral. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

#I will stay neutral for now, pending my question. Miranda05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

#Pending answer to Nick's question. Sounds pretty serious. --WriterListener 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. Neutral (moved from oppose). I'm somewhat reassured by his response to Q6, mostly by the fact that UAA isn't where he plans to use his admin powers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:17, 6 October 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.