Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arkyan2

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] Arkyan

Final (79/3/2); Originally scheduled to end 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (apples) 16:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Arkyan (talk · contribs) - Since self-noms seem to be en vogue I figured I'd give it another go :) I'm a fairly low-profile editor who seems to take some amount of pleasure in rather menial and repetitive tasks, such as updating infoboxes and fixing double redirects and the like. I'm relatively active on various AfD and DRV discussions although I can be spotted in other areas. I've been known to do my fair share of non-admin closing of AfD discussions as well. I've been involved in some lenghtly discourse over policy and guidelines. I offer some time over at the Mediation Cabal and third opinions as I rather enjoy helping folks out. I run a manually-assisted bot (ArkyBot) to help me out with some extremely repetitive edits, but also use it to help fulfill a request at BOTREQ.

I had a similar request several weeks ago (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arkyan) that failed to achieve consensus largely upon a fear that I have too strong a deletionist stance and the possibility I would wear out the delete button. While I have not removed the userbox on my page, I have written an essay that attempts to explain my Wikiphilosophy. Those with a lot of time on their hands might want to read it here, but for the rest of you, I'll summarize. Yes, I believe there is a lot of flotsam wandering about the 'pedia that is best handled by a quick trip to the deletion bin. However I do not believe that deletion is the first and only recourse when dealing with poor articles - there are a great many articles that are only waiting for an editor with a firm hand to come in and turn it from trash into treasure with a valuable rewrite. Furthermore, if entrusted with the mop, I can offer my assurances that I believe the highest and greatest authority on Wikipedia is not sysops, bureaucrats, ARBCOM or the foundation - it is the editors. Wikipedia was built on cooperation and consensus. Any administrative actions I take would be based on a very careful gathering of consensus, not my own whim or fancy. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Much as I indicated in my prior request, I would likely use the mop to clean up discussions on AFD. I would also likely help out with CAT:PROD and help reduce any backlogs or try to make sure we don't get one. Same goes for CSD. I am also willing to help with other XfD's or DRV, but will likely focus more on AfD until I was more comfortable with closing discussions (and folks more comfortable with me doing them). And, of course, I would always be willing to assist with any other administrative work that requires additional help.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As before, some of my favorite contributions are to take poor articles and help them along into something respectable, such as Zona Norte. Ironically I had marked it for speedy deletion before someone convinced me otherwise and instead I decided to make something of it. Rescuing something that was once considered deletion-fodder always provides a sense of achievement. Of course I am proud of the progress I have been making with US city articles, having completed a few states thus far but have a lot of work ahead of me. As far as articles I have created, perhaps one of the better is Salt River Project, although I certainly cannot take all of the credit for the improved state it is in today.
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 have not been involved in any edit conflicts per se recently. Having been active in various deletion discussions it is inevitable that I end up in some lively debates from time to time, but I have found that the best way to handle such situations is to not take things personally, keep a level head and eventually the situation will be defused. This is also often the same way I have handled things while mediating a Medcab case - remembering that above all we are discussing content and not contributors, by allowing everyone to express their thoughts (regardless of how odd they may seem) and not outright discounting anyone tends to lead to more productive and calmer discussions.

Optional question from Pheonix15

4. How would you deal with newcomers who begin immediatly vandalising or have innapropriate usernames?
A: Many of us more experienced users inadvertently use the term vandalism synonymously with inexperienced edit. Many very new users will add content that is not appropriate or otherwise considered vandalism because they are unfamiliar with policy. Same goes for inappropriate names. Many of these users will gladly change when they are simply notified of our policies without jumping the gun and slapping them with potentially confusing vandalism templates or even worse, blocks. Some of the "gentler" templates, or even more direct, personalized messages, are more beneficial for brand new uers. When a new user ignores well-intentioned advise from more experienced editors and persists in disruptive behavior, then it is more likely they really are vandalising and can be dealt with as such. However it is my belief that many are not here to cause problems and should not be treated as troublemakers right off the bat. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment brilliant answer!--Pheonix15 (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Danielrocks123

5. You say that you want to help close out AfD discussions. Suppose the following situation: You strongly believe that a certain article listed on AfD should be deleted; however, most other users are suggesting keep based on what is, in your opinion, ignorance. What do you do?
A: I suppose it would depend upon what sort of ignorance the !voters are displaying. If it is an ignorance of policy - for example, someone making a comment along the lines of "Keep, this subject is very important to the world!" with no basis in policy or guideline, then it may be afforded less weight. However, if they are what I believe is an ignorant application of policy, this creates a difficult situation where an administrator is in a position to favor their interpretation of a policy. That is not what consensus is all about. If it turns out that the consensus of the !voters is an alternate interpretation of policy to my own, it may well be that I am the one out of line in my interpretation and not vice versa, and I should thus not close the debate. A better solution, when I find myself in disagreement with the prevailing interpretation of policy, would be to voice my opinion along with the others and allow another sysop who is less personally vested in the decision to make the call. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from Haveaquestion

6. If someone were accused of being a sock, even if the 2 usernames never edited in the same articles, would you block them indefinitely? If not, would you unblock someone blocked under the same circumstance (orginally block on the accusation of being a sock even if the 2 never edited the same article?). (FYI, there are a number of scenarios where one could be accused of being a sock such as being from the same small country, etc.)Haveaquestion 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
A: Sockpuppetry is a fairly serious offense and those guilty of such should be dealt with appropriately. However, I honestly do not see why we should be concerned about someone who is apparantly operating two accounts that never edit the same articles. Per WP:SOCK we have a number of forbidden uses of a dual account - but there are also a number of legitimate uses. Unless it can be shown that someone is using a duplicate account in an abusive way, I see no reason to consider blocking such an account, and see no reason not to unblock someone under those circumstances. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Rocksanddirt

7 - How much time do you expect to spend on adminstrative tasks vs. article tasks? --Rocksanddirt 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
A: The biggest priority I have on Wikipedia currently is the operation of my bot and the task it is involved in, updating the maps and infoboxes for all the US city articles. I don't anticipate that changing regardless of the outcome of this RfA. I don't anticipate spending a great percentage of my time with administrative tasks - but certainly enough to make a difference :) A large amount of my mainspace work is transparent since it is done using my bot account, but it currently takes up the bulk of my time and will continue to do so. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
8 - How much dispute resolution do you work with now and do you expect an increase? --Rocksanddirt 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
A: Currently I try to limit myself to 1 active dispute at a time, in terms of mediation. I don't anticipate taking on a greater load as far as that goes, but I do suppose that administrators are more likely to become involved in dispute resolution whether they like it or not :) So, I do anticipate an increase but do not think it will become enough of a burden to get in the way of other tasks, particularly not in the near-future. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Extremely optional questions by DarkFalls

9. What is the synthesis of sources, and how would it affect the neutrality and intepretation of the article?
A: As I understand it, a synthesis of sources occurs when someone uses statement from multiple sources to make a point that no one of those sources has made. While this approach may be fine - and even encouraged - in a research paper or other academic environment, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and positing new ideas, regardless of how well founded, is not the purpose of the project. The addition of such a novel sythesis destroys the neutrality of an article by forcing it (and by extension Wikipedia) to endorse an idea that, while perhaps logically sound, is not yet accepted in a broader sense. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
10. What is your understanding of the biography of living people policy, and how is it affected by verifiability of information and reliable sources?
A: BLP is one of those policies that has caused folks a tremendous amount of headache in recent times :) The intent of the policy is fairly clear, and that is part of the "do no harm" mantra. However we are also not censored and do not alter an article just to put a pretty face on things. All information placed in all articles should be verified through the use of reliable sources - but what BLP tells us is that we have a particular duty to ensure the reliability and quality of sources when dealing with information regarding living persons. We should not be including information that has come from gossip sites, rumor mills or what we heard around the water cooler at work.
For what it is worth, I feel that BLP is sometimes misinterpreted to say that we cannot include any negative information about someone. I feel this only applies for unsourced or non-pertinent information. Information that is well-sourced with multiple, reliable sources can be included, regardless of the percieved "negativity" of the informaton. Of course, we must strive to present it in a neutral and unbiased fashion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional from User:Navou

11. Is your password a strong password as defined by "..no dictionary words and sufficiently long, random, or otherwise producible only by the user who chose it, such that successfully guessing it will require too long a time".
A: Indeed it is. Without giving any more information than is necessary, it's composed of random letters and numbers that I have committed to memory :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 04:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
11.1Could you briefly explain the relationship between voting and consensus generating discussion (or difference)?
A: Voting is the process whereby we collect a simple, unqualified opinion from a sample group to determine where the majority opinion lies. Consensus, on the other hand, is a process of discussion and debate in which members of a sample group not only express their opinion but go on to elaborate on said opinion by making a case for it. While each method is ultimately asking folks what their opinion is, our method of consensus gathering allows for constructive debate rather than blind numbers to shape the outcome of the debate. Consensus is achieved not when a numerical majority of participants have the same opinion, but all (or most) of the participants have had their say and a solution that is the most acceptable answer to the most number of people is found. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Arkyan Requests for adminship/Arkyan2

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Arkyan before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support I thought you passed last time. I didn't understand the opposes then and I no doubt won't now. Yes, your mainspace edits are lower than some but certainly not unacceptably low, and as someone who regularly ran into you on XfDs, I never saw you as any kind of deletionist any more than I am — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support Weak edit count, and mainspace, but overall, nothing to prove you will abuse the tools. Politics rule 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support As you have changed your deletionist view.Lustead 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support -- again --JodyB yak, yak, yak 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Been around a couple years and hasn't done anything crazy that I know of. Already doing AFD work, that's a good sign. Friday (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support A good editor with experience--Pheonix (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Your mainspace edits are low, but you have done excellent work in the Mediation Cabal, and you are doing AFD work. I do not think you will abuse the tools. Neranei (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - good editor. Addhoc 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - Good candidate. Main worry brought up on last RfA was excessive deletionism, but reading the essay he linked to in the nomination statement, he has fairly sensible and coherent views on deletions (including a healthy respect for community consensus). Certainly long overdue for adminship. WaltonOne 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support, as last time. WjBscribe 17:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Jaranda wat's sup 17:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, recent AfD contributions appear to be very well thought-out and logical. Responses to comments seem polite and helpful, and certainly looks as though can be trusted with a mop. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support: His AfD work's impressed me, and he's among those editors whose name has generally meant sound logic and reason to me.  RGTraynor  18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support per AFD interactions Corpx 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - I do not believe this user will abuse the tools. - Philippe | Talk 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support All issues from the last RFA seem to be addressed, and the ongoing commitment and civility of this editor leave no doubts in my mind. Best. Pedro |  Chat  18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support ~ Wikihermit 18:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. SupportI'm supporting now. Whoever edits the count can ignore the neutral vote (if it even matters)--Imhungry 19:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. I hope you don't mind that I'm linking to your essay on deletionism from my user page :-) --דניאל - Danielrocks123 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Doesn't bother me at all :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks! :-) --דניאל - Danielrocks123 20:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. I especially like your essay on deletionism, which, along with the late Elaragirl's essay really sums up the concept. Even though I'm not deletionist, I can see that you'll be an asset to the community. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 20:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Good Editor and Track is good.Harlowraman 21:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support User certainly seems to be of admin material. Answer to question five is particularly impressive, in my opinion. TheIslander 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. --- RockMFR 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Have seen him around both the naming conventions debate which he has helped prod toward action after much circular debate and in AFD's and he seems to know the ropes and would be a good asset to the admin mop crew. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  25. Yes - thought was one already, genuinely. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of willingness to help the community :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Haha! Wow, well done, I did a double take when I saw "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence" on the Support side. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Seems mature and gave a very level headed answer to my question (in contrast to another RFA where I was attacked for asking the exact same question). Haveaquestion 22:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Haveaquestion appears to be a single purpose account (12 edits, none to mainspace, most to RfAs). Majorly (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    How cynical... I for one don't see anything odd about a new editor's first post being a technical question about Wikipedia policies & arbcom and all their other posts being in RfAs — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Uh-uh-uh, constructive and polite criticism please! Húsönd 00:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe Haveaquestion just likes RFAs?--Pheonix15 (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Consistently good work at AfD, we can't all be perfect (go on, raise your hands if you are...). I can't see that this editor would abuse the tools. ELIMINATORJR 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  30. Why not? VoL†ro/\/Force 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support I trust this user.--Húsönd 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  32. Looks a solid candidate. Daniel 00:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Brilliant answers to opt. questions, and a well-written, well thought-out essay.Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support now, a change from no vote at all in June. I am not a deletionist per se, but we sometimes agree. Arkyan seems like a good guy. Bearian 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support, articulate answers and helpful contributions. GracenotesT § 03:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Deletionism in the defense of Wikipedia is no vice. Jonathunder 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support, we can use a few more deletionists around the place. For an editor (you know, that thing we all are around here), cutting is a virtue, not a vice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 04:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. Sensible person. Although I disagree with him on some deletion issues, Arkyan is someone who one can discuss and reason with. On Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn he displayed a refreshing level of acceptance of opposing viewpoints regarding deletion, and on Etivluk River he showed clear understanding and ability to work with the encyclopedia and not just bureaucracy. Easy decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support changed from oppose. --JayHenry 06:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Excellent candidate; should have been given the mop a while ago. Xoloz 07:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  43. Well-reasoned AfD comments and great answers to questions; seems to be a solid candidate :) ~ Riana ⁂ 07:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support I don't believe I've met you before, but looking over your contributions, you seem to be an experienced user. Good answers to questions, and, like Riana said, your AFD comments are good as well. Good luck! CattleGirl talk 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support I don't think there is any need for more experience. Arkyan seems more than capable to me. James086Talk | Email 12:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support based on his participation in the Alansohn RFC I don't think he's one of these guys here just to delete stuff, whatever the excuse du jour is. Arkyan seems mature and reasonable... he claims he's a deletionist, but no one's perfect. --W.marsh 14:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - His deletionist beliefs are well thought out, and it is the well thought out part that establishes his trustworthiness. I disagree that worthiness should play the roll proposed by the nominator, but that is merely a difference of opinion rather than a basis to oppose this nomination. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support fine editor. Melsaran (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support per RGTraynor and Xoloz. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support - Arkyan seems to understand that the real role of an admin (regardless of the acres of talk saying "no big deal") is to help with the problems, disputes, and such that exist. Arkyan has about a 0.2 article talk to article edit ratio, which is higher than most recent Rfa candidates. --Rocksanddirt 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support as a voice of sanity on WP:NC (settlements). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support no concerns. --Hirohisat Talk 00:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  53. Yes please! Giggy\Talk 02:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support Experienced and level-headed user. No doubt he will make an excellent admin. PeaceNT 05:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  55. Per quality of opposes. Moreschi Talk 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  56. Long lasting history of unrepentant incivility, personal attacks, vandalism, POV pushing, has been unfriendly and opposed me in a debate (sorry I have no diff, just take my word for it), lacks experience, neediness for the tools (per self nom), heavy-handed deletionist... my kinda guy! —AldeBaer 12:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support Will make good use of the mop --Ben 12:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support Considered responses indicate candidate will use tools per consensus, and not personal bias. LessHeard vanU 13:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support Excellent user. Acalamari 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support per all supports above. NHRHS2010 Talk 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  61. Excellent answers to the content-related questions that I asked has cancelled out any doubts about this adminship request. --DarkFalls talk 03:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support per all the reasoning above. This is a great candidate for the mop. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  63. Having reviewed the contributions and discussion here, I can find no real reason to withhold the mop from this candidate. Contributions do not tend to lead me to concerns of abuse of these tools or marked incivility. I value civility in every editor, and will use it as a criterion to adminship. No real concerns in that arena. Additionally, I'll place weight in an editors ability to determine consensus, or a lack thereof in an application for the mop. Looking at some of the candidates afd comments does not alarm me. This coupled with the candidates response to the totally optional question 5 and 11.1 I am fairly confident the candidate gets consensus generating discussion. This in my opinion is necessary when closing xfd discussions. No real concerns here either. The response to question 11 also indicates to me a understanding of account security. While RFA is designed to keep these tools restricted to editors in good standing that have gained the trust of the community, also need to secure their accounts. I'm confident this admin account [read: forward thinking] will not be compromised. With regards to the other optional questions, and the editors contributions, I am confident this editor is familiar with applicable policy and guidelines. I do not believe this editor will abuse the tools. I will support this candidates application for the tools. Regards, Navou banter 06:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support. Thoughtful essay and answers to the questions. Espresso Addict 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Impressive and well-thought out answers. Although I haven't come across you, the duration you have edited wikipedia for (~3 years) is a bonus. Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support for the same reason as last time and per the excellent responses to Q5 and Q11.1. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support as last time; a tireless editor who has clearly striven to improve based on the feedback from his prior RfA. --Krimpet 20:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support, you did a lot of work in the AfD, also your responses are very good. Definitely you will help with admin tools. Good luck Carlosguitar 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support, per all of the above, good strong demand for the tools, good sense of what goes on here. Shinealight2007 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC).
  70. Support As an inclusionist (well, mostly inclusionist) who's read Arkyan in various deletion discussions, I've been impressed by his thoughtfulness, civility, patience and dedication to thinking things through, even when I've pressed him in debate. At the end of an incredibly long deletion review on the plot of Les Miserables he met my arguments with good ones of his own and influenced my own opinions. We need more administrators with these qualities. Noroton 01:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  71. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support, looks good. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  73. Merge with List of Administrators. Uh... sorry, I think I've been to too many AfDs lately :) ◄Zahakiel► 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support I participated in the AfD debate where Arkyan went and fixed up the Zona Norte article, and he certainly did good work there. His answers to the questions above seem good in terms of policy. His AfD and DRV votes left me with a good impression of his judgment, even if I wouldn't always vote the same way. EdJohnston 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support Eusebeus 11:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support no major concerns raised. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support - I could think of many good reasons, but all had been used before! :-) gidonb 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support per numerous reasons above. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support - I thought I already supported. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose — Sorry, but I see zero improvement since last RfA. Matthew 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    You had no valid reason for opposing last time, see the comments? What sort of improvement were you looking for? Friday (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Dear Ms Friday (actually a Thursday today...),
    I was actually expecting xem to do more editorial work (after all, the mainspace is the most important thing on Wikipedia).
    I'm a little bit puzzled how you have the audacity to say "You had no valid reason for opposing last time", when you've yet to provide a rationale to promote xem other than "OMG, been around since 2005."
    My belief is that xem is your bezzie-friend, even so I don't find that a compelling rationale to dismiss my oppose comment; even so I find it hypocritical that you oppose for basically the same reason and then declare said reason as "invalid". I await your reply in earnest.
    Yours truly, Matthew 17:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    I think Matthew was looking for the candidate to sprout wings and start flying. Sadly, that appears not to have happened. Nick 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Hello Nick! While growing some wings would be an asset to the candidate, I don't believe they would be useful for this RfA. Take care, Matthew 17:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    A WP:FAIRY might be able to manage it. :-) WaltonOne 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - The last RfA was held in June, which is really not that long ago. I am also a bit concerned that you may be too quick to delete rather than work on improving articles. On the positive side of things, you do have a lot of edits (over 3,000) and have never been blocked, but again, I think this RfA is too soon after the previous one and I do have some concerns over a tendency to want to delete rather than improve articles. Best wishes in any case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    It's quite clear that the opposition at the last RFA resulted from your deletionism and a lack of work building articles. A look through your nominating statement and your contribs shows that you ignored the second part of this concern as invalid or didn't notice it in the first place. You have no demonstrated interest in building an encyclopedia -- only 6 articles to which you've made more than 5 edits, only 1 article with more than 10! -- yet you're quite keen to work at AFD where you can get rid of the work of others. I find that an unacceptable combination. --JayHenry 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    I respect your decision to oppose based on what you feel is a lack of mainspace editing - and I will admit that I do not do a whole lot of detailed mainspace work. Most of it is done as relatively minor edits through my bot. If this sort of mainspace contributing is inadequate by you, that's fine. However I do take exception to the inference that I am keen to "get rid of the work of others". I am in no way keen on eliminating other people's work. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    I do appreciate your civility, both here and in your contribution history and I'm worried my comment above may sound harsher than I mean it. I'm more concerned with the lack of article building than the deletionism. Whatever the outcome of this RFA, I'd encourage you to delve into some sort of mainspace content project. I have access to Nexis archives and a good library, and I'd be genuinely happy to help with nearly any article (and that goes for anyone, not just Arkyan!) --JayHenry 03:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    Eh... fairly unreasonable oppose as I think more about it. The maps are a really valuable form of encyclopedia building and my initial comment was wrong for not recognizing that. You've demonstrated commitment to main space and I won't oppose simply because of the deletionism. The offer to help with an article-improvement project remains on the table if you're ever interested. --JayHenry 06:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    I do appreciate the offer (as well as the advise given regarding getting involved with a project) and will keep the offer in mind. The access to the Nexis articles you have could certainly prove useful. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per lack of overall experience... keep up the good work though. Jmlk17 07:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    This strikes me as rather odd. The user has had an account for nearly three years, the past 6-7 months of which they have been very active. They have nearly 4000 edits, a sizable proportion of which are in the mainspace. Lot's of AfD, fair number of talk-page comments etc. If I might be so bold as to ask, what would count as a decent amount of experience? Out of curiosity, 'tis all. TheIslander 01:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    I think that depends on the situation, as well as the editor in question :). Jmlk17 05:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    I noticed that on my previous RfA you had !voted neutral. I am curious as to what I have done (or not done) in the intervening time that has pushed you to oppose this time around? I only ask because I am curious as to what I can do to continue improving myself as an editor. Thanks! ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Depends. Are you the same person as the similarly named Arkarian from Metroid 2002? If so, I'll support.--Imhungry 17:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This user has changed his/her vote to support. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 19:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Despite the similar name I cannot make such a claim, for better or worse :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh well... You're cool anyway for answering honestly. By the way, Arkarian is the top moderator at the Metroid 2002 forums. But sure, I'll support now. --Imhungry 19:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral I have concerns over your ability to distinguish between an article you deem encyclopedic and one that meets WP:N, or does NOT meet WP:CSD. If you get the mop, I see a lot of unneeded DRVs in your future, which wastes time that could better be spent elsewhere. Still, I don't think it's bad enough that you will go on a deletion spree of borderline pages, so I won't oppose --lucid 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, Lucid, that's a bit unnecessary. If you have concerns about his abilities in XfD, why not point them out specifically? Why condemn the user to, in your opinion, a future of "a lot of unneeded DRVs"?   justen   06:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Why would you bother wasting your time on a small neutral vote on an RFA with practically no opposition? Do you think it's going to help somehow? I have concerns about his ability to distinguish between articles he thinks are notable, and articles Wikipedia considers notable. I see a lot of DRVs in his future. I don't feel very comfortable with him having a mop, but it doesn't make me think that bad things will happen, so I'm neutral. Everything I need to say was already in my comment --lucid 05:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    I bothered "wasting" my time expressing my concerns with your comments for the same reason that you bothered sharing them. This is a discussion, afterall.   justen   05:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - You seem to generally give reasonable answers. But the edit count is really quite low. Under 4,000 edits (including an underwhelming amount to Wikipedia-space) isn't brilliant regarding the time you've spent here. Lradrama 19:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    I promise, I'll shut up after this. But you do know that, to become an admin, an editor needs 10,000 edits, right? For goodness sake, he's been a Wikipedian for years, and has seven solid months of editing. If we can't figure out if he's trustworthy or not with seven months of material, then I think we might as well give up.   justen   06:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    With the amount of edits vs. length of time, Arkyan has mainly been active since early this year, making more than 450 edits a month since February. There are other users besides Arkyan who registered in 2004 but didn't make many edits until this year or last year and became administrators recently. Acalamari 17:58, 28 August 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.