Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arkyan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Arkyan

Final (26/12/3); Ended Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:38:10 UTC

Arkyan (talk · contribs) - Hello, I'm Arkyan. I've been a long-time Wikipedia user and sometime contributer, having first created an account back in 2004. My contributions were a bit spotty due to several cross-country moves and job swaps, but I've finally been settled in enough since February to do some serious contributing. I have been active in XfD discussions, most visibly on AfD, and have expanded my work there to include closing of several straightforward discussion with keep variations. I have also been active on the mediation cabal of late and have mediated a couple of cases. I also enjoy dropping in at third opinions and offering insight where I feel I can help. I have long had an interest in helping out with geography articles, and to that end I now operate a recently approved bot, ArkyBot, to update US city articles with infobox templates and new maps. I have an account on the commons under the same username where I upload these maps (and a few other images) I use. Arkyan • (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


[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: As much of my work is centered on AfD discussions I presume the bulk of administrative work would be done there as well. I already close a number of straightforward discussions, as well as perform minor cleanup on discussions that may not have been opened or closed properly - having a mop would just mean expanding my cleanup duties there over what I do currently. I also anticipate assisting with speedy deletion candidates as well as proposed deletions. However, as my primary goal is to be helpful, I would be willing to expand my efforts to wherever may be required.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This is a difficult question. In spite of the impression one may get from my userpage (and yes I do consider my philosphy leaning toward deletionism) some of my favorite and most fulfilling contributions have been to save valid articles from the axe, such as Westgate City Center. I also enjoy finding good stub material to expand, like Oraibi, Arizona. I am also extremely fond of helping people out - some of the comments I have recieved after leaving third opinions, or being able to reach an agreement while mediating a dispute are easily some of the happier moments I have while contributing.
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. I am usually pretty easygoing and feel that assuming good faith is one of the more important, fundamental aspects to building a good encyclopedia and making the collaborative effort work. That said, I have run in to some heated debates in the past on AfD that have exposed some raw nerves. I have discovered that the best way to avoid getting personally involved is simply to not take things personal, and to try and respond to heated comments in a calm manner. I've found that a combative response tends to engender more of the same, but when you make it clear your intent is to discuss and not argue, the situation is often defused and people are more willing to listen to reason and come to a solution. My work with the Medcab has affirmed this, and I have found that while people may be quick to display temper and impatience, most of us have a genuine desire to contribute and improve Wikipedia and focusing on that rather than a "who is right, who is wrong" attitude leads to that desired improvement.
Optional question from Pomte
4. Are all popular culture references junk, trivia and/or unencyclopedic? If not, how do you determine whether any piece of information is encyclopedic?
A: It is no secret that I am not a fan of "in popular culture" articles. The answer to your first question, however, is no - not all popular culture references are junk and mere trivia. The distinction is a difficult one to make as it relies a lot of subjective reasoning, but I do not think it is impossible. Basically the question to ask (and indeed, the question to ask in virtually any sticky situation) is "How does this content contribute to Wikipedia? Will the reader learn anything from it?" I understand the original intent behind the authors in creating "pop culture" sections in articles was to demonstrate that something has had a pervasive effect upon society. Take, for example, the article D'oh!. Without any context it is reduced to a simple catchphrase used on The Simpsons, and likely wouldn't merit an article of its own. The sourced examples provided by this article, such as the inclusion in the OED or the appearance in a widely read periodical such as "The Mirror" provide the context to show us that the phrase has indeed had an appreciable impact upon society. Many of the entries - particularly the ones that deal with one specific episode of one specific television show - are more superfluous and do little to demonstrate the point. When these lists wind up forked into their own "List of" articles, they lack the context that makes them valuable and that is why I am generally not a fan of said articles.
To answer your second, broader question (and forgive me if I'm overwordy) I will fall back again on the same question. "What will this content contribute to Wikipedia?" Our guidelines help to determine if something is verifiable, notable and attributable, but the broader question of "encyclopedic value" is one left to the discretion of all the editors. There is no hard and fast rule to judge content by. As Wikipedia is supposed to be a "general knowledge" encyclopedia, the question I therefore ask myself is whether a piece of information makes sense in the context of "general knowledge". If someone could pick up an article, read it, understand it and use it without relying on hotlinks to related articles, it is likely "encyclopedic". If it requires specialized knowledge or specialized context to make sense of, it's likely better suited to a specialized source. Sorry if I am rambly, and I do hope this answers your question! Arkyan • (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from WJBscribe
5. How important is WP:BITE? What sort of response do you think is best when a relative newbie makes the mistake of a very premature RfA? You might want to address this diff in your reply.
A: WP:BITE is one of the most important guidelines we have, and for a good reason - new editors are the most valuable resource to the project. At one point or another we were all new editors with little or no understanding of policy and guidelines. WP:BITE can mean the difference between running a new editor away from the project permanently or helping to better educate them and encourage their contributions. Every new editor is a potential for dozens of future FA's and thousands of valuable contributions. Scaring them off would be the worst thing we could do.
With regards to the diff provided, I don't feel that my response was very BITEy, but I will confess that it could have been more constructive. I did advise the candidate to withdraw in order to avert a pileon, but I should have taken it one step further and provided the candidate with better advise rather than simply "not ready yet". BITE is about not scaring people away, but it can also be about the very opposite, welcoming them to the project, and I could have done that better. Arkyan • (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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 by all evidence I've found and by the answers provided, this user seems solid and dependable. Answers to the questions are sufficient enough for me. Cheers, Lanky (TALK) 17:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per the candidate's excellent work at WP:AFD and WP:DRV. PeaceNT 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I have encountered this user around several times. A good user from what I've seen. Acalamari 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support for the same reason as Acalamari. YechielMan 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I see no reason, no evidence to suggest he would be a problem. JodyB talk 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak Support - Although admin Majorly makes a good point, I really can't see the user ever putting personal concerns of articles over community concensus. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, Looks good to me. --Random Say it here! 23:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support I thought you already were, to be honest. As someone I've run into repeatedly on XfDs, I don't see any problem. Yes, mainspace edits are a little low but I can't see anything bad in there — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, in the issue Majorly brings up, I see no evidence of impropriety or intent to canvass, just a notification to everyone who might be interested in discussing the matter, including those who may not have a favorable opinion. The prohibition against canvassing doesn't mean you can never try to start a discussion, it just means you can't only invite one side to it, and I see nothing to indicate that this principle was violated. As to deletionism, everyone's somewhere along the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum, I don't see any issue in coming out and saying where one personally is. I see no other issues or cause for concern. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. I've seen him around a lot as well, and he always demonstrates good judgment and his solid knowledge of policies and guidelines, and a dedication that is valued in administrative chores. I don't see how his admission of being "somewhat of a deletionist" is a concern; he described his philosophy on his userpage in a tasteful fashion, not in a tone of promoting factionalism. Also his nonpartisan invitation to editors on both sides in the previous debate to express their opinion on a merge was a helpful courtesy, not malicious canvassing. I trust Arkyan with the mop and bucket. Krimpet (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. I remember that we've disagreed in a couple of XfDs, but I've always been impressed with the quality of your comments. Moreover, I've noticed that you're willing to improve articles at XfD and to modify your recommendation in light of new information and/or improvements. I see no problem with your being a self-proclaimed deletionist as I trust that you will not ignore policy or consensus to impose your personal views. Also, I see nothing wrong with your notification of the participants of the "Lowercase i prefix" AfD as you notified all of the participants in the discussion. Finally, though you may have less edits than the average admin candidate, I think the quality of your contributions demonstrates that you have a solid grasp on policy. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, in spite of deletionism. You won't override concensus. Abeg92contribs 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support I like the large amount of Wikipedia edits. Captain panda 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support, feeling pretty confident this user will make a great administrator. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support the reasonable answer to Q4, dispelling deletionism concerns. –Pomte 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, per Pomte above. I've seen this editor around AfD discussions quite a bit and he's never said anything that sets my sirens off. Good luck. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support per nom (in case that isn't enough to count as legitimate support: there's nothing wrong with specialists, and while I'm more of an incrementalist, I have no problem with inclusionist or deletionist tendencies). —AldeBaer 08:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    That, and WP:CANVASS should be abolished ASAP. I won't oppose any more based on that idiotic "reason". —AldeBaer 08:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. Nothing wrong with being of a deletionist bent (I am), as long as you can establish consensus correctly and be sensible with the tools. I see no evidence why Arkyan would not be able to do this, and no proof that he'd turn into a foaming at the mouth batshit deletion crazy lunatic as soon as he had the sysop box ticked. Neil (►) 11:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support: Arkyan is an outstanding editor who has been a sensible and even-tempered force on AfD debates. To oppose him on the sole grounds that he's an alleged "deletionist" is specious in the extreme.  RGTraynor  15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    "Alleged?!?!?!" See User:Arkyan, where the first substantive statement is "I consider myself something of a deletionist when it comes to AfD discussions." The Deletionist userbox might also be a dead giveaway. Alansohn 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Well, following Arkyan's comments below, if you're comfortable deciding that userbox content rather than contributions is what makes good or bad admins, I'm not going to stop you.  RGTraynor  20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support stoke the fire and ready the biscuits --Infrangible 01:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I am not concerned by your stance on being an active deletionist - with a few million articles here on Wikipedia it is hard to keep track of what is a valid encyclopedia article and what is not. I feel you can be entrusted with the tools and not abuse them. --Ozgod 00:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support I've seen this editor around and haven't seen anyone have any issues with him. -N 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support we need admins, and this one seems willing to settle AfD's to reduce backlog. Deletionist or not he's good by my book. BH (Talk) 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support (changed from neutral). I am happy with the answer to Q5, especially the recognition that WP:BITE should be applied to very premature RfAs not just so as to not be unpleasant but also to actively offer encouragement to the new editor. I have seen good contributions from Arkyan at AfD and have not detected any particular bias in his arguments. It is my opinion that he will make a good administrator. WjBscribe 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support I don't see any problems with this user being an admin. --Wikihermit(Speak) £ 04:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose per the spamming of other users to advanced your POV in an AfD/DRV debate. I'm also not sure you understand our deletion criterion properly, also the deletionist attitude does worry me. Matthew 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Please note that I was simply notifying all the contributers to the AfD debate as to my intentions so that if any of them disagreed they could bring it up on the talk page and discuss it further - I fail to see how this constitutes spamming to advance any POV. Also, per our deletion criteria, a "merge" is a type of "keep" and I don't see how what I did was in any way against the closure of the debate - I even notified the closing admin of my intentions. If notifying editors who have participated in a debate that I intended to perform the merge was in any way improper, then please let me know why so I don't make the same mistake twice. Arkyan • (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This shouldn't be a problem. People who have participated in the AfD may feel interested when a relevant discussion comes up, therefore they should be asked to comment. PeaceNT 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I wish that other people would do similarly to you about the page moves and merges that often follow an AfD. DGG 20:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is spamming at all. The decision was made and he was simply making sure involved parties knew of his decision. JodyB talk 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I concur with the above here: this was clearly a good-natured invitation for both sides to contribute their opinion to the merge debate. This is a helpful courtesy, not disruptive canvassing; WP:CANVAS makes a clear distinction between the two. Krimpet (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As said above, I am one of the "spammed" users and I really appreciate Arkyan's attitude to notice users about merge. Carlosguitar 06:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose You specify you want to close AfDs - however, you appear to be a deletionist, and I quote from your userpage:

    Probably the only time you'll see a keep from me is if either I feel strongly on the subject or the article is otherwise headed for a delete. I guess this makes me something of a deletionist.

    I'd prefer a more neutral, less POV administrator, especially one who closes AfDs. Majorly (talk | meet) 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The statement on my userpage is a little old, but I do acknowledge it is a little on the strong side. I am willing to change this statement to better reflect my philosophy, and I believe a review of my participation at AfD will show that I am by no means the sort who strictly !votes to delete articles, but I do understand your reservations about my philosophy and will not ask you to change your decision based on a change to my statement. Arkyan • (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I would assume in good faith that his personal philosophy would not override community consensus. JodyB talk 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Of his 34 recent AfDs, his vote has matched the consensus 31 times and been different in 3. I call that middle-of-the road, and I've seen nothing to indicate that he would close against the guidelines and the consensus.DGG 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Is it really fair to oppose the candidate on account of the content in their userpage? It's just a personal viewpoint. The candidate should be judged based on what they do, for actions speak louder than words. Also, from what I can gather, Arkyan acts quite properly and his input on AfDs is usually backed up by appropriate arguments. PeaceNT 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Per edit count and lack of experience with policy. Real96 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Edit count, particularly in article space, is a relatively low 866 (despite being padded by serial edits, which, while helpful and (generally) reflective of various portions of the MoS, don't really demonstrate much familiarity with content policies, which are far more important). [1] Self-proclaimed deletionism is the tie-breaker for me. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I'm not comfortable with an editor holding deletion as a value having the admin tools, and Q4 just reinforces that feeling. Along the same lines, I'm not sure this was a great speedy call:[2] I didn't really go through the contribs with a fine toothed comb or anything but the deletionist philosphy is pretty clear from them as well as showing in the answers here. I wonder sometimes why deletion seems so attractive to new-ish editors, is it because it's easier than content creation? I've always wondered about that...anyway this is not a reflection/comment on Arkyan in any way, he certainly seems like a hard worker. RxS 04:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. I'm with Charlotte on this one. Daniel 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose The combination of a proud deletionist (demonstrated by the user page and userbox) and admin tools is always a dangerous one. But, throwing a distinct lack of mainspace edits into the mix only gives me greater concern. Someone who has spent so little time working on articles is far less likely to have the awareness or sensitivity to strike an appropriate balance in dealing with the XfD process, and the answer to Q4 isn't making me feel any warmer or fuzzier. Alansohn 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your concerns about the combination of "avowed deletionist" and "admin tools". However I would think it better to judge someone based on contributions rather than userboxes, and I like to believe that my actions on XfD discussions reflect my willingness and ability to put my feelings second and consensus first. I specifically remember your work convincing me to recant an AfD nomination. I do appreciate the concerns and hope to continue to demonstrate to yourself and others with similar concerns that I do not let personal philosophies interfere with my work here, regardless of the outcome of this request. Arkyan • (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Concerned that this user's strongly deletionist viewpoint indicates a general approach which at odds with the objectiveness required of an admin. TigerShark 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - several concerns as expressed by those above. --After Midnight 0001 16:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - You've clearly stated that you are both a deletionist and want to work around AfD. Admins need to be neutral. I can't support this nomination knowing that you, yourself, admit to not being neutral. --132 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Charlotte's comment's re: limited mainspace edits raise concern, as does this csd nom another editor listed. A red-linked disambig page of towns is an opportunity for several new articles, rather than one less. If Arkyan can demonstrate some contributions to mainspace, I would easily convert to a support. You may well pass this time through, and although I suspect that you will do a fine job, I am not ready to get behind you with a support. —Gaff ταλκ 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Issues with neutrality. —Viriditas | Talk 07:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

Neutral I feel like I want to support, but Majorly makes a good point. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Anything I could do to help alleviate the concern? Others above have made the point for me, it would seem, in stating that personal philosphy does not trump consensus and policy - I believe a review of my contributions shows I am more than willing to abide by consensus even when the decision goes against my personal philosophy. As above, I would not expect someone to alter their !vote here based on something I said, but I would hope that someone's track record and quality of contribution would outweigh a pronouncement of belief on a user page. I have my personal beliefs, yes, but I also have zero desire to push them on Wikipedia. Arkyan • (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Majorly's point is important, but a lot of people who start on Wikipedia set up their User Page with all of their opinions, then they slowly grow into the culture of the project. Learning and becoming a part of the culture is a good quality. But, it's out there in the public, and it appears that your edits don't confirm what you've wrote, so I'm not concerned about that issue. I would like to see more mainspace edits in some articles that show your personality. By the way, it appears that 100% of the time, you add an edit summary. Now that's impressive! Anyways, I think I'm going to stay neutral, though I think that the Arkyan probably will, in the long run, be an above average admin. The spamming was just a bit strange to me, so I'm just not absolutely convinced (but who ever is). Orangemarlin 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Per issues mentioned, but I'm not going to just rely on that. The lack of consistent editing until a couple months ago just keeps me on this side of support. Jmlk17 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Looks like a good person, but the edit count and Majorly's comment make me say neutral for now. (lemonflash)(t)/(c) 23:45, 4 June 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.