Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arbitrarily0

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

Arbitrarily0

[edit]

Final (59/0/0); Closed by Rlevse at 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

[edit]

Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs) – Although I dislike arbitrary numbers, I'll make an exception here for a low-profile WikiGnome of sorts with about sixteen months worth of editing experience. From their first contributions to wiki, they've focused their efforts on improving Wikipedia bit-by-bit, slowly but surely. Since then, Arbitrarily0 committed over 6,000 edits in a fairly wide range of areas, from deletion to vandalism patrol, and from minor capitalization tweaks to full article overhauls; according to Soxred's editcounter, the mainspace accounts for almost 40% of their total contribution history. Deleted contribs turns up nothing problematic, in fact quite the opposite, as it demonstrates that while the candidate isn't a rabid deletionist, they know CSD and other such guidelines and policies. There's not much in the way of audited content, although considering that adminship is not a reward for exemplary article creations I think the user is sufficiently trustworthy to handle the mop responsibly and not smack newbies about the head with it! Friendly, productive, useful and competent admins are desperately needed, and I think this user is just the guy for the job. Hope you'll agree. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Wow, thanks for the kind words (and sorry about the arbitrary numbers thing)! Also, thanks to everyone in advance for participating; I'll do my best to keep my answers short and to the point. I accept this nomination. Respectfully, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'd like to learn the ropes at whichever administrative areas are in the most need. Currently, I have the most familiarity with the articles for deletion, speedy deletion, and the 'did you know' processes, but I'd also be interested in working with the other deletion discussions and requested moves, among the rest. First priority, however, would be passing my New Admin School finals before easing into the mop.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm not sure what my best contributions are, as most of them are between the realms of gnomes and fairies. The contributions I'm most proud of, however, are in my adoptees, past and present. I suppose I've written some good articles (although no good articles), I've had a smattering of DYK's, and I've worked with the account creation team for a while. Other than that, I've just been plain old Arbitrarily0.
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: Out of all the areas of Wikipedia, conflicts and wikistress are two places where I lack a good familiarity. I have found that the calm use of discussion pages can prevent most minor conflicts from escalating into major catastrophes. I edit Wikipedia for Wikipedia - disputing with other editors seems counterproductive. I understand that some conflicts are simply unavoidable, but a sprinkling of kind words goes a long way in peacekeeping.
Additional optional questions by Smithers
4. In your own words, how would you tell someone the criteria for Criterion G1 of Speedy Deletion.
A: In tagging for G1, I ask myself if I understand what the article means. For example, an article made up of the text "o7832tvbnnjh" is incomprehensible, so therefore it can be tagged as G1. Likewise, an article made up of the text "premarry menuiserie with reguarantee thwack" can also be tagged as G1, since it's impossible to say what that sentence means. However, an article made up of the text "there's = an crack of dry wall in the Southnorth top corner of me basement", is mildly understandable, and therefore should not be tagged with G1. In tagging for G1, it's necessary to discriminate between poor writing and pure nonsense.
What would you tag "there's = an crack of dry wall in the Southnorth top corner of me basement" as? I think a G1 would do the trick nicely. Polargeo (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, this example is quite close to meeting G1. However, I think it would be more accurately tagged as A1 because it lacks the context that would allow one to search for sources on the subject. G1 implies that one can't gather any meaning from the text, where in this case, there's a small bit to be found (there's apparently a crack in my basement wall). I hope this clears things up, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. You come across a article ready for deletion. The amount of people in favor of keeping the article and people in favor of deleting the article is equal. What do you do?
A: First, I'd check to see that the points on both sides have valid rationales. Ignoring any unsupported reasonings (and any meatpuppets), I'd recount the positions. If the debate is still fairly balanced, then I'd decide whether or not the discussion would benefit from a relist (i.e., are there still points to be made that haven't been?). If not, then I would close the debate as 'no consensus'.
Note: Just to clarify, I took an "article ready for deletion" to mean an article listed on AfD that has reached its full listing period.
6. The classic: What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: Once upon a time, a dark knight was banned from the Round Table for disrupting a council meeting. When he returned at the next meeting, in violation of his banishment, he was removed from the kingdom, and the bridge was drawn - hence he was blocked from coming in. As it relates to Wikipedia, an editor might be banned from editing a set of articles, but there is no physical barrier preventing him or her from continuing to edit the article until a block is set. Thus, 'a block is the means by which a ban can be enforced'.
Additional optional question from Epeefleche
7. What is your opinion of the Admin Recall proposals here?
A: Firstly, let me say that I think administrator recall is a really good thing in moderation. Finding that point of moderation, a balance between fairness towards administrators and community input, will be hard-sought. None of the current proposals are perfect (nor will one ever be), but they are certainly more of a step forward than backward.
Additional optional question from Coldplay Expert
8 I noticed a gap in editing from March to July of this year, can you explain why? And will you ever be away for that amount of time as an admin in the future?
A: Well, I must admit, this past summer was unexpectedly busy for me. Inconveniently placed absences from home coupled with obligations outside of Wikipedia kept me away much longer than they normally would. Fortunately, I don't plan on nor see a reason why I would be away for anywhere near that amount of time again. However, as much as I regretted being away, I think that my absence was a good thing for me as a Wikipedian; not only did it help me return with increased vigor, but also with a fresher, friendlier approach.
Additional optional questions from Btilm
9. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: Cool down blocks, intended solely to calm an upset user, should never be issued. Blocks are not to be used as a punishment, but as a preventative measure. Cool down blocks have great potential to do more harm than help.
10. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: I have a natural tendency to be an inclusionist as it relates to Wikipedia. For example, take an article that contains verifiable information, but has debatable notability. Even if only one person ever takes knowledge from the article's information, I feel that Wikipedia has still done its job as an encyclopedia. Likewise, if the same article has been deleted for lacking notability, then I feel that Wikipedia is a lesser encyclopedia because of it. For that reason, I lean inclusionist, especially in borderline cases, as well as support inherent notability.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
11. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A: The answer to this question is highly dependent on the situation. Was the article nominated because of an absence of notability? If so, a no-consensus closure might be appropriate. If the article is in question for violating the biographies of living persons policy, then further consideration must be given. What are the points made in the discussion? Is the article filled with contentious material? If so, deletion is likely called for. As I mentioned, the closure of this AfD would greatly depend on the situation, especially since extra care is required when dealing with BLP's. Let me know if you'd like me to respond to a specific situation.
Comment Something like this is what I'm thinking about. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've pondered over this AfD multiple times since you've left it here, and the only conclusion I'm sure of is that there is no easily found conclusion. Having a tendency toward inclusionism myself, my initial thoughts were towards keeping, seeing how he is verifiable by multiple sources. Yet something else, as exemplified by Risker, trumps the inclusionism/deletionism debate: a potential violation of the biographies of living persons policy. This violation results from the fact that reliable sources (at least of now) don't appear to allow for completely neutral coverage of the subject. Thus, even though the article's notability is fairly borderline, I believe the closing administrator to have made the correct, however unpopular, decision, based on BLP bearings. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A: Combining an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" with articles on real-life people would seem to be a recipe for disaster. Yet Wikipedia's coverage of living persons is not a disaster, so therefore I can't complain. Sure, the BLP policy isn't flawless, but I believe it does its job in defining Wikipedia's large responsibility towards covered living persons. As far as my work with BLP's, I contribute to them just as often as I do other areas of Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I believe that this is my most recently created BLP, and this is my most recent BLP AfD nomination.
Additional optional question from Seraphimblade
13. You noted that you tend toward inclusionism. If you came across an AfD discussion which you believed met your inclusion criteria or you believed is inherently notable, but a strong delete consensus had emerged in the discussion, how would you handle this?
A: If the points made are valid, well supported, and in good faith, in favor of deletion, then I would close the discussion as delete. If I believed that there was a point to be made, in favor of keeping, that hadn't been, I would make that point and allow another administrator to assess the discussion. Although my personal tendencies lean inclusionist, these are not to take priority when trying to objectively determine a consensus. I hope this helps clarify.
Additional optional question from The Arbiter
14 Let's say that there is an editor who keeps making an edit that you strongly disagree with to an article. It is very unclear whether the edits are vandalism or just debatable good faith edits. When you try to communicate with the editor about this, he refuses to listen to your points and continues to keep his edits on the article. How would you handle this situation?
A: I would begin by bringing up such an issue on the article's talk page. Not only does it allow the editor to comment on his or her stance, but it opens up the discussion to other editors as well. If consensus can't be reached on the talk page, then more advanced steps along the dispute resolution chain should be taken. However, more often than not, polite and patient communication does its job in resolving disputes before they begin. Cheers!

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Arbitrarily0 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Deleted Delete tagging: Correct taggings for G10 G11's lots of A7's A3's hoaxes and R3 and good AFD's. However some problems with A1 where context can be determined; G1 for clear text, A2 where text is actually complete nonsense in Chinese (not already on the project) using G6 instead of G4. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Prodego talk 03:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As nom. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seen them around, seems well suited. ceranthor 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 04:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Everything seems to be in order. I respect Juliancolton's opinion. My vote is not cast Arbitrarily though! Cocytus [»talk«] 05:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seen them about, does good work. Good luck!  GARDEN  09:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Positive interactions. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Completely un-arbitrarily supporting this RfA. ~SpK 16:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Adminship is no big deal, and glancing at his contribs, I trust this user with the tools. Good luck A8UDI 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. No problems here at all. AtheWeatherman 19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Very good answers to questions, fine contributions, seems to have a good handle on policy. -- Atama頭 00:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support - User has very good intentions. You clearly understand areas for deletion that some people would not know and would destroy their RfA. You have exceptional contributions to articles related to deletion and speedy deletion and I feel you deserve the broom. Good luck! Smithers (Talk) 01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per the answer to my question.--Coldplay Expert 02:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Magnificently Strong Support I'm happy with the way he answers each question. Besides, I always support anyone who is really, really positive with the decision to become an administrator and have a go.----Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 03:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support BejinhanTalk 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No problems here. Seen him around.. good contributions, positive attitude.. has potential to be a valuable admin. -- Ϫ 09:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Arbitrarily0. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support No concerns. Warrah (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I see no reason for oppose. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support! Have had nothing but positive interactions with this user. I'm a bit surprised this user is not an admin. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Finally, the guy who helps me most on Wikipedia is nominated. The Arbiter★★★ 00:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Reasoned answers. No real concerns here. Polargeo (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. support per nom--NotedGrant Talk 17:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Excellent answers to all of the questions demonstrates extensive policy knowledge. Seems to be very level-headed in interactions with other users. I couldn't find any troubling issues in his history. Jujutacular T · C 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strongest possible support we need more editors like this one. RP459 (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support An all-around excellent candidate. I'm impressed with most everything about this candidate, from their answers to the questions (and solid policy knowledge) to their article work. Trustworthy, level-headed user who can make good use of the tools. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, good editing so far, and your answers certainly demonstrate thoughtfulness. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Trustworthy user Mr.Snoppy (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    — Mr. Snoppy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And is blocked. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 14:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Arbitrary support. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support No concerns, a very trustworthy editor. Until It Sleeps Happy Thanksgiving 14:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per Question 8. Absences are too often neglected by editors and can have real value to perspective. Only mild concerns regarding inclusionism.Mrathel (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Solid candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Fine candidate! —Finn Casey * 01:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - All clear! Looks like a great editor in general that will benefit from the "mop". Airplaneman talk 03:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - good, solid editor with more than satisfactory answers to the questions. I've seen the user at ACC where this candidate's professionnalism and dedication to the good of Wikipedia have been confirmed. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Seen the good editing while around. I don't see any issues here, and I agree with the nomination statement. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Per Nihon Joe. Doc Quintana (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that candidate has never been blocked and also as I am persuaded by the unanimous support above from my colleagues. I also appreciate that candidate is a fellow adopter, i.e. interested in and willing to help other editors which is something admins generally need to do. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. <insert a sentence using the word "arbitrary" here> Tim Song (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Not so arbitrarily Supporting this RfA. Good Luck with the mop! Hamtechperson Repeater 03:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Good answer to Q11, good luck with the tools! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I'm happy that the candidate would use the tools wisely, given the answers to the questions. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support: per Juliancolton. A great candidate - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Looks like a solid, well-rounded admin candidate. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support An asset to this project! Btilm 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I set aside my usual grumpy comments (on insufficient article achievements and activity) and give a full support here - I have crossed with the candidate at the DYK and have only good recollections. From replies to questions, I see dedication to WP, solid judgment and knowledge of WP policies, and, importantly for a new admin, careful approach. Good luck. Materialscientist (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. No concerns with this candidate! Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. No concerns.  IShadowed  ✰  02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, no concerns. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, images aare one of Wikipedia's weakest areas, and I see great work in this field. networked.frog (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Mop well! No alarms for me. GedUK  12:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Great editor. --Carioca (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Weak Support - no complaints, really. Only thing that bothers me is the preference toward inclusionism. Wikipedia has more litter than the New Jersey Turnpike. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - an overall good candidate, would make a good admin. *Pepperpiggle**Sign!* 02:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support-- No problems here Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments
  59. Support - I like his sense of humour when i said i would vote in opposition just to not have it 100% at the last moment. Very well rounded contribs and a pleasure to work with @ ACC. Would be an excellent admin. delirious & lost ☯ TALK 03:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]


Neutral
[edit]
Neutral for now - Can you answer the questions please? Thanks! Smithers (Talk) 06:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Switched to support (did I indent this properly?) Smithers (Talk) 01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, but when it's not first in the numbered list, it should begin with "#:" to keep from breaking the numbering of the list. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending answers to additional questions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Switched to support.[reply]
Neutral - Until answer to specific event is answered. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) - Moved to Support --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.