Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arcadian

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arcadian

[edit]

final (23/3/0) ending 21:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello all. This is probably one of the few times where standing on a soapbox is actually appropriate, so here goes. I'm a inclusionist when it comes to stubs, especially for articles that should exist but currently don't, because I think that having an article exist allows people to develop a consensus on what an article should be called, and once a stub exists, then you can use "What Links Here" to expand it. Here's my standard for notability: if an article in the New York Times refers to something, and it doesn't explain what it is but assumes that you know it, then there should be an article for it in Wikipedia. I'm not a fan of transwiki'ing dicdefs into Wiktionary. For the record, I don't think that high school are really notable, but for many of our potential contributors, their high school is the most important thing in their life, and addicting kids to wiki is worth the cruft. (Well, that should get me ten 'oppose' votes right there...) If you've got any other questions, just ask. Thank you for your consideration. --Arcadian 21:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. 2700 edits since September 2004. Looking at his contribs... early on he didn't use many edit summaries, but he's getting better. He is cordial, a plus, but there aren't too many edits to his talk page. I don't see more than a handful of edits where he was reverting vandalism, but I really like the way he handles himself overall so I have no reason to oppose. CryptoDerk 21:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --AYArktos 21:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support-gadfium 01:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support I've seen good music, art, and literature work coming out of this on, and since joining in at VfD his skills at working with the community have become evident. Grutness...wha? 02:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Courteous and clearly committed to Wikipedia, that's good enough for me. --Canderson7 02:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Decumanus 03:54, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  7. Support. An industrious improver and a diplomatic editor. I look forward to seeing increased activity at a community level. --Theo (Talk) 08:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Merovingian (t) (c) 10:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Lots of good contributions and janitorial work--nixie 10:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't see that voting on VfD is anything to do with becoming an admin. It's generally not particularly productive. You're doing fine as you are and I support you on that basis. Grace Note 10:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool. JuntungWu 12:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. I disagree with almost every stance taken in the nomination statement, but none of those really matter when I consider an RfA. What matters is time/involvement on the project, ability to interact well with others and level of trust. Here is a support vote from an anti-sub-stubber/anti-dicdef/anti-highschool/anti-cruft deletionist.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 05:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, sure -- Obradović Goran (talk 22:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. support Kingturtle 01:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Seems productive and competent, and cordial; his insane approach towards the trivial notwithstanding. El_C 03:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. support ---Jondel 07:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strongly Support. Awesome! You helped with getting the Three Laws of Robotics up to FA status.. and you look like a worthy person. Give this man an admin ticket! Linuxbeak | Desk 02:10, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Suppose Edits look very nice. Bratschetalk random 03:48, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Sietse 08:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I actually sort of agree on the school issue, but that's irrelevant; this is a productive editor who works well with others. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support; appears to be an excellent editor with an even temper. Good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Edits and Talk comments indicate that he/she will use admin powers wisely. Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. jguk 21:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC) Does not meet my admin criterion[reply]
    I certainly respect your vote, but since it seems your criteria is based upon making significant contributions to a Featured article, this may be relevant: I did a lot of work reorganizing Three Laws of Robotics in early January, to make the taxonomy mutually exclusive and exhaustive. The structure of the article was pretty much a mess before I orgnized it, and the structure it had when it became featured was almost identical to the one I created. --Arcadian 23:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be too concerned - Jguk is one of very few to rate featured article so highly (it's important, sure, but not as important as getting a large number of articles up to encyclopaedia standard). Many successful admins have had "oppose " votes from Jguk! :) Grutness...wha? 02:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems to be in favour of the arbitary, POV standard of 'notability' for high schools. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, we don't need any POV admins --Cynical 14:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    RFA shouldn't be the place to vent when it comes to politics choices you disagree with. Mike H 17:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Doesn't meet my admin criteria. Scott Gall 07:40, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
    Maybe this has something to do with your criteria being rather out of phase with reality, and what the community generally expects from admins.Phils 09:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Scott Gall, it might be helpful to Arcadian if you could list the specific reasons why this user fails your admin criteria. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading that criteria, I can spot at least 5 things that are highly irrelevant to what the community generally expects from admins. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I would have thought they were a strange attempt at humor, except he actually used them to oppose someone. I think they are highly innapropriate and help nothing. Opposing based on them borders on bad faith. - Taxman 20:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    Do you think that they might not be a joke? --Theo (Talk) 23:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  • Although I voted support, the answer to the first question made me pause. The rollback feature is rarely useful for watchlisted pages. It is most useful for vandals encountered on Recent Changes patrol, but most people wouldn't know that unless they were already admins. Also, with 1167 pages on his watchlist, Arcadian seems to do relatively little reverting, yet easier reverting was the main reason given for wanting admin status. No other reason given requires admin abilities. Still, he seems trustworthy and I figure that given time he'll find a niche to fill. SWAdair | Talk 05:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
The main reason I want administrator status is to facilitate easier reversion. I now have 1167 pages on my watch list, and I'd love to be able to defend them from vandalism more efficiently. I'd also get more involved in voting on VfD (I've been hesitant to vote there without being an administrator, until I realized that being present there is an important part of BECOMING an administrator.). --Arcadian 21:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
The most "important" article I've created was probably Million Dollar Baby, though my contributions to that page were relatively minor. What I'm proudest of is rescuing pages from VfD, and rescuing status from being labelled as disputed. An example of this is at Josephus on Jesus. differences here. My change there may seem very small, but it illustrates my favorite way of generating consensus. If people know which part of the page is pro and which part is con, then they're more motivated to improve the position they agree with, than they are to weaken the positions they disagree with. Similarly, one of my recent goals has been saving List of countries that McDonalds franchises their restaurants in from VfD (it was valuable information, but poorly organized in its original incarnation.) I'm also proud of the work I did on cleaning up the Works section of Cicero.. --Arcadian 21:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
My most significant dispute was over List of United States Supreme Court cases. I did a lot of work cleaning up some of the mess on that page, and things got a little heated at times, as you can see if you look on the Talk page. But I'm happy with how everything was resolved, and if you read my comments on that Talk page, that should serve as an example of my approaches to addressing disputes.. --Arcadian 21:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Arcadian&oldid=1142577347"