Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aarktica


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

aarktica
'''Ended (1/6/3); Originally scheduled to end 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC). Nomination withdrawn.'''

- EAR stalwart and COPYVIO sleuth. --Aarktica 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. --Aarktica 06:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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: The tools would come in handy in my effort to WIKIFY articles; I run into blatant copyright violations while working on the backlogs. Also, there are instances where an article needs to be moved to a target occupied by a redirect. As a regular RFD (and to a lesser extent, AFD) participant, I will work to help whittle down the backlog there as well.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Copyediting efforts which have led others to express appreciation on my talk page. Offering assistance to editors and informing them of policies and providing guidance in line with dispute resolution recommendations.


 * 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: Not really. As an EA participant, I have to be on my best behavior at all times; WP:AGF and WP:COOL are rather invaluable in this regard.

Optional questions from O (talk)
 * 4: When would you use admin rollback? When would you not?
 * A: Rollbacks would be applied to instances of unambiguous vandalism; of course, WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are unacceptable. Of course, I will be on the lookout for possible WP:3RR incidents.


 * 5. At what time would you ignore a rule? When would you use common sense when you are following the policies and guidelines?
 * A: Although the admin request is primarily to facilitate deletion of copyright violations and XfD decisions, my primariy focus is to improve content while being considerate of others. However, if WP:CREEP is apparent, or if following "the letter of the law" makes it difficult to work with others, then I will ignore the rule in question. Of course, I will do my best to avoid violating the spirit of the law (after all, it is in my interest to make a case which will withstand WP:DRV for any article I delete.).

General comments

 * See aarktica's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for aarktica:

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

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Weak Support-If you're interested in deleted copyvios, go for it. There's no reason you shouldn't be granted the tools. Just because you don't want to do the other stuff is not a valid reason to oppose. There is plenty of admin backlog. Copyvios is one of them. An extra person helping with that never hurts. You could do that and do nothing else. It doesn't matter. It's still another person helping. I would really like to see you here a little long and a little more edit count (oh no...I mentioned edit count!), but I'll still support.-- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind note. A few months ago, WjBscribe saw me spinning my wheels over at WP:IFD and suggested I look around. Well, I'm still exploring ;) Hopefully, I'll be more than a "one-trick pony." --Aarktica 04:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose due to the response in question one. You don't need the admin tools to wikify articles.   Mi r a n da   03:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The tools isn't for linking articles; I meant that this is how I run into copyright violations which are often subject to deletion. --Aarktica 03:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This reading material may be in handy.  Mi r a n da   03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Great editor, however I don't see how the tools are needed besides deleting copyvios. ( [ →]O - RLY?) 03:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Q1, and because your nomination statement shows that you aren't really ready.  J- stan  Talk 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per all the concerns above. Try again after a few months. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 03:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose This shows that the admin tools aren't always necessary to deal with copyvio problems. (aeropagitica) 04:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That was unique. In fact, there is some correspondence on my talk page regarding that case. However, there are several other cases where that isn't an option... --Aarktica 04:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Miranda and O.  Daniel  04:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral To avoid a snow Rfa. Keep up the good editing skills, and try again in the future.  Jmlk  1  7  03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Suggest withdrawl. No point in piling on, but read WP:ADMIN to see what else you can do.  Giggy  UCP 04:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about one day? Here's hoping that the condition improves. I agree, there is no WP:POINT in eating the WP:SNOW... --Aarktica 05:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral and suggest withdrawl per JMlk17 and Giggy. I'm guessing several more users will oppose, and no offense but withdraw for now and after a few months, try again. Good luck next time! --H| H irohisat  Talk 05:29, 23 July 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.