Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arbiteroftruth


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

Arbiteroftruth
 User is now known as "Kiteinthewind"

[ Voice your opinion on this candidate ] (talk page)

 (13/22/8) ; Scheduled to end 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. –xenotalk 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– I have pleasure in presenting this candidate for the position of administrator. Arbiteroftruth recently came to my talkpage to ask my opinion whether they should run for adminship, so I conducted pretty much the same review that I would any candidate I was not especially familiar with; I was so impressed with what I found that not only did I agree that he should make the request, being that I would support such a candidature, but offered to nominate. Arbiteroftruth has made just over 10,000 edits (including 1,220+ deleted contributions), but most noteworthy is that he has edited every month since April 2004 and just over half of these edits are to article space. The other 49% are pretty spread over the rest of wiki space, so he likely has a very good understanding of most aspects of the project. I have in the recent past interacted with Arbiteroftruth with regard to one particular sockmaster/vandal, and I have been very impressed with his handling of the situation as regards his calmness and the wisdom (and respect) within his comments and actions. As may be evidenced by his meagre collection of Barnstars, Arbiteroftruth is not someone who would seek the office of administrator for whatever "kudos" might accrue but as a means to better contribute toward the growth of the encyclopedia, and has demonstrated the commitment and trustworthiness expected of the position. I trust that others will also recognise the candidate as a worthy addition to the sysop ranks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, and thank the nominator for everything. Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Acceptance withdrawn, per discussion |at User talk:LessHeard vanU. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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 intend to, as I have done before, patrol pages that are targets for vandals, and repair them as quickly as possible. That was my intention when I nominated myself for adminship a few years ago [see discussion]. Being a less experienced user back then, I was persuaded by others to garner more experience before trying again, and I obliged, and I have since become a much more experienced editor than I was back then.


 * Wikipedia is becoming a much popular place than it was when I first joined. What was once a place that I have to explain to others became a place where everyone now recognize and rely on day in and day out. As that is the case, the reliability of Wikipedia is now a much higher issue than it was before. We might not be our intention for Wikipedia to be a place of reference to the world, but the reality is that we are becoming such a place. It is because of this that I have become more involved in anti-vandalism activities than I was before, knowing that someone, somewhere is using an article here as a source for an academic paper, or something more substantial. If I have the honor of being an administrator, I will be a force of good and truth here, and help to revert as much vandalism as I can, in addition to help deleting articles that are obviously created for vandalism, and serve no other purpose.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia would be, I honestly believe, my contributions to Singaporean Arts and Entertainment articles, especially articles related to Singaporean television programs. Although I am not Singaporean, nor do I live in Singapore, I have been working hard at improving the article quality of these pages, and protecting them from persistent vandalism. What began as minor editing after watching a Singaporean TV show on the internet two years ago eventually turned into a determined endeavor to protect these pages from otherwise undetected vandalism, as well as improving the page's layout, content, and grammatical usage. The other contributions that I would consider to be the better ones would include my work on translating articles from the Chinese Wikipedia into this Wikipedia, and vice versa.


 * 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: Last year, I was locked in a conflict over the deletion of Xidan, a district in Beijing that someone believed was not notable, even after I presented evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, I did not deal with it with the normal diplomacy that I normally accord to such arguments, and I was blocked for such behavior. The fact that some real-life issues have affected me did not help either. From that incident, I have learned that I must, as I have before, not let real life issues or unreasonable argument to negatively affect my otherwise professional work here on Wikipedia. Just like my real-life line of work as a journalist, editing Wikipedia should be regarded as a professional endeavor, even if we are only editing it during our spare time. Ever since that incident, I have been very careful to be cordial and professional, even as I deal with vandals that have revealed my personal information to the world at large, and threaten my privacy.


 * Additional optional questions from The ed17
 * 4. Have you significantly contributed to a current Good, A-class or Featured article? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A: My efforts thus far have mostly been directed towards creating new articles, and improve the quality of existing articles that are otherwise not GA or FA articles/candidates, in addition to making sure that vandalism on these otherwise lesser-known pages are reverted as soon as possible. I have not directed as much effort to editing the mentioned categories of articles as I do to other articles, but I have been planning on directing more energy towards those articles. I understand that my educational background, which is more Liberal Arts-oriented, might not allow me to otherwise contribute significantly to certain GA or FA articles, especially in very specialized areas such as Engineering, Law, and Science, but I am willing to help, at least in an auxiliary manner.


 * Additional question from User:Wizardman
 * 5. When should no consensus closures on AFDs default to keep, and when should they default to delete, and why? (Note that I'm looking for your personal opinion - anyone can recite a policy statement)
 * A. On this particular area, I am personally in favor of taking a case-by-case approach to each situation. I don't take a specific, hard position on the deletionist/inclusionist debate: I can be in both camps at different times. When looking at such discussions, I will also take a look at the article, and determine if the discussion was influenced by certain emotional factors (such as this discussion that I started years ago.) On that particular discussion, I would have leaned towards deleting the page, as the person was a college student who did not have any significant achievements in her field of study, and that the page was created by her husband, who also advocated strongly for keeping the page. On other discussions, if the page can be salvaged, and turned into an article with substance and depth, I would have leaned towards keeping the page.


 * Additional optional questions from kotra
 * 6. What is your opinion on citing one's sources? When is it essential, and when is it not? If you could, please relate your answer to articles you have created in the past, like Hato no kyojitsu and Seletar Robbery.
 * A: In principle, I believe the citing of sources is essential, especially given our relatively newfound status as a go-to source for information. That said, when I translate articles (such as the one on Hato no kyojitsu), I work under the premise of getting it down first, and harness the power of the Wikipedia community as a whole to find the source. Now, in regards to Seletar Robbery, I (correctly or not) worked under the premise of common knowledge: the show was referenced by a very popular TV show in 2007, which was seen by about 1/4th of the Singaporean nation. In that sense, information that can be considered to be common knowledge does not need to be cited (just like how we don't cite Barack Obama as the US President). I hope that provides a comprehensive answer, and if you want me to elaborate, please don't hesitate to let me know.


 * 6a. Thank you for your answer to Q6. As a follow-up question, did you translate Hato no kyojitsu from another language Wikipedia? If so, what is your view on attributing such articles to their original source? I don't wish to trap you in a "wrong" answer, so this page might inform your answer.
 * A: With that article, I translated it from Chinese Wikipedia. I believe that attribution is important, but instead of providing a more visible and obvious attribution, I simply inserted an interwiki link to its counterparts at the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia. I have always provided such interwiki links when translating, so that the translations can be scrutinized if there are suspicions. When the page that I am translating also provides links, I will also include the links, and then rewrite certain portions to make sure that the idea gets across the language barrier. In short, the attribution is there, but perhaps not in as visible and obvious a manner as some would otherwise like, and of course, I will address this issue in future edits.


 * Questions from User:Carlossuarez46
 * 7a. What policy areas have you contributed to?
 * A. If the question means a contribution to development of policy, I have to say that my contribution to that area is minimal, due to my efforts in concentrating on the enforcement of policy, such as vandalism/account abuse, and my efforts in improving Wikipedia articles that are lesser known.


 * 7b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?
 * A. I would change our present policies on Autoconfirming users. I have seen many instances where the Autoconfirming mechanism was gamed by vandals, who will quickly reach the autoconfirming threshold by making test edits to their userpage and talkpages. The rather defeats the original purpose of autoconfirmation.


 * 7c. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates and should they?
 * A. Throughout my time here on Wikipedia, I have changed my views on essays, from, at first, a mere statement of opinions, to one that essays are the beginnings of a well-formed policy. I believe that these essays can be a valuable guidance in XFD debates, especially on the policies that have been listed in the question. However, we have to look at each essay on a case-by-case basis: some essays can be very useful, while others can be a bit light on quantity or quality. The last thing we want to do in utilizing essays in XFD discussions is to dismiss it all or trust it all. We must look at each essay, and see whether the case applies.


 * 7d. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?
 * A. I believe Wikiprojects, as a gathering place for people who want to edit on the same topics, should follow the same policies as the rest of Wikipedia. Having different policies for different Wikiprojects is very confusing for Wikipedians, not to mention the additional burden that it would place on the users and admins alike. On that note, I would say that simplicity is always beauty, and that different rules should be avoided, if at all possible, whenever possible.


 * 7e. If a user started pushing the stop buttons on our most active bots without explanation, would you block them? when? after what warnings (if any)? under what portion of WP:BLOCK?
 * A. The nominee will answer this question in 24 hours. The nominee is going to bed at this time.


 * 7f. What is your reaction to someone who thinks that your username may indicate an unwillingness to reassess your positions, be flexible, or admit mistake?
 * A. My reaction would be that first glance almost never gives a true picture of the user's real personality and mode of operation, and I would respectfully tell these users that if they have concerns about my way of conducting business here on Wikipedia, they should not hesitate in telling me, or ask me questions. On a personal note, I would like to add that throughout my time here on Wikipedia, I have been very receptive to other ideas, and suggestions, and that I have constantly reassessed my positions, and admitted mistakes where they happened.


 * Additional optional questions from Pmlinediter
 * 8a. How tolerant are you in blocking and unblocking? If an editor who is indef blocked for vandalism and generic disruption comes back 4 months later, requesting unblock, admitting the misdeeds and promising not to recur, would you consider unblocking?
 * A: I strongly believe that blocking is an "educational" measure that is used for reflection, rather than being a punishment. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, afterall. As for the hypothetical situation, I will look at the editor's vandalism history, as well as its severity. My natural instinct tends to tell me that 4 months might not be enough time for an indef'ed user to reform him/herself. The sincerity of the unblock request will also play a role in my decision. If I do decide to unblock, I will monitor the user's activities, to see if the user is truly reformed. If it is a sockpuppeteer that is asking to be unblocked, I will reject it. Sockpuppets are way to disruptive to Wikipedia, and I cannot, in good conscience, let a sockpuppeteer back in.


 * Additional optional questions from Pmlinediter
 * 8b. You have not been a very active user and your activity level has often slipped. Also, most of the articles you've contributed to are Start-class. Do you intend to increase your activity level in the near-future? Also, have you any goal set in mind of promoting any article to GA/FA? This might sound a bit confusing; I know.
 * A: I do intend to increase my activity level in the future, and get more involved in projects. My fluctuation of activities are mainly based on school, vacation, and work commitments. With that said, however, I do edit Wikipedia at least 10 times a day whenever I am not on Wikibreak (I had a 17-day gap in editing this past May, but that is due to an unannounced vacation: I did not want to attract vandals into action, and target these pages that I have been monitoring). As far as goals in FA/GA is concerned, I want to become more involved in Journalism topics, as I am a journalism student, and trained in this field. Having access to professional textbooks in these areas are also beneficial for me in this endeavor. I will begin to devote more time to areas related to US Journalism.


 * Additional optional questions from Pmlinediter
 * 8c. What is your understanding of WP:IAR?
 * A: It means that we want to create and foster a freer environment for users to edit this project, in the true spirit of Open Source projects. We don't want bureaucracy, but we don't want absolute chaos either: an "ordered chaos", perhaps, where we work under guidelines, but we can be otherwise free.


 * Additional optional questions from Pmlinediter
 * 8d. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
 * A: Ban is instituted by the community, ArbCom, or Jimbo Wales, and blocks are cases where the user might be allowed to return to Wikipedia. Of course, if no one is willing to unblock a user, than the user is effectively banned. Being banned involves something more serious than those that will get someone blocked, such as repetitive violation of policies, sockpuppets (big no-no), and outing.

General comments

 * Links for Arbiteroftruth:
 * Edit summary usage for Arbiteroftruth can be found here.


 * Links for Kiteinthewind:
 * Edit summary usage for Kiteinthewind can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Regarding the reference to an earlier RfA - this remained untranscluded, there were no !votes/comments, and was subsequentley deleted. This therefore is the "first" RfA for Arbiteroftruth proper. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just confirming for transparency that it was an untranscluded self-nom prepared in Jan '06 that received no outside commentary whatsoever and was deleted in Aug '08. –xenotalk 22:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editing stats posted at the talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectfully suggest the candidate avoids replying to every oppose vote; while I don't mind good-faith discussion, it does come across as a bit desperate, for lack of a better word. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't as if it is going to make much difference, is it? If the questioning of opposes leads to considered responses then a purpose is served - and hopefully a better understanding obtained. Anyhoo, this is a real person who is being faulted; I think they should respond as they see fit. Wisdom can wait awhile. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) The diffs from Julian are concerning, but the answer to my Q was great, so I'll take a shot on ya. Wizardman  03:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) As nominator. I see no indication from the opposes that trust is an issue, and that is the basis upon which the tools are supposed to be granted, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) You're a pretty good editor, and the slap in the face from all of the opposes is harsh.  iMatthew  talk  at  15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Once upon a time I offered to nominate this user (though I did have some reservations), so without looking too deeply into the opposes I would like to offer at the very least moral support because there's been quite a pile-on here. –xenotalk 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Generally, I liked the answers you gave to the questions. The diffs from Julian are indeed concerning, but support per why the hell not?. - T'Shael, The Vulcan Overlord  16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) At least moral support per User:A_Nobody as candidate does have a couple of barnstars, no memorable negative interactions with me, and is an article creator. The block for incivility is of course a concern, although it was last year.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) SupportWhy the heck not? I've had little experiances with him, but none of the told me that this editor would not make a great admin. Abce2 | Free Lemonade  Only 25 cents!  20:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support As a project editor since 2004 with over 10,000 edits, I suspect that this candidate is able to comprehend policies. The diffs from Julian don’t particularly concern me – two isolated comments out of 10,000+ edits is hardly a reason for disqualification, and the notability of Pornsak Prajakwit is not difficult to confirm (though I assume there is more coverage in the Chinese-language media than the English-language media). I have no qualms offering my support. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support A very good contributor to the project with good answers to the questions. I understand the concern surrounding the diffs provided by Julian, it could have been handled much better than getting drawn into an edit war with sockpuppets, but I believe Arbiteroftruth had good intent with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Mistakes can be part of the learning process and I don't see any reason to believe that this style of editing has occurred since. If this RfA doesn't succeed I hope that you'll come back and have another go at some point in the future after having taken to heart some of the advice and comments given. Camw (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support This is an editor of 5 years experience and a pretty clean nose - there's nothing in the opposes that makes me think the world will stop turning if the candidate was an admin. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - for once I will support. No reason why someone who has been around for that long and suffered everything Wikipedia has to give, should not be given a reward of sorts.  Not that I would call it a reward but there is no accounting for taste.  Good luck. Teh block for incivility is an added bonus in my book. Peter Damian (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support A long time wikipedia editor with a reasonably clean record. Excellent answers to questions. So he's got a bad AIV report or two and had an edit warring experience with an editor who turned out to be a sock - a moment of frustration that I can well understand. Nobody's perfect and, IMO, he'll make a fine admin. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak Support I've been dithering on the sidelines for this and wouldn't normally support someone whose been blocked less than 12 months ago, but Articles for deletion/Xidan gives some context - I'm less concerned about incivility from a writer protecting an article than I might be in other circumstances. Oh and I take the name change as a sign of being willing to respond appropriately to criticism  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - I get the sense from Julian's diffs that this candidate has a rather poor understanding of what constitutes vandalism.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reporting a problematic editor in the wrong forum and using Twinkle to revert the additions of a banned sockpuppeteer seem to me like rather poor grounds for opposition of this candidacy, especially when the candidate is willing to explain their actions.Synchronism (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, but not going to sway me.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise Synchronism (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The diffs provided by Julian only constituted a portion of that incident. The user we saw in those diffs (GeniusAcameldeSatosta) was later proven to be a sock of User:Syjytg, who engaged in tendentious editing, and was blocked for a period of time for his actions on the article questioned. He used the sock to evade the blocks that was in place, and continued to revert the article without consensus. In the interest of completeness and openness, I am providing the links to the said SPI page . Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 03:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - the answers to my two questions did not fill me with confidence that the candidate will adequately enforce WP:Verifiability and WP:Copyrights as an administrator. Contrary to the candidate's statements, both articles I mentioned contain unsourced statements that are not general knowledge, and interlanguage links do not count as attribution (by that logic, George W. Bush incorporates content from over 100 different Wikipedias). I can certainly see the candidate is a good editor who is committed and beneficial to the project, but these two policies, particularly verifiability, are becoming increasingly crucial as time goes on, and I expect administrators to understand and enforce them. -kotra (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Switched from neutral. Sorry, but Kotra's concerns, coupled with my previous comments, lead me to oppose. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per concerns about policy and guideline knowledge (or lack thereof). I suggest becoming very familiar with all the major policies on the site (they can all be found here), as well as the main guidelines on the site (listed here). Then come back in a few months. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose. In my experience with this candidate, I consistently got the impression he/she has an extremely poor sense of what does and does not constitute vandalism. Dealt with attitudes like this from the candidate more than once. Tan   &#124;   39  05:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The incident that you have cited happened almost one year ago, and the issue was over socks of this user. If memory serves me correct, I was responding to Tan's decision after duck tests have clearly indicated that the account in question at that debate was a ColourWolf sock. I do admit that the situation can be handled better, but I would like to point out that a lot has happened since that time, and I have worked hard at becoming more nuanced, measured, and mature since that time, and my contribs stand as testament to that. Also, I would like to contest the claim by Tanthalas39 that I engaged with him in an immature manner more than once: that incident, if memory serves me correctly, was the only time I interacted with him in such a manner. I would also like to invite Tanthalas39 to look at my recent edits from these 9-10 months, and make a decision based on that. Such is the change in my philosophy and MO over this period of time that I believe it is rather unfair for me to be judged by actions committed almost a year ago. I would hope that this user makes a more current decision about my actions and demeanors.
 * From what I'm seeing, not much has changed - it's pretty well-known that responding to virtually every oppose is a Bad Idea in RfA. You first defend your action by still insisting that you were somehow correct, and that this was a valid AIV report. If you want to contest the claim that this happened more than once, fine - I have no inclination to go slogging back through diffs. You win; I can only prove it happened once. Why on earth would I limit my decision based on your last 9-10 months of work? I judge RfA candidates on their entire body of work, especially issues like this that aren't easily solved by reading an appropriate policy or guideline. I think it's completely fair for you to be judged by actions committed almost a year ago; especially given your response to it right here. Strong oppose stands.  Tan   &#124;   39  13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose While Arbiteroftruth has done some excellent work for the project, the issues brought up above are troubling. I am concerned with Arbiteroftruth's level of maturity and civility,  traits a sysop must have.  Additionally, issues with understanding of Wikipedia policy are certainly not for the better.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience.  Sorry,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Weak oppose. On the limited available evidence, I am not convinced that adminship is appropriate for you right now. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I would like to direct you to the discussion area, for my full explanation of the incidents that other editors have raised. I put them there out of caution, so that no one would see it as tampering debate. Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 08:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now regular oppose due to excessive badgering of opposers. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Julian's diffs which show a clear inability of understanding policy. I can't support someone who edit wars. Pmlin  editor  08:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to direct you to my explanation for the incidents Julian covered. Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 08:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, checking. Pmlin  editor  08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I retain my opinion but might change it if the answers to my questions are satisfactory. Pmlin  editor  08:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm remaining opposed in spite of fair enough answers due to the concerns raised by several users. However, I strongly recommend coming back for another RfA after some time. Regards, Pmlin  editor  09:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC).
 * 1) Oppose per edit warring on another user's talk page to restore an SPI notice, plus the edit warring at Flaming Butterfly and Housewives' Holiday, plus questionable understanding of the difference between content dispute and vandalism. I can't support an admin candidate who seems to prefer reverting and using warning templates to discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to direct you to my explanation of the issues raised by other editors. I believe it is only fair for my side of the story to be told, before making such decisions. Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 08:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did read them before making up my mind, though. Jafeluv (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per comments above; equally the username itself seems fairly dogmatic. Minkythecat (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to direct you to my answer to Question 7f, as well as evidences that I have presented to the issues that have been raised. I picked my username after a conversation that I had with someone close to my life. He told me that I should always stand up for the truth, and never lie, and that I should always be able to judge truth from lies. That's the reason behind the name. I did not create the name with a purpose to "arbitrate what is true and what is not". Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 09:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @Minkeythecat: FWIW: Not to badger you, actually I don't know which way I am leaning at the moment so I may end up agreeing with your ultimate position, but initially, I too was struck by the name the same way you were, but the nominee's answer + WP:AGF have laid at least my concern on that point to rest. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, concerns about temperament, might be a good idea to come back after a significant period of additional experience. Cirt (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per the rather numerous concerns currently raised on this RfA. More experience is needed for the community to trust you here. Sorry.  UntilItSleeps  Public PC   14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't have anything to add, I just get the sense that the candidate thinks that we're all a little sleepy and we'll wake up any day now and realize our mistake. I don't think that's going to happen in this RFA, but I do see support for a future RFA ... as long as you pay attention to what's being said in this one. Btw, there's nothing wrong with your username, exactly, but be aware that asserting ownership of the "truth" on Wikipedia ... even in that mild form ... is like waving a cape in front of a bull, and there's a lot of bull around here. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - per above, and per lack of understanding about personal information evidenced here. → ROUX   ₪  20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, that user was a sock of Colourwolf, who has been mercilessly plaguing Arbiter for about a year now. See my talk page and related ANI thread. Tan   &#124;   39  20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless it was Arbiteroftruth's personal information being released, my point remains. → ROUX   ₪  20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those were my personal information. Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Please be more clear with edit summaries in the future. → ROUX   ₪  20:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for having an incredibly inappropriate username for an administrator. Really. All this nonsense about temperment and editwarring is rather silly in light of such a prima facie demonstration of poor judgement in a) picking such a username, and b) not changing it yet. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't see anything wrong with it, to be honest. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't either. When I saw this name, I thought of a character in Halo. I don't think that he had "poor judgment" in choosing his name, and I also believe that virtually forcing him to choose his name is a little out there. Is anyone actually offended by Arbiter's choice of username? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with the name, it doesn't violate WP:UN, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that Jclemens means that "Arbiteroftruth" implies some sort of official position, and that such a username may not be wise combined with being an administrator. Acalamari 15:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much it. User:Theonewhowillbanyou might be a fine username too, but completely and totally inappropriate for anyone who holds any position of power or authority--or even position (like Wikipedia administrator) which might seem to have either, but really has none.  No one who's in a position to decide content disputes--or remotely looks like they might be in such a position--should have a name like Arbiteroftruth. Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is a bad idea? Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per what appears to be excessive badgering of opposes. The candidate's attitude convinces me he's not ready. Firestorm  Talk 12:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion remember, not a vote, the candidate is welcome to take part in the discussion SpitfireTally-ho! 14:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per the candidates attitude, including the badgering of the opposers. Also, just to reinforce, this block in September 2008, which was not to long ago, for incivility. Sorry. America69 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, has been blocked for "Incivility, disruptive editing".  Sandstein   16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a plus mark in my book. Shows that they've actually been in the trenches, not just talked about it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I can accept a distant block, and I can accept early examples of poor judgement. But I cannot accept an inability to properly creare a simple aricle only seven months ago, and I cannot see adequate evidence that this editor properly understands what is and is not vandalism. And a reply to almost every oppose !vote is neither a positive nor an expected contribution from the applicant. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose on the grounds of the username, which I consider unacceptable for an administrator. That the username has not been changed indicates to me that the user lacks sufficient judgement and clue to be an effective and responsible administrator. Nick (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, he has now changed his username. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Much as I hate to agree with Tan, I'm afraid that on this occasion I have to. RfA is a showcase, a popularity contest, and how you present yourself here does make a difference. I haven't bothered to count exactly how many oppose votes you've responded to; I stopped counting when I reached too many. The impression that gives is that you are unwilling to listen, and my reaction to that is that I am unwilling to support. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per all the above reasons. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * You're clearly a dedicated, experienced, and productive Wikipedian, and I think you'll make a reasonable sysop. That said, I do have some concerns; your civility block was a year ago, so I'm not too concerned about that in itself. However, on investigating your talk page, I discovered this. One could claim you were simply reverting unproductive edits, but it's still a bit too close to edit warring for my liking. I also found this questionable AIV report. Further, the creation of this article—with no indication of notability, and no formatting whatsoever—is worrying. As a result I'm a bit concerned with how you'll handle certain situations. Still, I'm open to being convinced to the contrary. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The page on Pornsak Prajakwit, he is a known Singaporean entertainer, working for that nation's television channel, and I was going to expand on it. However, before I did, University exams came, and I had to dedicate my time to final preparations for exams. By the time it was all over, the page was deleted. As for the editing on Flaming Butterfly, It was an effort on my part to improve the page, as it was in a rather "dilapidated" condition beforehand (untranslated Chinese words took up most of the contents, or what little there was), and the effort was met with a reverting of edits without explanation by the other side. It is also worth noting that the other user was known for tendentious editing on NBA articles before that incident. As for the AIV report, I wish the wording could have been a bit less accusatory, but at the time, I was dealing with these two tendentious users who have the same MO. Both the users ignored repeated pleas by me to talk about the style and formatting of the pages in question for both cases. All my edits in these two cases were edits that dealt mainly with correcting styles and formatting without taking away or changing the information in those articles, and edit summaries on both.


 * 1) Neutral You've done great work, but there are too many concerns for me to support. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 11:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, I believe you are a very dedicated editor, but your signature seems particularly menacing. I understand your username and have no problems with that, it's the "Plead Your Case" part that can come across as rather intimidating. However, that's not enough for me to oppose you. Jozal (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral- per the reasons above. I can't oppose, for you are definitely a dedicated and diligent editor, but per the reasons above, I am reluctant to support. I wish you well in your future Wikiediting! --Airplaneman (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral because I've no wish to pile on. I want to add that before your next RFA, you may want to give thought to asking for a username change, because "Arbiteroftruth" is a little too likely to get people's backs up when performing key administrative functions such as dispute resolution.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How in the world would his username "get up people's backs"? It's just a name that I assume he thinks sounds cool, and I severely doubt that anyone has/is/would be offended by it. A name is not normally a statement of someone's beliefs; you see those in what they say. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "ArbiterofTruth", as a name, arrogates authority and judgment to the bearer.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  07:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did say in my userpage that I do not consider myself to be infallible, and that I am prone to mistakes... Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 07:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's up to you, and I realise you think it's trivial, but I do think the issue is swaying people's votes.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  09:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral leaning to oppose based on name alone, per S. Marshall. If nothing else, think of the public repercussions: political storm on a BLP or a sensitive COI issue involving users new to wikipedia. An admin named Arbiteroftruth protects a version of the article to prevent ongoing disruption or blocks one of the SPAs. Someone else starts talking about NPOV or suggests dispute be taken to arbitration....think of how that will play in the press. Martinp (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and "plead your case" as the user talk page link doesn't exactly help. Martinp (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral There are too many concerns for me to support, but I could support you in a future RfA in time (that is if you address the concerns).  hmwith  τ   14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral To many strong points have been drawn up in the oppose section for me to support, whilst many of the opposing points are admittedly weak, there are some strong ones, and so I feel I cannot support, I hope that if this RfA fails you reapply in the future, after, as hmwith has said, you address the concerns, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't have a problem with your username, and I don't have a problem with your block (because it was so long ago). I do have a problem with the little edit war you had, however.  I still would like to encourage you to run later on, and I urge you to keep up the good work.  Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (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.