Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arctic.gnome


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

Arctic.gnome
Final (36/1/1); Ended 16:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- I have been a wikipedian for a bit over two years now, and I would like to take on a bit more responsibility in the encyclopedia. Most of my edits deal with the Canadian government and with the featured topics nomination, but I have individual edits on many other articles. Having admin powers would save me some time in my vandal fighting and project managing, and I think I understand well enough how this place works to be trusted with them. Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 May 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 ability to move, delete, and semi-protect pages would help in my day-to-day editing; I now have to make some requests of admins when I'm tidying up page organization. I would be able to help out with some backlogs that I can't help with now, like speedy deletions.  I already spend a great deal of time reverting vandalism and giving out warnings; it would be nice to be able to block vandals on my own.  I'd be interested in keeping an eye on the Special:Unwatchedpages to stop vandals.  And finally, although admin powers aren't needed for it, I would like to have a bit more legitimacy when closing debates on WP:FTC.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My biggest contribution recently has been getting the featured topics project off the ground. I found the idea on an orphaned page, so I made the page look nice, re-worked the nomination procedure and criteria, and added links to the project.  Since then I have been doing most of the work of closing debates and promoting topics.
 * I'm also proud of all of my featured lists, such as List of Canadian federal parliaments. In those lists, I (with others) have taken simple groups of links and turned them into what is probably a better source of quick information than anything online or in any book. I'm also happy that there are no longer any gaps in series like 1st to 39th Canadian Parliament and 1st to 28th Canadian Ministry, even though most of those articles are fairly short.


 * 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’ve been in a few some drawn-out debates, the most stressful being in Lengths of science fiction film and television series and Canadian science fiction where a user and I had opposite views about how somethings should be defined. I’ve found the best solution is to offer compromises, like adding a footnote to explain the differing points of view. If the user doesn’t accept a middle ground, I ask members of a related wikiproject to break the stalemate.

Optional question from Durova

 * 4. What would you do as an administrator about ideological or profit motive attempts to manipulate Wikipedia? Bear in mind this statement from Brad Patrick as well as this news story, this conference summary, this press release, and these blogs.  Durova Charge! 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Abu badali

 * 5. What do you think about the recent Foundation resolution on unfree material usage, and what implications (immediate and long term) do you believe it will have for English language Wikipedia?
 * This looks pretty close to the rules already in place; this declaration just gives a bit more authority to users who hunt for non-free images to delete. I don't care about Wikipedia being reproducible and copyright-safe nearly as much as I care about it being useful and accessible, but of course I'll obey whatever copyright rules the community chooses to uphold.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Arctic.gnome:

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

Discussion

 * Seems to me that there's a problem with WP:FTC if this user's input is not being taken as seriously as it would be if he were an admin. I've never participated at FTC, but why would adminship there matter? --JayHenry 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, but since I'm a main actor with FT, it would probably be useful to have admin powers in case there is ever a big problem that comes up. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support - Great work in WP:CANADA and related areas. Aquarius • talk 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) support I initially had some concerns looking through this users contributions since many of them seem to be very formulaic. For example, recently on May 9 the user made over 20 edits classifying the importance of various highways in Saskatchewan and Ontario. Similarly, on April 22, the user spent a large amount of time making redirects from "nth Parliament of Canada" to "nth Canadian Parliament". This makes the user's edit count of over 10,000 edits slightly less impressive than it might look initially and such edits make it more difficult to determine a user's knowledge of policy and general temperament. However, the majority of the user's edits are more individualized and as far as I can tell demonstrate a good understanding of policy (I do however disagree with his assertion on his user page that he is not a Wikignome- a substantial fraction of his edits seem to be Wikignoming Canada related matters). I also had some concern about a lack of topical diversity in the user's edits, since having such a background helps also show understanding of policy and makes any potential problems more likely to turn up. This objection I have also found to be not a serious worry for two reasons: First, the user has a substantial number of edits that are outside Canadian subjects. Second, Canada is a very broad topic which covers a large number of different types of articles including articles about geography, politics, culture, science, and entertainment. Artic has edited extensively in all those topics in both mainspace and other spaces. Overall, this is a candidate for giving the tools who is both competent and trustworthy. If I had known about the editor before hand and had known he was intending to run I would have been happy to nominate him myself. JoshuaZ 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Rettetast 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per JoshuaZ. Wal  ton  Need some help?  19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Looking at this editor's edits across the main spaces, I see no reason to think that the admin tools would be abused. (aeropagitica) 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I'm glad to have wikignomes around - hate to think what the place would look like without them. Give him the tools and let him work.  Jody B talk 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Spike Wilbury 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Looks good...supporting. Jmlk17 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support All is well here. Acalamari 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Good contributions and experience, and it's clear from his editing patterns that the tools would be put to good use. Krimpet (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support browsing quickly through his talk page and contributions, I find Arctic a very good adminship candidate and more than qualified to use the tools. — An as  talk? 12:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I've seen this editor around, does a good job. Darth Griz98  15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, cautious and bold in appropriate measure. --Quiddity 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) No big deals here - Go ahead. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  18:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: User has a nice amount of experience, however user's edit summary usage for minor edits is very low. This is not enough for me to oppose or neutral, however I would personally like to see this improved in the future. Good luck!   Or f e n     User Talk |  Contribs 23:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just because I don't use the minor edit button very often. I've used edit summaries for all edits, major and minor, for the last four months.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - After reviewing this user's wide-ranging contributions I believe he has need for and will appropriately use the admin tools. I am pleased he has improved his use of edit summaries as this is an important means of communication for all users, not just Administrators. — Meersan 16:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Trustworthy, behind the scenes contributor who will do the right thing. -- Jreferee 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, Meets my personal standards. -- Random</b> <sup style="color:olive;">Say it here! 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Looks like a good user to become an admin. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) support but you reely need to work on user talk 240 is relly too low with over 10000 edits you haveOo7565 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it much more useful to use the talk pages of whatever article I'm concerned about rather than a user's talk page. You'll notice that I have 2100 edits in the article talk namespace.  That way, other users can contribute to the discussion.  The only times when I feel that I only want to talk to one user is when I'm giving new users a heads up about an editing faux pas, when I'm apologizing for something, or when I'm congratulating someone.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support--MONGO 08:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) PeaceNT 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support from  Majorly  (talk | meet) 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Intelligent, well thought out answers to questions, pleasant to work with, never problematic, experienced. WilyD 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good work in getting featured topics going, being civil when the project was nominated for deletion, and keeping up with the project as it has grown and gained attention.  Trustworthy, good admin candidate. --Aude (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Default support. —AldeBaer 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support See no reason will not make a good admin. Davewild 16:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Agathoclea 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - I would definitely trust this user with the mop. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support go Sens go -- Samir 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times"> Joe  I  05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) $upport Venerable and hard-working. Dfrg.msc 09:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Sarah 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, no reason to oppose.-- Wizardman 15:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - "I don't care about Wikipedia being reproducible and copyright-safe nearly as much as... - We have enough admins with this unhelpful feeling. --Abu badali (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'll read the end of that comment, I said that I'll still obey Wikipedia's copyright rules; I respect the rules even when I don't agree with them. I just meant that hunting for copyrighted material is not one of the tasks on which I spend my time; I find that for me, adding content and fighting vandalism are more interesting and more useful tasks.  I'm here to make Wikipedia useful for users, not to help people make a profit off of mirroring it.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Allowing "mirrors" is the least interesting thing the copyleft nature of Wikipedia permits. This feeling that we are here creating just a useful website is what I see as detrimental in the long term. I just wouldn't like to have one more powerful editor that doesn't care about (although respect) our first pillar third pillar . --Abu badali (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The first pillar is exactly what I do care about, and fair use images support the goal of Wikipedia being an accurate and useful encyclopedia. Did you mean to say the third pillar, the one about GFDL?  I think that public domain images should be used as much as possible, but in my humble opinion it is overkill when we delete images which the owner allows to be used by non-profit sites such as this one.  That being said, I'd like to once again say that when I have to make a decision, I choose established Wikipedia rules over my own opinions.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Yes, I meant the 3rd, sorry). "...non-profit sites such as this one" - That's the whole point of my concerns: You see Wikipedia just as a website. Our policy on unfree content usage reflects our long terms goal as a free content encyclopedia (something that can exist offline) and most of discontentment with this policy comes from users that think they are here just helping to build a useful website.
 * "when I have to make a decision, I choose established Wikipedia rules over my own opinions" - That wasn't the case when you adventured in doing the admin task of closing an image deletion debate. You decided to keep and unsourced unfree image of a living person that lacked a fair use rationale. --Abu badali (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral To quote: "The ability to move, delete, and semi-protect pages would help in my day-to-day editing". Although an active and excellent contributor I can't see any justification for the demotion here. Why do you need the tools? Pedro | <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the quote give the justification? You need admin tools to perform certain page moves, and to delete and semi-protect pages. I don't understand your question. --<font color="3300FF">Spike Wilbury 21:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When I need to do chores like moving a page to conform with standard article names or protecting a page from vandals, the tools would save me the time of asking for an admin's help and would save an admin the time of having to do it for me. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the tools. I can't understand your need for the tools. How often do you have to ask an admin for assistance for example? If you could justify why you need them I would support. But just saying I need the tools so I can do what the tools do doesn't cut it.  e.g. I need a hammer. Why? To bang in a nail. So what? because I need to hang a picture - ah! Justification!!  As it is your RfA seems to be going well so good luck. Pedro | <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 09:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pedro, adminship is supposed to be no big deal. The question is, do we trust that Arctic.gnome will use the mop well if it is given to him? I, among others, think so. Saying that he doesn't "need" the tools isn't much of an argument. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, the whole point of being an admin is getting extra tools - As per Jimbo which you have paraphrased - "it's merely a technical thing". Admins need extra tools to do the job - being civil, mediating, welcoming, reverting vandalism, writing articles - any editor can do this. So if you don't need the tools then why be an admin - or is it in fact a "big deal" after all??? You say it isn't and please don't take this as ad hominum, but on your own user page you describe adminship as something to which you aspire. So you aspire to something that isn't a big deal. Hmmmm.... Sorry, your argument here is rather weak, but as I said before Arctic's Rfa is going well, and good luck to him. I am sure he will use the tools wisely. Pedro | <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fair, though the quote of me should be interpreted socially, not politically - again, adminship is a confirmation of trust. I'll fix that the next time I update my userpage. Ignore my original comment: I was overly zealous, and RfA is being discussed for reform anyway. Sorry for being pushy, Nihiltres(t.c.s) 15:10, 21 May 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.