Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arctic Kangaroo

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

Result:  Request withdrawn -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, I have been here for 6-7 months, and I have also made about 1000 edits. I would like to become an admin here, as being mainly a vandal fighter, I can help with deletion of inappropriate pages, blocking of vandals, and perhaps even helping out with the main page. If possible, I would also like to use the other admin tools to help out with other admin stuff here. Thanks for considering this request and casting your vote. :) Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this nomination as I have decided to retire from simple.wiki. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination

Support

1. Support Great vandal fighter, great candidate; probably has the good amount of changes ready for administratorship. curtaintoad | chat me! 10:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support The rare few times I come down to simple wiki... Keep up the fantastic job! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. The user don't have much time in Wikipedia but their contributions are good. The user have my vote. --Stee 16 (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't feel this editor is well-rounded enough to be a good admin. Also, 1000 edits is very little, especially over 6 months. (I say that at the risk of inspiring the editor to artificially inflate his/her edit count in the future.) Arctic Kangaroo has done a lot of reverting, but not all of it was appropriate ( ). People are allowed to make mistakes, but I don't want to see this kind of thing with someone who wants to be an admin. It also concerns me that this was a self-nomination, but the user apparently wasn't able to add his/her own nomination to the main page. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Hi Auntof6, regarding the part about me "not being able to add my own nomination to the main page", shortly after I started this RfA, I was looking at the RFP page, and I just realised that Lugia's RfA was there, while mine was not. Just when I wanted to see what exactly was going on, Curtaintoad added my nomination. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Also, regarding the incorrect reverts. In the first link, the editor said that the Quran is similar to the Bible. However, the Quran is for Muslims while the Bible is for Christians, so how can they really be the same? In the second link, I restored sourced information. I understand that we should always assume good faith, but as mentioned above, that is sourced information. And, I also stopped reverting when that user posted a kind, valid and convincing message on my talk page. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   I can see you don't understand my points. I don't think this is the place for a discussion, but if you'd like me to reply, I will do so on your talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

2. I agree with Ao6 here. 6-7 months is excellent, but only 1000 edits over that period is not great; shows inactivity. Some more work here, and if they were nominated (ideally by an administrator), would make me more supportive. Kennedy ^(talk) 11:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Aunt is spot on. It would be a big mistake to have admins that experienced editors might not respect or trust in that role. The very fact that someone proposes themselves after 1000 edits tells its own story. Things like the need for psychological maturity are not on any list of requirements, but they sure are important. However, I'm not saying that this (or any other) editor could not make it in the course of time. The guide of a year and 10,000 edits is sound and commonsense; it should not be pushed aside lightly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Pretty much everyone above has said what I would say. Especially Macdonald-ross. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Would have to say I am even more confident in my oppose if the user says they don't even know if this would be a wiki they would edit often. . -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Just want to highlight this which I mentioned in that reply: But since I have a duty to fulfil, I would definitely patrol it more often.
   Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Right, but I guess my point is you should want to be here anyways. Not just because you have a duty to patrol. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Yup, I've done that. I'm always patrol about every 5-20 minutes, and I also can't be patrolling every minute, since the activity here is lower than en.wiki. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

5. Oppose - I am almost certain that some editors are going to say that edit-counting is evil and that it is not a good enough indicator to determine suitability/unsuitability for adminship. I am going to talk about more than that. Arctic Kangaroo has done fantastic anti-vandalism work, but I find a severe lack of involvement in community processes (just do a quick run-through of the contributions to the Project namespace and you will get what I mean). Administrators are not just empowered to deal with vandalism on a more direct level (blocking, deletion etc.); they are also expected to exercise their (fair) judgement in disputes and other community processes. Sadly, this is something which I have not seen evidence of. Chenzw  Talk  13:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Macdonald-ross and Chenzw. -Mh7kJ (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
7. I agree with my fellows here as well. Six months and only 1k edits... As a vandalfighter-only, you should get some more experience here and the like. -Barras talk 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions

• If you were an administrator and used the tools on this wiki, would you be active or semi-active? curtaintoad | chat me! 10:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't make up my mind yet whether this would be one of my home wikis (my mind is in a mess about that now), but since I have a duty to fulfil, I would definitely patrol it more often. During normal times, I usually will keep 2 tabs for en.wiki, 1 for simple.wiki, and 1 for ms.wiki. Usually, I will refresh "Recent changes" for simple.wiki like say, every 5-20 minutes? Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• What administrative work do you intend to take part in? What areas of adminship would you be most comfortable handling? And what areas of adminship would you be least comfortable handling?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 12:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be glad to help out in quite a few areas. I would like to help in the deletion of inappropriate pages, blocking of vandals, protection of pages, as well as the granting/rejections at WP:RFP. And of course, I will continue in the fight against vandalism here. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 04:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

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.