Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arsenikk

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

Arsenikk

Final: (107/1/1). Closed as successful by Useight at 14:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Arsenikk (talk · contribs) – My last nomination was for a vandal-fighter who admittedly had minimal experience with articles. For a change of gears, I'd also like to present to the community Arsenikk who has been writing content for Wikipedia since 2006. As much as we need meta-admins to patrol recent changes, guard new page creations, and stalk AIV, we also need sysops experienced in ways of article-building. Users who know what it takes to search for sources, compile information, and present it as professional, unified text. Editors whose work has been recognized hundreds of times through the various good and featured article processes. I believe Arsenikk fits these criteria, having written nearly 70 GAs, 128 DYKs and 5 featured lists. Even more impressive is that these articles are largely or primarily on foreign topics, where language skills are a necessity; therefore, he is not only creating more quality work but also countering systematic bias. He speaks seven languages to a degree, something I, as an active cross-wiki contributor, highly respect and admire, and something I feel is a major benefit to the project.

Arsenikk's project-space contributions are primarily related to his content work, although they are there and indeed plentiful. He is an active GAN reviewer and frequently comments on featured content nominations. More infrequent, he voices his opinion on XfD nominations, although as evidenced here, he presents well thought-out and detailed arguments. When I approached him a few days ago regarding this nomination, he explained that although he had not seriously considered running previously, he does often encounter situations where having the sysop bit would be useful. I think you'll agree that this is another fine candidate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept the nomination. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:10, 16 May 2010 (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 have participate in many XfDs—in particular AfDs—so closing articles for deletion would be a natural task for me to participate in. The other maintenance area with relevance is as a nominator at requested moves, so I would also find it natural to assist at RM.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I enjoy researching and writing; I will read a book and convert the content into a filling article. If a book is not available, I will search the net and magazines to find the necessary sources to complete the job. Most of my work is related to rail transport and aviation, although I tinker around in numerous other topics. Recent articles I am highly satisfied with include Copenhagen Metro and Svalbard; my most comprehensive list so far is List of Oslo Metro stations. I find reviewing, at GAN and various featured arenas, both interesting and rewarding. It both helps improve the article at hand, while it at the same forces me to structure critique—forcing me to be more aware of the detailing that constitutes an article and subsequently improves my own article composing.

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: Disagreements about both content and style are bound to arise, and have done so numerous times the last four years. Discussing the issue on the talk page, bringing out all opinions and referencing the relevant project pages, guidelines and policies can often lead to agreement. Being polite and civil will increase goodwill and lead to a better outcome. Otherwise, bringing the discussing to a higher level, such as a relevant project page, may shed new light on the issue, either granting support for one of the options, or creating an all-new and superior solution. I edit Wikipedia as a "stress-free" activity—akin to diving or swimming. In the extremely rare event that the project is stressing me too much, and I am at risk at making an irrational decision, all I need to do is close the tab and take a walk; a constructive solution can always be made in an hour or two, when I have recharged my batteries.

Additional questions from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

4. Would you be so kind as to create User:Arsenikk/EditCounterOptIn.js so I and others can stalk your edits? I can delete it for you once a copy has been put on the talk page if you wish.

A. Done.

5. Are there any other areas, aside from those which you explicitly mention, where you feel you might be able to put the bit to use occasionally?

A. I will keep a tag on WP:ANI, and might deal with issues there that I am comfortable with. Other areas are WP:TfD and WP:CfD, dealing with vandalism and vandals that happens to cross my path (although I seldom seek them out), requests at WP:SPLICE, maintenance at WP:DYK, deletion requests for non-free images and files without sufficient rationale and other speedy deletion requests for images. I move a fair amount of images to the Commons, and could as admin speedy delete them from Wikipedia myself.

6. Which of Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines do you feel is the most important?

A. WP:CIVILITY. There will always be disagreements, and while many guidelines and policies exist to deal with all sorts of options, civility is the key to sow them together in harmony. If we cannot be constructive and show respect, there is little point in the other guidelines and policies. Using civility increases goodwill and makes it possible to chose optimal compromises. Without it, moral will dwindle and people will quit, leaving only agenda-pushers and brutes.

7. Apologies for the number of questions, but when, if ever, should a page be protected pre-emptively both in your own opinion and according to policy?

A. According to policy, pre-emptive edit protection of existing articles is never permitted. Pre-emptive creation protection is permitted, either through salting or title blacklists; similarly, pre-emptive move protection is permitted for highly visible pages. In addition, the software has permanently protected some extremely visual and crucial content. I my opinion, this seems like a sensible approach, as the project desires to be as open as possible; edit protection should be kept to a necessary minimum, and only as a response to undesirable behavior, such as vandalism or aggressive content dispute.

Additional optional question from decltype

8. Did you have any reason in particular for choosing such a "toxic" username as Arsenikk?

A. I like the sound of the word (it is pronounced nearly identical to the English "arsenic"). I chose it originally for a different, Norwegian site back in 2004, and I felt it had a slightly exotic touch to it. I was also at the time not aware that in Norwegian, arsenikk means arsenic toxide, while arsen is arsenic. I was therefore until not that long ago actually in the belief that I had a user name named for a chemical element. I might not have chosen the same user name again; when I first registered with Wikipedia I was not really planning on becoming active, so I just picked something a bit at random. Now that everyone knows who I am, I see no reason to change.

Yeah, those are faux amis. Honestly I have no objections to the name, I was just curious. decltype (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

9. You have been selected to star in a television commercial for Wikipedia. The commercial will feature you finishing edits to an article, and then turning around and triumphantly jumping for joy, which will be shown in slow motion. What background music would you recommend for this commercial? Why?

A. Unfortunately for this question, I watch very little television and commercials and listen even less to music suitable for commercials. From a professional point of view, hiring a creative director to solve the problem would give the best result. The choice of music would depend on the market segment being targeted and the mood it is trying to impose, along with the message being delivered. I would imagine something non-lyrical and slightly up-beat would be suitable, although I am not sure how well slow-motion and up-beat music would match. Frankly, I know very little about music, I do not know of a particular song that would fit, so I cannot provide any particular advise for this request. If you had an equally obscure question about rail transport or aviation, you would probably get a lot more specific answer.

Q: Follow up... If you were a station or station complex in the New York City Subway, which one (and only one!) would you be and how does this reflect how you would use the admin bit? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A Definitely Sutphin Boulevard – Archer Avenue – JFK Airport. It connects to my favorite US railway, the Long Island Rail Road, and provides a transfer to the AirTrain JFK, keeping a link to my interest in aviation. Also, Jamaica Station has been fixed up and is looking pretty good. Jamaica represents a well-oiled interchange of people, efficiently channeling commuters to work and home every day. Though the use of admin tools, I hope to oil the wheels of the encyclopædia to help knowledge-seeks find the information they seek every day.

Additional questions from Assorg

10. If an editor is a vandal fighter, will you block them if they are accused of sockpuppetry and no checkuser results are back? (The idea of this question is because in ANI there was an editor who was blocked, accused of sockpuppetry, but the checkuser has no results, just another user stating that he is a sock. I looked at the editor's 6 most recent edits that are not minor and all are constructive and many are reverting vandalism. If there is a valid reason for blocking, I am all for it but the blocking administrator just shoots and offers no real explanation)

A. If an editor is accused of suckpuppetry, and there is insufficient evidence so a checkuser must be made, I would presume innocence until the opposite is shown. While the project with good reason must have a zero-tolerance for socking, a sock that is only vandal-fighting poses no short-term threat to the project, and, even if it actually was a sock, little harm would come from the block waiting until the checkuser results came. On the other hand, should a possible sock turn out to be legitimate, the harm of the hasty block would be severe.

10a. If you block someone, do you pledge under the threat of recall to politely and fairly explain each block by writing a one paragraph explanation in all cases except the most obvious serial vandal? If not, why so lazy and uncommunicative?

A. Blocking is serious business, and one of the tougher injunctions the project has. For any active member of the community, being blocked is at best boring, and at worst traumatic. Administrators must both exert fairness and justice in dealing with individuals, remembering all the time that they have to do with real people with real emotions. A person will better accept a punishment if they feel they are being treated justly, and if they fully understand the reasons for the block. The least the blocking administrator can do, is to explain the reason fully in a civil, friendly, but stern, manner.

Additional optional question from Ojay123

13. From AGF Challenge:

"Theobold Johnson III" is notable for having been involved in a football cheating scandal and also writes books about orchids, illustrated with beautiful pictures. Johnson has written several self-published books about orchids, and in their autobiographies and interviews he describes himself as "the greatest living orchid man" and "widely recognized by the academic world as the greatest orchid scholar in the world". Johnson refers to himself as "Dr. Johnson" or "Professor Johnson" frequently in print. Johnson also asserts in print that he is a professor in the Botany Department at the famous "Winthrop College" and has given his mailing address as "c/o Winthrop College" for many years. Johnson often writes that all other people studying orchids are morons and even all other botanists are stupid and vile disgusting fools who should be publicly flogged or worse.

In the course of writing a Wikipedia biography about Johnson, you start to uncover disturbing information. First, you are able to find a mention of a "Theobold Johnson III" on archived versions of the Winthrop College website from 1994-1997, but there is no mention of Johnson on earlier versions of the website, or later versions. A "T. Johnson, III" is listed as a visitor in the Computer Science Department of Winthrop College in the 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 versions of the website, and a phone number is given. You contact the President's office at Winthrop College and the Dean of Science office at Winthrop College and ask if Johnson is or was a faculty member there. Receiving no reply, you ask a friend who knows the Dean personally to ask the Dean privately. The word comes back from your friend that he has talked to the Dean privately, and that Johnson is an embarassment and never had a faculty appointment at Winthrop College and just has his mail forwarded from Winthrop College due to some arrangement he made with someone in the Winthrop College mailroom 25 years previously. Johnson never was on the payroll of Winthrop College and never had an official position at Winthrop College and has not been on campus for 10 years or more. Johnson was listed for a few years on the telephone list and was a short term visitor, but this was just a courtesy and he was one of 3500 visitors a year who get this courtesy. The Dean's office then, thanks to the probing of your friend, issues a very carefully worded "official statement" about Johnson, stating he was never a faculty member at Winthrop College and inviting further inquiries to their Press Office, and sends you a copy.

You do some more checking, and find no evidence that Johnson has a PhD or any degree in botany or science whatsoever, at least from Liberty Washington University, as he claims. You do find a record at Liberty Washington Community College that Johnson obtained a bachelor's degree in history 30 years previously. You also find a report in the local newspaper that Johnson was expelled from Liberty Washington Community College for theft while he was an undergraduate, and then was readmitted and eventually graduated. You look at various lists and directories of prominent orchid scholars and find no mention of a Theobold Johnson in any edition of these directories. You also dig up 5 reviews of Johnson's books on orchids in various scholarly journals from different botanists and orchid scholars from Harvard and University of Pennsylvania and Yale. These reviews are uniformly poor, and state that Johnson is a charlatan and a fraud and his books are replete with errors and the worst possible nonsense. You then find another interview of Johnson published in Sports Illustrated where it is stated that Johnson has no PhD or other Doctorate, but it is a title that people use for him out of respect for his tremendous knowledge and learning.

How would you write a biography of this person on Wikipedia? What would be reasonable and accurate and ethical? What would be fair? What should Wikipedia do if this person contacts Wikipedia and demands that it write his biography the way he dictates? What if this person threatens legal action if Wikipedia does not do what he asks?

A: It is presumed that TJ3 is notable for his participation in the scandal, so deletion is out of the question. Most of the Ojay123's question deals with his accreditations as a supposed scholar and his scholar work; it seems that all that can be verified is that he has written some self-published books (verified by the five reviews) and holds a degree from Liberty Washington Community College (verified by the records). Any autobiography or self-published books are going to be a primary source and will not be a reliable source. If he holds only a liberal arts degree and has no verifiable employment as a botanist, I would describe him in the lead as "... a self-published author of books on orchids." In the section about his authorship, I would quote one of the more moderate reviews instead of inventing my own wording (I would be more stringent for a negative review on a BLP page than, say, a video game page). The question about the football scandal probably rises more ethical questions than the botanical bit, because giving undue weight to the scandal could be sensitive and unduly incriminating. You ask me to differentiate my answer into accurate, ethical and fair. On Wikipedia, we must always compromise between these, particularly in BLP articles; leaving blanks is better than speculating, as we must be 100% sure that what we include is correct. I see no ethical problems or fairness issues with my solution. If TJ3 contacted Wikipedia, he is according to our policies in no right to demand that the the content of his article be amended in any way that would contain non-verified facts. His motives for keeping what seems to be fake credentials may range from attempts at scam to a mental disorder (in which he is actually in the belief he is an associate of Winthrop College and holds a PhD). Replies should be polite, explain how things are done and requesting independent, secondary sources to support his claims. If TJ3 made legal threats, he should be blocked for as long as the threat is active. Should I receive a legal threat, I would report it to ANI and let an uninvolved administrator handle to block, to insure a proper and fair process.

Q: What on earth does this have to do with being an administrator? This is a question for the OTRS or any other Wikimedia. I could write a three paragraph reply, but this has nothing to do with the bit. Keegan (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Mono

14. What's your take on IAR? When do you feel that it is acceptable to cite the policy? When would it not be acceptable to use as a rationale of any kind? How would you explain it to a new editor?

A: Ignore all rules is an escape vent that allows the project to be de-bureaucratized. In any legal system, policy-makers will have to foresee all sorts of exceptions, and create complicated rules to handle them. Because we work on collaboration and consensus, it is possible for us to make policy and guidelines that only take "almost all" situations into account. In unforeseeable or exceptional cases, IAR can be called on to allow a better solution. This gives the project the advantage that we can always make the optimal solution, rather than the legally correct one (which occasionally is suboptimal). It is never acceptable to use IAR to void WP:CIVILITY, but I can see extremely exceptional cases where the other four pillars could be breached. I would cite IAR in situations where it is clear that not following policy or guidelines is going to, in an individual case, be beneficial for the project. Sometimes "disruptive" edits are needed to experiment with content; sometimes they falter, sometimes they become paradigm shifts. For instance, List of Braathens destinations reached FL status because I broke every single "rule" for making airline destination lists. IAR should be used sparingly; rules, guidelines and policy are there for a reason and are the product of community consensus. Any time IAR is used to be disruptive, push agendas, be brutal or otherwise undermine values we appreciate at the project, it should not be cited. To a new editor i could say: "On Wikipedia we have some rules that we follow to make it easier to communicate and edit, create consistency and make the encyclopedia more factual. However, sometimes there arise cases where the rules (we call them guidelines and policies) just don't give the best possible result. If the involved parties agree that not following the rules will improve the encyclopedia, we don't follow that rule for that case."

Additional optional question from Assorg

15. If someone visited Halden and only for about one hour, can they honestly claim to have visited Norway?

A: Yes, of course. The question is, would a person, such as myself, who has never been to Halden, but lived most of their life in Norway, be able to honestly claim to have visited Norway, even if they had never been to Halden?

Q: Is this question from Assorg a joke? Geschichte (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(no, it shows that Arsenikk will be a good administrator. Arsenikk's answer shows he is humble and not bossy.) Assorg 02:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Pedro

16. What's your take on WP:REVDEL that you'll likely soon have access to?

A: Sometimes there is need to delete part of the history of an article and RevDel is a practical tool to use for this. However, it should only be used in the most blatant cases, as is clearly stated in the policy. This includes copyvio, highly offensive material related to people and organizations, malicious code, personal information, ArbCom mandates and various housekeeping tasks. Beyond being conservative in applying the tool, I do not have much of an "opinion" on the matter—policy is clear and unambiguous.

Additional optional question from Chzz

17. Do you think that our current RfA process presents candidates with too many questions?

A: RfA represents the one shot the community has to determine if a candidate is trusted with the tools. Looking at the past contributions of a candidate, either by seeking undesirable behavior or assessing the quality of a contributor at various venues, such as XfD, it can become evident if a candidate has the necessary insight to handle the tools properly. Close examination of interaction will also normally establish if a candidate has the necessary maturity and communication skills to handle problematic situations. RfA questions represents a unique possibility to understand how the candidate both understands and will apply policy. It makes it possible for the community to "test" various issues which may not be possible to otherwise check without granting admin tools. I am quite comfortable with the number of questions; while an RfA is a bit time-consuming—although no worse than an FLC or similar—it is a necessary evil to force sufficient scrutiny to make an important decision.

General comments

• Links for Arsenikk: Arsenikk (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Arsenikk can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Month counts and namespace breakdown now posted to talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Juliancolton – Talk 11:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Brilliant content contributor who would probably be a good and cautious administrator. ceranthor 12:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
3. This page has been on my watchlist for a while. Strong support. Rettetast (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Support: I can trust anyone who has created over 1800 new and lasting articles (Your coverage of Norway is impressive). He clearly understands the community and will function well with the tools.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. The candidate seems trustworthy and has a solid record as an article-builder. I've reviewed a portion of Arsenikk's recent edits and I like what I see. Majoreditor (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
6. User:Arsenikk/Contributions Need I say more? This dude creates articles - a lot of them. Him not having the tools appears to be a major negative for the project, so let's rectify that mistake. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Like the content contributions. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 14:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Like one of this user's userboxes says "This user is Doing It Right", I agree too. Minimac (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - All round talent. A clear understanding of the need for article building. Might not actually need the tools, but I see no reason to refuse them. I'm sure he would put them to good use and with sound judgment.--Kudpung (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Support I can only Support from what I've got, good number of edits, active editing and an empty block log. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
11. Answers are reassuring, and User:Arsenikk/Contributions is very impressive. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
12. Support. Long-term contributor with a strong contribution to building the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Nice contributions, seems to have a clue.--SPhilbrickT 16:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
15. Strong support - has written plenty of great articles, has plenty of experience. The nom says it all :). Airplaneman ✈ 16:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
16. Full Support. I appreciate the thorough and thoughtful answers to my questions. I love the answer to Q6. Dedicated content work as well as sound work in the project space is a big plus and all in all, I'd say we have a very well rounded, qualified candidate and I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. Great editor from what I've seen. Thoughtful answers to questions. decltype (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
18. For – En veldig pålitelig bruker. Lykke til! ;) Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
19. Support I see no problems here -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
20. 'Support - Mmmhmm . Dwayne was here! ^♫ 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose - too many good candidates this month.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
22. 'Support The user has written 1800 articles, so I will support, however, I am concerned that this user has limited experience with dealing with vandalism and thus I would possibly not perform as well at WP:AIV and WP:RPP. Overall ,however, i trust this contributor, though I feel they are inexperienced in some areas. Immunize (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

    I'm impressed by your humility but I think you're missing a word or two in there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

23. Support I like the answers to all of your questions and I have seen you around in DYK (for obvious reasons) Bravo :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 17:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
24. Support --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
25. I'm sorry, did you say 70 good articles? Tommy2010 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
26. Support candidate who has provided excellent answers to the questions -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
27. Sold. Keegan (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
28. He is a force for good on Wikipedia, and I can't see any reason to believe he isn't trustworthy. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
29. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Plenty of experience. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
31. You seem to know what you're doing. Let's give this a shot. Hi878 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
32. Tim Song (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
33. Support - Yeah! Give him the mop, he knows what he's doing! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
34. Support Seems good overall. —fetch·comms 23:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
35. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. My thanks also to the nominator who has done an excellent job recently in restocking the RfA pool. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
36. Yep. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
37. Support. Good for systematic bias. 70 good articles? --candle•wicke 04:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
38. Support Still waiting for an answer to a question but an editor who writes well is the best kind of administrator, not some busybody who just vandal fights and could still do so without tools. We need more smart administrators who can write. Assorg (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
39. Support: highly likely to be significant net positive with the tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
40. Per Newyorkbrad. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 06:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
41. Support. I am impressed with this editor's collaborative ability. Thanks for all your hard work, Arsenikk. Tiderolls 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
42. Support I checked every upload ( and deleted a lot of old revisions) nad a quick look of deleted contribs and logs looks fine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
44. Strong Support — Fantastic content work. Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
45. Support Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
46. Support Strong candidate with lots of great experience and an excellent attitude -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
47. Great contributions to the encyclopedia, and a good editor all round. BigDom 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
48. Support - Between the staggering contributions and terrific answers this is a no-brainer! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
49. Support – Great content contributions from an editor who clearly values civility among editors. I'm not seeing anything to suggest that the tools would be misused. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
50. Support per extensive and impressive content work. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
51. SupportNo concerns. BejinhanTalk 03:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
52. Support – I fully trust this user with the tools, especially with his good article writing skills. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
53. Support. I've crossed with the candidate quite a lot while reviewing their DYK nominations, and the memories are very positive - strong, reliable content work, no cheating. Just one wish - please keep content work as 1st priority. Materialscientist (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
54. Support. Very strongly. One of the most prolific editors on matters relating to Norway, Arsenikk has devoted himself to creating several high-quality articles through meticulous research on a variety of topics and is definitely among Wikipedia's prime content contributors. The only reason I have not offered an RFA nomination myself is that he has not shown a high level of obsession with WikiPolitics (read: I didn't think he wanted to be an admin), but his contributions in discussion are always calm and well-reasoned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
55. Certainly. Top quality content writer, with a balanced and calm approach will do well! GedUK  07:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
56. Support as long as you won't get bogged down in admin stuff, we need you more as an article writer. Why do people ask all these stupid questions above? Some kind of weird humour? Geschichte (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
57. Support. Why not? Pcap ping 17:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
58. Support No concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
59. On my 'if i ever nom people again he's one of them' shortlist, so yes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
60. I've come across Arsenikk many times at GA/GAN, and I've always been impressed. Supporting despite the answer to Q6. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
61. All clear!--moɳo 23:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
62. Support! - Excellent and thoughtful answers to the questions above. Have a great day! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
63. Support Good answer on 10. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
64. Strong support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
65. Support - will make a great admin. Thparkth (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
66. Support per nom and trusted users. GlassCobra 14:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
67. Support Keepscases (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
68. Support Clearly an excellent contributor and will be a great asset as an admin. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
69. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
70. Per above, best of luck! Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
71. Absolutely. Easily one of my top-five favourite editors. Just don't let the admin stuff stop you from writing articles, we need those. Manxruler (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
72. I don't see any reason to oppose. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
73. Support Good reasons. Seems trustworthy Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
74. Support Happy to, great editor. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
75.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Arsenikk. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
76. Support Trustworthy, conscientious. I hope that adminship won't distract much from writing articles. Royalbroil 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

    Support -129.78.64.103 (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC) indented, IPs can't !vote. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 05:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

77. Support All good; clearly competent, trustworthy, fantastic contribs, etc etc. Let's get this over with, so we can get back to editing.  Chzz  ►  06:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
78. Support as per, er, everybody above. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξくしー мessage♣} 06:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
79. Support. Not someone I've seen around before, but I see nothing that concerns me. TFOWR^propaganda 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
80. Support had the pleasure of working extensively in WP:FLC with this candidate. He is courteous and knowledgeable and will make an excellent admin. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
81. Support About as close to an ideal candidate as I've ever seen. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
82. Great article-writer, and I know he's been around for awhile when I can remember him from the GA reviewing I used to do... in 2008. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
83. Absolutely. Someone who understands what we're trying to do and why. – iridescent 17:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
84. support. Fine article builder. I'd use WP:IAR to downgrade WP:CIV when needed because CIV can be abused, but I can't expect that I'd use IAR to override WP:NPOV or the legal policies like WP:BLP. --Philcha (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
85. Support: The user is doing a great job writing articles. He has worked out disputes and has been civil and will make a great addition to the administrator group. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
86. 'Support. As per User:Iridescent; this editor understands what we're trying to do and why. He will obviously use the tools well. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
87. Support And I don't see why I shouldn't. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
88. Support A particularly strong content builder. Thoughtful. Cerebral. Well-rounded--Hokeman (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
89. It pains me to support this RfA. Why? Because we'll be losing a content contributor. I don't think we should be throwing them into the pool of lava that is adminship when they have proved they can offer up fantastic content on a grand scale (we've all noted how much so I shan't repeat). I also think this is one of those times that we're not giving the tools to someone who would make the best possible use of them; rather, a prize of sorts for his content. So yes, it pains me to support. But it's probably the right thing to do.  f o x  08:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
90. Happy to support - thanks for taking the time to answer my question. Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
91. Excellent work-a-day editor who does not seek controversy. Perfect! --RegentsPark (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
92. Support. Hard-working and experienced editor. - Darwinek (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
93. Support. Someone who's put in the effort to learn how to create good content won't have any problems learning how to use a few extra tools properly. --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
94. Support. Good answers and good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
95. Support No reason to think that this would abuse the tools. We need more admins. --rogerd (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
96. Support Seems quite mopworthy to me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
97. Support Great candidate. Particularly good at answering questions. Sole Flounder (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
98. Support - Good candidate, with plently of knowledge about building this encyclopedia. Orphan Wiki 10:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
99. Support Seems like a good choice...Modernist (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
100. Support per the 99 people above me. But Oh! the irony... too much article creation and not enough vandal fighting. Suggest a chunk of time on Huggle dealing with the sewage, for a truly eye-opening experience. Best wishes for your career as an admin! Jusdafax 13:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
101. Support Not only am I impressed with this Editors answers but also the ability to Convey them so well, Good luck Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 14:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
102. Support because I feel sorry that cars are so expensive in Norway, about double the UK price. (just kidding, the latter, not the support). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
103. Support A solid candidate, good answers. No problems here. --John (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
104. support Is clearly a great candidate, deserves adminship. -Oxguy3 20:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
105. Support Great answers to questions!! Good luck! America69 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
106. Too many GA, a few GT, a handful of FL, 10% automated editing, no use of huggle, less than 4% deleted edits, and not quite four years of experience. Clearly people trust him. Really, why not? Anyone who listens to music not suitable for commercials must be ok. Anyone who correctly spells encycloædia deserves my overwhelming hugs of support. It may not be winter on the ancient holy streets where i learned to crawl but this looks like snow to me. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
107. Support despite the bizarre answer to Q6. -- Hoary (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No problem exactly, but I'm not seeing much if any policy edits or comments, noticeboard comments, dispute resolution comments, RFA votes, and things of that nature. Content contribution and GA/FA is great for the encyclopedia and I wouldn't exactly discourage it, but the sysop bit isn't an award for being a good contributor, as much as we might like it to be... you need to have experience in the right areas, and I'm not seeing that. I see many of my colleagues will probably disagree with me on this, but I tend to speak my mind even when it won't earn me brownie points. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

   I share your concerns. However, I feel that the excellent content work overrides the lack of work in administrative areas. Immunize (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

   That seems to me to be a good thing rather than a bad thing. My only concern is over Arsenikk's answer to Q6. I'd also like to point out that every content contributor deals with vandalism, every day. You don't have to go looking for it, like the anti-vandalism kiddies do so that they can get their admin badge. Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

   So your saying that arsenikk's lack of work in areas such as WP:AIV and his lack of RfA and policy comments are actually a good thing? I personally feel that this is a problem, though the excellent content work led me to support anyway. Immunize (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

   I thought that my position was clear enough, but apparently not. Let me try again. I think that anyone who espouses the ridiculous civility policy as being "the most important" must have at least one screw loose, but that's mitigated in my mind by Arsenikk's past avoidance of the sloughs of despond. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I think Malleus considers it a virtue that the candidate chooses not to involve himself in the drama of any conflict-ridden venues. I see his point. Nevertheless, being an admin means dealing with conflict one way or the other, and I feel significant experience in that area should be required before obtaining the power to influence those conflicts above and beyond a regular user. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

   I find it curious that you didn't apply the same yardstick to the recent spate of Hugglers here, but each to their own I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

   This is the first time I've even looked at RFA in about 6 months. You could be thinking of someone else. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

   I'm just pointing out that you didn't apply the same yardstick, for whatever reason. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Waiting for response--moɳo 00:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved to "Support".--moɳo 23:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for response to followup question above. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Support. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Neutral—you seem like a sound editor, but your answer to Q3 concerns me. It's extremely evasive (no specifics at all, purely hypothetical, which is obviously not the object of the question: anybody can say that stuff, it's just conflict-resolution-textbook-bumph) and, coupled with your seeming lack of experience in the policy/noticeboard side of things, I'm just not confident yet. Expand your editing style and give it a couple of months :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:57, 21 May 2010 (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.