Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Arbok

I have replaced Will's closure of this RFA because he is not an admin, and if we don't want non-admins closing VfDs, we certainly shouldn't be having non-admins closing rights discussions, and I don't want this precedent set, especially because of Will's involvement with Arbok in editing conflicts. Ordinarily, I'd prefer to recuse myself from closing this, as I registered the first and most detailed opposition. But I believe the community will agree with me (as they probably do/did/will with Will) that w:WP:SNOW applies in this case, especially after Arbok's activity since he filed his request. I believe one "job" of an admin is to take the heat for controversial decisions, since the community has explicitly confirmed its trust in their judgment, and they are subject to recall if they lose this trust. Both Arbok and Sceptre have stood for adminship. Although Arbok's case, unlike Sceptre's, was an egregious failure to meet any qualifications for adminship, I would ask that Sceptre also consider the deliberation several admins have tried to show here and in other discussions with Arbok, in preparation for any of his own future candadacies. Jeff Q (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to be an administrator. I'm here all day and can look after the site. Thanks, Amaury/Arbok. - Arbok 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Although Arbok has made 1,000 edits (exactly) as of my writing this, these have all occurred within the past 18 days, and I am concerned that this editor has demonstrated little awareness of Wikiquote policies and practices outside a few very specific activities. For example, about half of these edits seem to be adding unsigned welcome messages for new users, even on at least two occasions replacing others' welcome posts. In Votes for deletion/Prospects Student's Book Advanced, Arbok inexplicably added a vfd tag to the discussion page, which Yehudi had to correct. Arbok also reverted a set of interwiki links added by Ranveig, posting a test3 and test4 on Ranveig's talk page, which the latter understandably removed and ignored. I myself just reverted an Arbok-posted test2a (removing content in a vandalistic fashion) from Sceptre's talk page, apparently inspired by Sceptre's removal of excessive quoting from Portal (game). This suggests a lack of awareness on Arbok's part of Wikiquote copyright problems, especially since the latest discussion on the article talk page is titled "Excessive quoting". (I must say, however, that my original thought that Sceptre had properly identified his edits as copyvio-reduction was inaccurate — his recent trimmings all seem to be popup reversions with no additional explanation, nor did he state his rationale on the article talk page — so this wasn't as obvious an error as I'd thought.) All of these problem edits I found simply by checking diffs from randomly chosen edits of different types, based on the page and the edit summary, which makes me think there may be more such problem edits. In short, I find Arbok's edits far too hasty and lacking in awareness of normal project work. I cannot support such an editor being given sysop capabilities. I would recommend substantial reading of policies and practices, and perhaps a bit more examination of basic wiki issues like interwiki links and copyright violations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. As Jeff Q said, Arbok hasn't show any factual contributions which may prove his or her statement like "I can look for". --Aphaia 05:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. AGF, I believe that Arbok is an enthusiast who didn't always know what he/she was doing; many edits, particularly vandalism reverts, are quite helpful.  If so, Arbok can become an admin one day, but not until we can be 100% sure that he/she won't do anything stupid.  Kalki had to revert some incorrect page moves (such as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (film)) where Arbok wrongly claimed that the official web site had a different title; admins must be trusted to fact-check correctly.  Another good example just a few hours ago is the removal of a good faith VfD notice.  If this RfA fails, I hope that Arbok will learn from thee comments and become a better editor.-- Poetlister  06:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't know I was that bad. - Arbok 06:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose While I am impressed by Arbok's enthusiasm at editing at such a rate (though as Jeff says this was largely achieved by welcome messages, often overwriting existing ones), I cannot see that he can be trusted with the tools at present. I am very disturbed by this edit on Wednesday 30 July  where he removes criticism and warning messages by Poetlister, Yehudi, Kalki and myself.  If he behaves himself for a couple of weeks he could reasonably remove them then, but he should not have removed them so quickly.  It suggests that he does not appreciate the gravity of what he has done.  As Poetlister says, AGF it's just thet he doesn't know what he's doing.  I would look for a substantial period of impeccable behaviour before I could trust him.--Cato 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cato, I didn't remove those because I was trying to deny them, I removed them because I was cleaning my talk page. - Arbok 22:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, you might have been blocked for that.-- Poetlister 22:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm… I didn't even think to check Arbok's talk page, since I found sufficient evidence of opposing this nomination without it. It had occurred to me that rapid-fire hasty editing requiring little thought, like welcomes and page moves, are a common technique for disrupters who wish to establish some legitimacy on a project in a short time, but I chose to assume good faith (AGF), a practice which is being invoked uncomfortably often (like a talisman) in this discussion. But adding in the facts that (A) several different people warned Arbok about problems with these hasty edits; (B) the continuation of similar problems after those warnings; and (C) the removal of all warnings (rather than archiving a relatively short talk page) barely two days before requesting adminship with no apparent awareness of how these problems would make him a poor candidate; all suggest to me that I will not be able to support Arbok unless and until he establishes a reputation here — over many, many months — that overcomes 1,000 poorly considered edits, something I'm inclined to believe will not happen. As always, I'm willing to be proven wrong. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think deleting warning messages is much of a knock. You get a warning, you read it, you've been warned. Why keep it around unless it says in the message that it is not to be deleted for some period of time? We are, after all, masters of our own little piece of user-real estate here. My opposition to adminship here is solely based on this editor's lack of time on the project. BD2412 T 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose for copyright vandalism. Will (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)