Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Kanonkas

Nomination

Final (109/0/1); Closed by

17 January 2009
(UTC)

the open proxy WikiProject - the tools would allow him to move from simply checking whether an IP is a proxy, to blocking them as well. All in all, he's a fantastic user who has already shown his trust to Wikimedia projects over at commons. I truly believe our community would benefit from the experience Kanonkas has in multiple areas and I ask that you support his request. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Co-nomination from User:Pedro

Kanonkas and I have been chatting for a while about adminship on en.wikipedia. As Ryan mentions he is already a commons admin so he knows what the tools are about. He is also registered on several other wikimedia projects. I appreciate that (these days) an undeleted edit count of just over 4,000 may raise some eyebrows (please note Kanonkas has also got nearly 600 deleted edits). I hope not. So, some highlights;

  • An active article builder (over a third of edits to the main space) - no concerns here on actually building the text part of the encyclopedia.
  • As Ryan mentions Image work is stunning - an area where we are always in desperate need of more help - in particular with the admin tools.
  • Civil, helpful attitude and non English Language capabilities which are always a big plus.
  • Cross project admins are of particular benefit to en.wikipedia - particularly when you consider how many of our images are now on commons.

Focusing on some housekeeping items please note;

  • A clean block log
  • Excellent edit summary use
  • Sensible user page - informative and not my-spacey
  • E-mail enabled
  • Rollbacker
    with fine use of the tool.
  • Great Signature cough!:)
All, this is simply another person who wants to help out, and has the ability to do so. A glance at
WP:FORMER will show that we are very much in need of new administrators - and of our present active editors Kanonkas would seem more than qualified. I am delighted to support this candidate and hope the community will agree with the sentiments expressed by Ryan and myself in supporting this request. Pedro :  Chat  21:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honoured by both of the noms; thanks for your nice words. I accept. --Kanonkas (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 work on
WP:OP
where I intend to investigate reports as I do, but if I pass I can block abusive open proxies. In my work as a Commons admin, it would be useful for me to be able to see deleted en.wiki descriptions, which I am currently hindered from doing.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best work on the English Wikipedia have to be two DYK's (one with some help). First was Pueblo Community College which I worked quite hard on. I collaborated with another editor on Ozarka College. All in all it is fun working towards the encyclopedia, even though I'm not such a big article writer. Otherwise I am also proud of bringing articles some images. Most of the time that's BLP related articles. It certainly isn't always easy to get free images of celeberties and such, but I try my best!
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 certainly had a hard time first time I came here. That was in August, 2007. I was looking on this article & saw this event on YouTube. That resulted me into putting that link on that BLP related article. It was removed shortly after & I started to wonder why, so I put it back. This time it was also removed so I thought I should leave a note on the talk page. The discussion can be seen
opposite
. I am really glad that the editor who replied back to me was really friendly in the discussion & explained it further why that link was inappropriate on the article. I've also learned that we all make mistakes at times & that it's better to help them into editing. I regret how I acted & hope the community can forgive me for the incident & put it in the past.

Q's from flaminglawyerc

4. What's the difference between a block and a ban?
A. A block is a technical and preventative measure to prevent disruption to the project, while a ban is social. When a block is given, any administrator may remove it (don't wheel war & should not have been in a dispute with the editor), but a ban implies that an admin either can't or won't unblock. One will need to gather community consensus to do the unblock part on a community ban for example. A ban can be given by the ArbCom, community, Jimbo, or WMF.
5. Why do want to be an admin? i.e., if you had to write a self-nom, what would it say?
A. I'd like to volunteer for this part because the extra buttons would help me. As I'm a Commons admin, I know nothing really changes when one gets the buttons; you just get some technical abilities with the community trust that comes with them. If I get the admin bit, I could do these things myself, without having to ask other administrators to do them for me. I believe this will speed up the process for some admins & including me to get things done. I do also believe Q 1 explains what I will be doing. All in all, the admin tools will enable me to further contribute to Wikipedia for the benefit of the project. If you want any more information, feel free to ask.
6. Is there a reason that the majority of your mainspace edits are to Disney Channel stars?(see my neutral vote for my concerns)
A. Good question! I understand your concern. However, disney related articles is in my view one of those articles that needs to get checked from time to time. One will usually see some fan/child putting up some unsourced
WP:BLP
, and those kind of edits seems to be stuck in some articles. It's one thing to let a bot revert simple vandalism, it takes a human to do the tricky part. Somehow I got a little interest in this subject (despite my old age!) and I usually do some minor tweaking on those articles from time to time.
7. You have just been granted adminship after a successful 75/8/4 RfA. A trusted, tenured admin, checkuser, and bureaucrat blocks you for 10 days, with no explanation. You have tried to email the blocking admin, but get no response. You have tried to create a new account and post your situation at AN/I, but every time you do, the blocking admin immediately deletes your post, and indefblocks you as a sock of your original account (abusing his checkuser rights, obviously), and does the same when you try as an IP. What will you do now?
A.
Comment While I'm obviously not the candidate, I was just wondering how “the blocking admin immediately deletes-and-salts your post” would work? Could you please explain how
SALTing a post at AN/I is technically possible? Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 12:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Er... that proves that I know next-to-nothing about admin features :) . Changed. flaminglawyerc 20:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this legitimate? It was posted by an IP, and therefore isn't to clarify his mind on how to vote, since he is not eligible to vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP can ask a question, which the candidate may or may not choose to answer. But the IP can not vote. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was me (flaminglawyer), I got auto-logged-out and didn't realize it. flaminglawyerc 03:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Aitias
8. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A.
9. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A.
10. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A.
11. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to
WP:AIV
? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?
A. If it's just a random IP editing my user page to "vandalize" I would report it to
WP:AIV
just incase so I could get a neutral opinion from an editor. To answer your last question well it really depends on the situation, IMO.
12. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A. As the
cool down an editor". Blocks are preventative not punitive. Blocking is really not your first option, unless we see our page-move vandal in action. In these emergency cases, we should just block right away, regardless of the warnings, which is discussed futher in Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings
.
Question followup: Is this the only circumstance you could imagine? What about such edits? — Aitias // discussion 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd doubt a new IP editor would knew how to make such an edit so quickly. Also I'd have to take a look at this deleted page & a google search on the IP in the revision you gave me. I tried to use port 3128 & it's open. Looking further on the IP, I checked the IP range /20 which seems to belong to a webhosting company. So, with that evidence, I would block the IP. --Kanonkas (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Gimmetrow
13. You say you'll work at WP:AIV. Here's WP:AIV as it looked 21:42, 11 January 2009. Would you block the IPs listed as user-reported? Why or why not? If so, for how long? (Ignore any bot-reported IPs; those are transcluded and will change)
A. I really don't know the banned user's "activity" enough to evaluate that in a short time, because of that I would leave it up to another admin to decide. However, if I had good time on responding (30 minutes) I would have checked the banned user's RFCU case, their editing pattern & I'd have to take a look on the IPs. After looking further on the IPs & the evidence, I would have blocked the one IP user. Because the IP was from Bellsouth, an ISP which the banned user seems to be using. Secondly, it's the same pattern from the banned user. Also see these contribs are from same range, same edit habit & pattern, which concludes me to say this is likely block evasion. (2nd IP) However, this report gave a SSP link with easy information to understand that the IP was being used for a block evasion. I'd still recommend not to report to AIV, unless it's blatant vandalism, as I think the SSP folks would have taken care of it. In short to answer you: I'd not block the first one (as explained in "short time"), I wouldn't block the second one either, espescially in this case where I noticed one IP changed to a new one in 6 minutes. Unless it really was blatant "harassment" & recent I'd block the IP for a short period because of block evasion. However, if I gave the IP a block I'd probably wouldn't be getting the "person" as this is a dynamic IP. The person behind it could easily evade the block, so the block would be useless. All in all, I would have left a note on AIV about the latter report. If in doubt, don't block.
Optional humorous question from User:Davidwr
14. Please answer one of the questions from User:Davidwr/RFAs#Humorous_questions or make up your own silly question.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Strong Support Per my nomination. Pedro :  Chat  21:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support Wizardman 21:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Nick (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I do not always agree with how he does things, but he's very active, and we can do with more active admins. Majorly talk 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support per my excellent personal interactions. He will do great work. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - If only because of image specialty. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support though the guy stole my signature.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    o rly? :) Pedro :  Chat  21:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was an joke I'm pretty sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, referring to the fact that neither Kanonkas nor I have seen a need to customize our signatures.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you guys are missing the point by a few miles. Until about a week or so before this RFA Kanonkas' signature was a carbon copy of mine. Look at his talk page. My "o rly" was just a bit of fun - it's why I bolded the "great signature" bit in my nom. Pedro :  Chat  17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support
    talk // 21:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Support per my co-nom. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: If it means he'll stop asking me to do things ;-). - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SupportPer excellent nominators, edits, count and summary. Basically, why not! :) Andy (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - per Rjd0060 :P J.delanoygabsadds 21:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support: I've had the pleasure of working with this user on Commons, and I believe that he would make a great administrator especially with his experience working with Images :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I seriously thought you were already an admin. I don't say that lightly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support: And if you become an admin, make sure you ask me for the script that deletes Grawp redirects too, so you stop move conflicting with me and getting there first! The Helpful One 22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if you fix the horrific use of "their" :O
    Garden. 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Seriously, I don't see a problem with it, perhaps it's your eyes or your computer screen? Please reload! :P The Helpful One 11:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Tested and true. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Per positive long-term interaction.—Kww(talk) 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Most definitely. Malinaccier (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Fuck yes.
    Garden. 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  20. Support I have worked with Kanonkas a fair amount at different times and have found him a competent and trustworthy editor. I believe he would make a good admin and will greatly help the project particularly with respect to image issues. My first impression was from the conversation we had as noted in question 3 and while he pushed back hard I considered his reactions reasonable and he demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt, which I strongly appreciate. As an admin I expect he will continue to act competently in whatever areas he chooses to get involved with. --NrDg 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Epbr123 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Excellent candidate - will make a great admin. Nancy talk 22:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support MBisanz talk 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes
    Talk) 23:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  25. Support. No problem here. --Tone 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Saw this while it was in the subpage form. Excellent user, no need to worry.
    ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  27. Complete support Abigor (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Can't really say this anymore, as the admin highlight script stops that, but I thought he already was one! Support a clueful user, who has a good grip of policy. Xclamation point 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Personal interactions on Commons, I'm comfortable with the candidate.
    Mentality 23:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  30. per nom's Dlohcierekim 23:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support - You probably don't know me, but I sure know you and the great work you do. As an admin I'm sure you'll do even better. :) —
    neuro(talk) 00:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  32. Support - Biruitorul Talk 00:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - I have to say thanks for your contributions, Kanonkas. I think an established editor and sister-project admin would be a conducive addition as an admin to WP. Good luck! —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 01:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Haven't been on Commons much, but the noms show that he will make a great sysop! SchfiftyThree (talk!) 01:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Looks good to me. --Chasingsol(talk) 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per Nrdg Spudinator (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Everything looks good. No problems here. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support My neutral vote's concerns got cleared up pretty quickly :) flaminglawyerc 02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support--
    800 02:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  40. Support - Per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and per the fact that Kanonkas (talk · contribs) has shown himself to be a trustworthy, level-headed user here, and admin at the Commons. Cirt (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per his good contributions on Commons. Actually, I have no idea about his contribution here, but he is one of civil and decent admins on Commons, so I don't have any doubt on his admin tool here too.--Caspian blue 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support this is what our last other-wiki admin could have been had he not been new to the English Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support good answers to questions, 100%/100% edit summary usage, per my
    Pounce! 04:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  44. Support. This user works in lots of admin-y areas. K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support - I have had the honor of knowing Kanonkas as a en.wiki contributor. After seeing his work on commons, I too was thinking of nominating him for adminship. In a nutshell he is a helpful editor who's edits have been a net positive bother here and at commons. I have no doubt he will make a great addition to the administrative team. Tiptoety talk 07:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - an understanding of image policy, a calm and helpful demeanour. Seems like an excellent candidate. Good answers to questions, also. Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Everything looks good, confident he won't misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Not a single reason to oppose at all, will make a fine addition and we always can use more admins in the File:-mainspace. SoWhy 11:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support abf /talk to me/ 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support though he already was one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.96.84 (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Indenting; IPs cannot !vote. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. An excellent editor who is as active as I'd want an adminstrator candidate to be. Caulde 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Nothing to add. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support
    Xavexgoem (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  53. Support I've known Kanonkas for a few months, and I think he knows what he's doing. :) Sam Blab 15:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, yes. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support we need more image specialists, but I would like for you to spend some of the time over at FAC helping out, or helping those prep images for FAC. It would be nice, and an admin at both here and commons would make transwikis and other things go smoother. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Last ever !vote in a RfA support - This is John Sloan here, I am not going to involve myself with RfA anymore as I believe it to be a severely broken process. Some people call it a discussion, some people call it a vote. Both seem to be wrong. I find it fitting that my last contribution here is made using my alternate account. Anyway, i'm delighted that my last act here is to support a fantastic user like Kanonkas. You will certainly make a fine sysop on en.wikipedia, of that there can be no doubts.
    chat) 17:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  58. Support Don't know him but have seen his work here and a little bit on commons and think he will do fine.—Sandahl (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Solid contributor, good answers to questions, no red flags.
    Townlake (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  60. Support I would have co nomed i i had the chance. 110% support ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Synergy 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Extremely trustworthy.
    T) 19:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  63. Support User has been around since July 2007 and is an admin in Commons.Do not see any misuse of tools and think giving tools will only be a net positive to the project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. No doubt strong support David Shankbone 21:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support as candidate is an admin elsewhere (i.e. admin experience), has never been blocked, and due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Seems to be an upstanding user. Good luck, GlassCobra 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I haven't much else to say. —Animum (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Yes! LittleMountain5 23:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - trustworthy editor. Also, help with image backlogs would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. A very able user. bibliomaniac15 23:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - I know his work on commons, and have great faith that he will use the admin tools responsibly. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Yes, definitely. Spellcast (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support A very strong candidate - good luck with the mop. Dean B (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support No problems here, seems to be a good editor. FlyingToaster 05:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - Good guy. →Na·gy 09:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Image work? Hell yeah.
    Tan | 39 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  77. Support. Piling on like all the rest... What's not to like?
    DARTH PANDAduel • work 14:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  78. Support - Positive interactions and observations from the Commons. I have every confidence that Kanonkas will be a responsible admin here as well. Эlcobbola talk 14:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - respected admin on Commons and all the indications are that he will be equally respected on this Project. Having a friendly admin with competences in images looks a great idea! Smile a While (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support After looking at contribs, Support! America69 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - no concerns. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support: Helpful and active editor.
    shoot! 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  83. Support a good candidate --Stephen 03:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Gazimoff 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I would have liked to see more article development. However, I was impressed by his admin work on Commons. He seems to understand the policies here as well. I think he will make a fine admin. Wronkiew (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. —
    macyes: bot 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  87. Joining Bandwagon Support.--intraining Jack In 01:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Early in Kanonkas' adminship tenure at Commons, I and other more seasoned admins had a concern that K might be a bit quick to "block first and ask questions later"... typically we like Commons to be a bit on the mellow side. Kanonkas got some feedback about it, and while I would still urge him to be deliberate in carrying out any blocks, the way K responded to the feedback, with grace and genuine interest in self improvement, and concern for the views of fellow admins and other users, convinces me that my support is completely justified. I think K will do fine. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Definitely. Looks like a very good candidate. Already has experience as an admin too. Chamal talk 13:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Can be trusted. — Aitias // discussion 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support as per Lar. When a steward votes in an RfA and even votes in support of a candidate, I think that that goes to show something good for a user ;). Good luck! Cheers, Razorflame 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure how you came to the conclusion. Stewards are not special, or elevated above everyone else, nor do they have especially better judgement. While you might agree with Lar's comment, the fact he happens to hold extra rights is irrelevant. Majorly talk 16:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope that stewards don't have WORSE judgment than average, else we (the WMF community ) are electing the wrong folk. If you think I or any steward does, that's probably a good thing to bring up at the confirmations which are commencing 1 February on Meta. But it's not the judgement of stewards that is being evaluated here, it's that of Kanonkas... and as I said above, I find his judgement sound, which is why **I** supported him. Others should carry out their own evaluations rather than just relying on mine, which I think is what Majorly is trying to say. He's right about that. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support No problems here, well-rounded user. SpencerT♦C 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Looks good from here. hmwithτ 22:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Conduct inspires trust. Skomorokh 01:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. - Dan
    send/receive) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  96. Support. Good addition to admins. MathCool10 Sign here! 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support – Solid. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - of course! Kanonkas will be a fine admin :) - Alison ❤ 06:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. May as well.
    talk) 10:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  101. Support, no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  102. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Hello, I'm Keanu Reeves and I'm here to promote my new book "How to Be a Movie Star Without Being Able to Act"...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for someone who is definitely a star among editors!
    talk) 01:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  104. Support success...and good luck..Modernist (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Good analysis for Q13. Shows awareness of nearly all the factors I think relevant to these two cases. Gimmetrow 09:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Sure :) --Mardetanha talk 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Sure!--OsamaK 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose This user's signature is too good. *Jealous* This a support by the way, just a note in case some B'crat is up in the middle of the night closing this Rfa when he/she should asleep. --
    Knowzilla 08:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  109. Support Of Course! — JoJo • Talk • 16:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Hate to be the first, but low level of Wikipedia-namespace contributions indicates to me a likely lack of policy knowledge, and low level of speedy deletion activity as evidenced by deleted contributions are big negatives for me.
talk) 16:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Hate to badger, but why does speedy deletion matter? No desire to work there has been expressed. That, and with 120 edits to
Garden. 17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I actually think speedy deletion experience does matter. It's all good and well having specialist admins, but the tools come as a package and once a user is an admin, they can do as they please with the tools. Experience in all areas is certainly an advantage. That said, I'm with Nick and Rjd below because I believe he has good experience in this area. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that he does seem to have tagged several hundred pages for speedy deletion, and a large chunk (well over 100) are in the mainspace. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kanonkas' speedy tagging looks to be of a generally high quality too, judging by the number that have actually been deleted and the number that have not been recreated. Nick (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Likely lack of policy knowledge" So he does not even know, he's making an uninformed guess based on a meaningless number? What about all the evidence to the contrary? I'll probably get my head bitten off for daring to comment here so I'd better stop. LOL. Majorly talk 11:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares if he lacks policy knowledge? Do you trust him to find out about policy before doing something? If yes then what he knows now is irrelevant.--Pattont/c 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Patton and also in my eyes a lack of edits to the wikipedia name space doesn't really show lack of policy knowledge. Knowing a policy does not mean you have to have edited it. Of course almost every admin should have some level of CSD knowledge and again i believe Kanonkas has that, its not the quantity but the quality. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 18:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted the replies to this and remain happy with my !vote.
talk) 10:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
People may wish to look at Stifle's userpage, which shows why he votes how he does - i.e., using some kind of algorithm. I think this kind of blanket opposing is extremely stupid, but of course, opposing like this won't have any effect apart from some kind of protest, which Stifle is welcome to make. Kanonkas will still pass this regardless. Please note that making any kind of response to Stifle's oppose normally makes him oppose even more strongly. Make of that what you will. Majorly talk 10:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this is a pre-qualification — my baseline requirements for RFA candidates are 500 edits in Wikipedia namespace (to show at least some knowledge and interest in how the project works), 2 months since registering (ditto) and no active RFC or RFAR (for what I hope are obvious reasons). I do not have any "algorithm" or other robotic method of deciding whom I will support at RFA, but I do have issues with people badgering opposers.
talk) 12:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
So what if they had 499 edits in said namespace? Would you put your template oppose for them too? You do appear to have such an algorithm on your userpage. It's right there, I can see it. If you don't like people "badgering" you, try to make your opposes more relevant next time, less templatey, and less reliant on meaningless numbers. Please show some evidence Kanonkas lacks policy knowledge. And don't complain about people "badgering" you. This is a discussion, and if you're going to falsely claim someone lacks policy knowledge, face the consequences of having your oppose replied to. I'm sick and tired of people whining about people badgering them - just stop making stupid opposes, and people will stop badgering you. It's so simple. Majorly talk 12:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The algorithm, as you call it, specifies criteria when I will quickly oppose candidates without further investigation and is not an algorithm of deciding whom I will support at RFA. I do not consider it to be a "template oppose". And yes, I would oppose someone at 499 project-space edits; otherwise, by induction, the criterion would be pointless.
I was not aiming at you in this discussion with my final clause in the last message, and I withdraw that clause in that regard.
It is not possible to prove that someone lacks a certain knowledge from absence of evidence. The "lack of knowledge" is a null hypothesis which is open to disproving.
I'm happy to reply to any further civil questions from you or anyone else, and thank you for remaining civil so far in the face of what I admit is an uncommon personal policy.
talk) 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
←Just out of curiosity, what would happen if the candidate was to make another few edits to the Wikipedia namespace during the course of this (or any other RfA). Would you switch to Support as your criteria has been met, or would you remain in Opposition despite your criteria being met during the course of the RfA ? Nick (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about that much. I suspect I would probably remain in opposition based on the stats at the start of the RFA.
talk) 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess I might be a bit too pedantic. Moving to support.
talk) 10:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Neutral
Nuetral For now. S/he has an amazing edit summary track record, pretty good on every thing else. The interest in Disney Channel people slightly discomforts me. I don't want a six-year-old with a mop. This might seem like something trivial to take me down to a neutral, but I've never met anyone who's a fan of Disney Channel who can also get a job and keep it for more than three days. When I mentally transfer that thought over to WP world, that means s/he will probably do something stupid before the end of the week. That stupid thing that s/he will probably do will be more troublesome if s/he has da mop. So I wait and see if my Q6 can get his/her name off my stereotyped list... flaminglawyerc 01:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support He's off my stereotyped list. I didn't even stop to think that he could be doing something not-immature on those articles. (see my Q's response) flaminglawyerc 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to be clear here - you're uncomfortable because you automatically associate immature children with the Disney Channel? Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly it. flaminglawyerc 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"stereotyped list"? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's my mental list of people who I've automatically stereotyped based upon a first glance. flaminglawyerc 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckle. Those of us that labor hard in the Disney swamp to try to drain it would like a BIT more appreciation of how demanding this thankless task is. I have found a lot of younger people who are excellent editors. The problems are the mostly male types making silly edits and the over eager fangirls gushing over their favorite. They usually don't last long and get bored with wiki easily. Either that or want to be a crat after 10 edits. Seriously, it is usually pretty easy to judge the level of maturity of an editor by the contributions. --NrDg 02:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking that Kanonkas is too immature, or a pedophile?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally thought he was immature. But it's confirmed that he's not. flaminglawyerc 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kanonkas is like me ... sucked into the Disney morass simply because of the editing problems in the area. Dealing with a horde of eleven-year-olds on a daily basis actually improves your skills in dealing with bad editors, because most bad editors are basically acting like eleven-year-olds.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, flaminglawyer has a point. After all,
one of our worst crats, no
?
In all seriousness, this assumes rather bad faith and NrDg says it well when he says that most people in that field who've stuck around in that field are ones who have been working hard against random little kids coming in and messing up work. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. As a protest against the standards at RfA, I am no longer supporting any candidates with more than 3500 edits. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as a "support" if this RfA enters the discretionary range. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 16:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a rather
    pointy way to protest... GlassCobra 22:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I was just thinking that. Perhaps this vote should be reconsidered? —
    neuro(talk) 22:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Meh. given the conditions placed on the vote, it seems a rather pointless way to protest. And protest to whom? All of us? Huggle for existing? Wikipedia for getting older? I'd just let it slide. Protonk (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth is that pointy? How does it disrupt wikipedia? It doesn't. It isn't pointy. Abuse of
    Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is disruptive IMO.--Pattont/c 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think the complaint more relates to the suggestion that the editor intends to do this for every RfA. I'd AGF and just let this go until it seems clear that the editor intends to do this for >a dozen RfAs. At that point we can discuss how pointy it is or isn't. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This has a similar feel to User:Kmweber !vote. Tiptoety talk 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kanonkas&oldid=1091462921"