Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Sloan 3 (talk | contribs) at 17:59, 11 January 2009 (→‎Support: oh yes!!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kanonkas

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (56/1/1); Scheduled to end 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Kanonkas (talk · contribs)

Co-nomination

I'd like to nominate Kanonkas for adminship. He's an admin over at commons and has shown to be extremely capable of using the tools constructively over there. He has earned tremendous respect in his use of the tools from the commons community and I believe now is the time to extend that to the English Wikipedia. He's an image specialist and has done great image work over here, tagging bad images and putting commons images into articles. I suspect this would continue to be his main area of work, and it's an area that we always lack competant admins to do the large amount of work that is needed to keep up with the back logs. What I like about Kanonkas is his ability to explain his edits if someone asks questions. He's a friendly chap and he strives to answer any concerns as quickly as possible. We've had problems in the past with some image specialist admins not willing to explain their actions - this certainly wouldn't be the case with Kanonkas. He's also been active in admin related areas such as WP:UAA and WP:AN/I where his thoughtful responses are always appreciated. He's also got good technical knowledge and has helped out at 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:AIV, WP:NCT, WP:NC & WP:OP. I'll be trying to help other admins with WP:AIV as I'm experienced with that area. I have some image knowledge, so I'll work with image related areas as an extension to the work I've done, here and on Commons, where I am an admin. Because of that I feel secure to work on CAT:NCT, CAT:NC. As an extra job I'll be working 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 here. It was a valuable experience as it showed me that this is a friendly community & that new editors are vital, one should never be bitey against them, rather the 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-and-salts 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]

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 blocking policy state; one should block to reduce the problem rather then using the block button to "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]

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 iMatthew // 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 Master&Expert (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. DiverseMentality 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--Iamawesome800 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 RfA criteria Foxy Loxy 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. John Sloan's IPavoider (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. 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. Stifle (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 WP:OP I think WP edits are bountiful there. Garden. 17:14, 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]
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, Biblio is 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kanonkas&oldid=263412954"