Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Croat Canuck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Croat Canuck

final (21/5/3) ending 04:06 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Croat Canuck (talk • contribs) – Croat Canuck: two words that ring the bells of knowledge in the ears of Wikipedians. What can be said about this ambitious editor? Considering that he joined Wikipedia in August of 2005, his edit count is excellent, numbering almost over 3000 edits. Furthermore, these are primarily focused on the topic of sports (hockey specifically), but expand through VfD and categorization edits. He also belongs to the icehockey wikiproject. Perhaps most important of all, he cares for Wikipedia. Croat Canuck is a wonderfully sound editor who likes putting the brighter spin on issues in the Wikipedian community. He seems to enjoy making a user’s day through wit. This user is well-acquainted with Wikipedia. Maybe well-acquainted is an understatement; he is so close to this great project, it is his next of kin in the cyberspace universe. Eduard Gherkin 03:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I gladly accept the nomination, and may the trial commence! Croat Canuck 04:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support The description says it all. Eduard Gherkin 04:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Edits look very good. Answers to questions are good. Support is good. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
3. King of All the Franks 05:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support as your edits look good.--MONGO 08:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support strongly, perfect admin candidate. - Wezzo 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support per above. Izehar (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support looks fine enough to be an admin (no big deal)Gator (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
9. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, I know this man personally and he is serious about his work. MarkusRTK 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support good editor --rogerd 05:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support, per above. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support I have never seen him make a bad edit and many of the pages he edits are on my watch list. I feel he is a trustworthy editor. Masterhatch 07:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support per above. Bigdottawa 17:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support I always see this user doing good work, especially on hockey articles.--Alhutch 18:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support freestylefrappe 23:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Per nomination. SWD316 16:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support; mainspace edits are vastly more important than Wikispace edits. And those edits are what validates Croat's admin nomination. Matt Yeager 07:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. El_C 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support, good editor. --Kefalonia 13:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, lack of familiarity with process, other than a bunch of AFD votes. Radiant_>|< 12:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose Very, very few edits when point-and-click categorization edits are not counted. Edits show experience in only a very limited section of Wikipedia. He also has not been around long enough to sufficiently demonstrate his personality (that is, I can't tell how well he'd resolve a conflict). ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

   To respond to this statement of opposition, it must be said that "very, very few edits" is certainly an overstatement. It is also necessary to emphasize that categorization edits are indeed edits, and important as well. It would be shameful to have an encyclopedia with no categories. As for the demonstration of Croat Canuck's personality, this user can say personally that it has been expressed peacefully, well, and often. To see this, the talk pages of other users to which Croat Canuck has added must be viewed before futher judgement occurs. Eduard Gherkin 23:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

   Perhaps it was somewhat an overstatement, but I only count (roughly) 831 non-categorization edits. This is not to say that those categorization edits were not helpful and valuable, but rather that I do not see enough experience and familiarity with other parts of Wikipedia. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose as per Radiant and Mdd4696. Proto t c 10:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Radiant. I like this Canuck, but my "better-safe-than-sorry" instinct would be more comfortable with more wikispace edits by which to judge his qualifications. Xoloz 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose as per above. – ugen64 06:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Seems like a good editor, but virtually no edits in the Wikipedia namespace (not counting the Hocky Wikiproject) [1]. I believe that admins should be more interested in the general running of wikipedia. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

   Comment. The numbers in that link are wrong, go to Kate's edit counter and you will see that I have over 100 edits in the Wikipedia namespace, and only about 10 of them are in the Wikiproject ice hockey. 209.29.46.237 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

   That's what the link says. I guess I consider that a little low. But I voted neutral, so I don't mind either way. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Seems like a fine editor from my limited interaction with him. I won't oppose, but I will suggest getting more involved with different aspects of Wikipedia should this nomination fail (or even if it succeeds). Good luck! —Locke Cole 08:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
3. generally like what i see. however, has really not been around that long. i guess i'd support with another month under his belt, so i'll say neutral to mild support. Derex 21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• To the best of my memory Locke Cole had his user name changed to Croat Canuck because I remember it on a talk page awhile back. Locke Cole's account was deleted by an administrator at his request and now he is back. It is in the history if you look well enough. I guess this comment will get deleted just like some others but it just seems strange that he don't mention it.--71.28.247.46 08:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  I'm not sure of that, because I had conversed with Locke Cole before his user page had gotten deleted and he knew I existed, this had to be a month or two ago. I'm not Locke Cole, nor a sock puppet account if that is what you are implying. But thanks for the observation. Croat Canuck 15:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Well, I would probably involve myself most with reverting vandalism. I have almost every single hockey player biography article on my watchlist, and I see vandalism and revert it. I rarely go a day on Wikipedia these days where I do not revert vandalism. I would also be active on Afd and on speedy deletions.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Probably my proudest accomplishment on Wikipedia is creating the individual major junior team alumni categories. It was an important task to distinguish which NHL players came from which Junior club, and it seemed like something nobody had the time for. It took me a solid couple of days to create well over 100 category pages, and link the teams with their former names and places. And since then, I have been rolling through the alphabet to add these categories NHL player pages. Also when I have been doing that, I noticed that most of the pages did not have all the necessary categories, and some didn't have any categories at all. So when I go through each page I have properly categorized each one, as you'll see that most of my edit summaries are just (+cat(s)).

I am also proud of my many stubs that I have created on Notable NHL hockey players that had not gotten an article yet (see my user page for the complete list), and the higher quality hockey bio articles that I have also created.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I have not been on Wikipedia that long, and I try to avoid unfounded conflicts and edit wars. There was a time when I was a much younger and inexperienced Wikipedian, when I put the List of NHL draft steals page up for deletion as POV, and there were a couple users who were very unhappy with me for that, more specifically the creator of the page User:Hossmann. However, the page was voted to be kept, and I accepted the decision and haven't conceived an ill thought towards it since.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.