Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Caknuck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Caknuck

Ended (41/0/0); Nomination successful. --Deskana (banana) 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Caknuck (talk · contribs) - Caknuck needs no introduction, but I will give him one anyhow. Caknuck has written articles on baseball topics - notably players from his favorite team, the Texas Rangers, such as Robinson Tejeda and Ron Mahay. He contributes to the management of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, and helped draft a comprehensive list of naming conventions to help disambiguate baseball players with similar names (such as Frank Thomas and Chris Young).

Caknuck also has experience in the administrative workings of Wikipedia. He approves and declines new articles at the overworked Wikipedia:Articles for Creation process. He has offered his opinion for numerous articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. His few conflicts have arisen from dealing with abusive sockpuppets, so he has the training to join the team of admins who evaluate Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.

I reviewed Caknuck today at Wikipedia:Editor review/Caknuck. I hope you will share my opinion that he is ready for adminship. Shalom Hello 21:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you for the kind words, Shalom. I accept. Caknuck 22:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm already very involved with WP:AFD, including closing out some AfD discussions when the outcome is clear and the backlog is building up. I intend to assist with other the other XfD beasts, other deletion processes (WP:PROD and WP:CSD), as well as WP:RPP and vandal blocking. Otherwise, I have no problems helping out where needed when the backlogs get out of hand.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm largely a gnome, so my contributions have been spread out over thousands of articles. Unfortunately, I can't offer up an article that I've nursed from stubhood to FA status (with apologies to all ye adherents to WP:1FA). I'm very pleased with my ongoing contributions to Wikiproject Baseball, including drafting the proposed naming conventions I mentioned above (which is ready for straw poll approval; I'm just waiting for some other things to slow down prior to resuming the process), improving some of the infoboxes used by the project and generally trying to be a voice of reason.
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've few editing conflicts that deserve mention. A few months ago, I had a dispute with the indefinitely-blocked user Tecmobowl about their apparent misuse of CSD nominations to prove a point. I discussed the matter with the editor in question, advising that their actions were contrary to both the letter and spirit of WP's notability and deletion policies. The discussion accomplished, sadly, very little. Little did I know that others' issues with this editor were spiralling out of control, leading to 3RR blocks, a mediation cabal case and ultimately a community ban on Tecmo. During the later discussions surrounding the issues, I made an effort to focus on content and not the contributor, even siding with Tecmo on certain issues. Aftershocks from these disputes still are echoing around, but largely I'm staying away.


More recently, while vandal patrolling I had a run-in with indefinitely-blocked editor Mariam83 (editing as an IP sock), who was doing some POV-pushing on several articles related to African and Arab culture and history. I reverted the editors edits, added to the ongoing discussion on the user at WP:ANI and filed a request at WP:RPP. Despite the user trying to bait me with edit summaries and talk messages accusing me of being a vandal and a fascist, I tried to keep my cool and not lower myself to their level. (Because of the delays getting my request at WP:RPP fulfilled, I decided to consider adminship sooner rather than later.)

As far as stress goes, I don't let the stuff that transpires here cause me to lose any sleep. If I think that have reached a point where I'm at loggerheads with another editor or issue, I'll step away to level out and reassess where things are at and how important they are in the big picture.

(Diffs either of the two incidents described above both can be provided on request.)

Optional questions from O (talk):

4. At what time would you use common sense than following policies and guidelines?
A: Ideally all editors should be using common sense at all times. But as we know, this isn't the case and, sadly, "common sense ain't all that common".

Generally-speaking, WP:UCS (or WP:IAR, if you will, since they are joined at the hip), is best invoked when policy doesn't give a clear answer to potentially tough disputes. Take, for example, the actions recently taken at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward McSweegan. Although WP:OVER states the criteria for oversight to be applied is "when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history", oversight was applied in this instance. Dr. McSweegan was contending that the article was libellous -- even after corrections had removed the contested facts -- and was requesting deletion. However, when oversight was applied and the offensive material was removed from public view, the subject's objections ceased. Here, a thoughtful editor (Blueboy96) used a common sense "bending of the rules" to come to what appears to be a mutually agreeable situation.
5. When would you use admin rollback? When would you not? Why is this important [for admins especially]?
A: The obvious answer is that rollback is best employed when combating vandalism or other intentionally disruptive editing, especially when done en masse by bots or energetic vandals. I use the revert function of Popups, which is similar to the admin rollback feature, when on vandal patrol, so I'm relatively familiar with the process.

Rollback is generally discouraged when dealing with edits clearly made in good faith (but not good practice). Take, for instance, the first edits made by an anon IP about the new Harry Potter book or movie. An unexplained rollback may imply that their desire to contribute isn't appreciated, which may drive off potentially very productive editors (possibly verging on biting them). When admins fail to explain why they rollback apparent good faith edits, it only serves to reinforce the general public notion that admins are "hard-headed...Wikipedia watchdogs" (cribbed from here).

Optional questions from Dreftymac (talk):

6. Which is better: to err on the side of blocking a contributor who probably didn't really deserve it, or to err on the side of not blocking one who probably did?
A: The latter of the two options is clearly better, for two reasons.
  1. It's more in line with the spirit of keeping good faith.
  2. In 99% of the cases, editors who "probably" do or don't deserve a block aren't committing infractions which would cause irreparable damage to the encyclopedia. In most cases, any damage they caused to articles can quickly be reverted and disputes hopefully can be settled through the mediation process. However, blocking an editor who may not deserve it may alienate a potentially valuable contributor to the project. WP is, and has always been, a project where anyone can contribute. As an admin, I would feel an obligation to keep it so.

Optional question from Hidden Glass:

7. A terrible plague has wiped out all of the other administrators on Wikipedia, and you, as the sole surviving administrator responsible for clearing the backlogs on WP:SPEEDY, notice the Responsible information management article tagged with a {{db-nonsense}} tag. The article has existed since 2005 and has been edited by 15 different editors. What action will you take?
(What a cool question. Reminds me of the Choose your own adventure books I so once adored.) the_undertow talk 08:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A: God forbid that *I* inherit the keys to the kingdom... Keys to the Kingdome (prior to its implosion, of course), however, would be pretty damn awesome...

I wouldn't speedy this under CSD G1, as I don't think it qualifies as "unsalvageably incoherent". (My experience is that the criteria for CSD G1 are interpreted very liberally, but that's a different story.) I was unable to access the external link in the article text (gateway errors on my work server), which would help me to determine if "Responsible information management" is the name of a company (which probably would allow me to speedy it under CSD A7) or more likely a business concept (in which case, AfD would be the way to go).

Question from SMcCandlish (talk):

8. Selecting one item listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that has a strong majority !vote count to delete, but on faulty justifications (misunderstanding of policy, "I don't like it", etc.), explain, citing relevant policies, guidelines, procedures and/or precedent, why the article should be kept (alternatively, invert delete and keep; or select a CfD, TfD, or MfD instead if nothing in AfD seems to fit this pattern, though that is highly unlikely; or select an AfD that has already closed as "delete" that you think should not have been, and has not been sent to WP:DRV yet. Keep your personal opinion of the subjective value of the item or its topic out of the equation, as this is a demonstration of administrative not editorial judgement.
One that struck me is:
Kasumi Nakane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (View AfD)
The nominating and !voting editors made two errors here: 1) assuming that an absence of English references available online eliminates the possibility of a subject being notable (see WP:IDONTKNOWIT & WP:GHITS) -and- 2) not making use of the Japanese resources we have at our disposal, such as the subject's page at the Japanese WP (ja:仲根かすみ) or consulting WP:JAPAN (a possible alternative to deletion would be a translation of the ja: article). Now I don't speak, read or write Japanese, but it seems apparent that she is a notable celebrity in Japan, with several films and DVDs to her credit, plus what appears to be a career as a recording artist. And if I'm correct, it looks like she was hired to do the Japanese dubbing for The Chronicles of Riddick, so she may be notable for doing voice-over work as well. Caknuck 03:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Concur, though the en.wikipedia stub may be too badly written to bother with, on other grounds. Good eye. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Caknuck before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Sure. Excellent editor, and a trustworthy nominator. Can't go wrong. Giggy UCP 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support In addition to mainspace edits, this editor is also well-represented at AIV; CfD; AfD, etc and well-versed in vandal warning and associated actions too. A good candidate, so far as I can see. (aeropagitica) 00:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - seems good, and I trust Shalom as a nominator. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Through understanding of policies and guidelines, good answers to questions, would make a good admin. (→O - RLY?) 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. SupportAs far as I'm concerned, the candidate is fully qualified. It's the recent edits that count, and I see nothing worrying in those. GrooveDog (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support as nominator. Shalom Hello 02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. I've only had one memorable interaction with this user, which could have been negative, but was quickly resolved. On that basis alone, I will support. --After Midnight 0001 02:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Good candidate, seems ready for the mop. J-stan Talk 02:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support A great and thoughtful editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Long-term editor, reasonably wide experience & thoughtful answers to optional questions. Espresso Addict 05:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. One of the better sports specialist users we have Jaranda wat's sup 05:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Weak Support I like what I see, but would also like to see your talk edits rise. I believe it is important to not just sit back, but to get more involved. Jmlk17 06:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Strong support The only time I recall having any contact with Caknuck, he helped me settle a large dispute with another user. Ksy92003(talk) 07:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Consistency in editing is excellent. the_undertow talk 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Experienced in all the right areas. More participation on talkpages and you'll be perfect. Lradrama 08:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Track record appears consistent and good response. dr.ef.tymac 11:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - We already have so many admins..We Don't need one more.....do we ?.--Cometstyles 11:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Strong support excellent nominator and an excellent candidate here. No problems here. Acalamari 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support A Canadian who can't spell is a great admin candidate. :-) All kidding aside, seems a solid contributor. Pascal.Tesson 18:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support —Anas talk? 22:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. This user has plenty of experience, in areas that matter. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Contribs indicate that user is experienced. Will not misuse the extra tools. --Hdt83 Chat 06:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support, great! @pple 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Don't see any issues here, like his edit history. Give him the mop already. Trusilver 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support per TheFearow and consistent with my RfA guidelines, notwithstanding that I regard one's being a fan of the Texas Rangers as prima facie evidence of his being possessed of supremely bad judgment. Joe 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    I was prepared to argue this point, then then I remembered that I've spent hard-earned cash to watch Chan Ho Park struggle through four innings. Caknuck 03:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. Bearian 22:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support seems to be a good candidate. --Aminz 09:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Looks fine to me.--MONGO 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per nominator. Peacent 09:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Huh. Thought you were already. In any case, I've only seen good things from this contributor. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Somehow I knew I would end up changing my neutral to support. —AldeBaer 19:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Like the contributions and answer to Question #1, and trust Shalom as nominator. Darkspots 19:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Good answers to the questions on deletions show understanding of policy DGG (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Great answers to all of the question. Seems very level-headed and well-informed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support - Trustworthy editor. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Suport not enough like this one ~ Infrangible 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools, good answers to all the questions. Davewild 07:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support as Davewild Harlowraman 10:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Great answers to ALL questions. Politics rule 19:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

This is unusual, since I support most of the time. But I get the feeling that Caknuck's low discussion participation and interaction experience somewhat shows in situations like this and this. Certainly not to a degree that I would oppose him over, but as this RfA is at all probability going to succeed, I decided to make this a moral neutral. —AldeBaer 14:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Both of these instances were touched upon earlier. The first diff is the interaction with the sock of Mariam83 that I referenced earlier. If my responses to the user sound terse, it's because I was simultaneously busy reverting the edits from this user, trying to contact the admin who blocked the user's previous socks, and adding to the report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mariam83 (2nd). After reviewing the puppetmaster's talk page, I surmized that trying to rationalize these edits with the user likely was fruitless, so I did my best to maintain decorum and refrain from having things devolve into a series of personal attacks.
As for the second diff, this was the interaction that After Midnight mentioned above. (The other half of the discussion is located here.) I think that both AM and I may have made some quick presumptions about each other's intent, and I admit that I was too quick to take offence in this case. But as AM mentioned above, we quickly realized that it was a rather inconsequential matter and resolved it amicably. Caknuck 16:01, 27 July 2007 (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.