Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Canley

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] Canley

Final (62/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Canley (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) is a long-standing Wikipedian, with us since 2005 (he had an account on the original Nupedia :-) The majority of his contributions are a satisfying mix of major and minor article improvements), vandalism counter-vandalism edits, deletion process involvement, and inter-Wikipedian communication.

Canley, who I met only a few weeks ago, has no an empty block log ([1]), a nice, simple userpage and a simple signature. Plenty of barnstars and well-regarded by all who meet him. Canley contributes to a wide variety of Administrator areas, including Articles for Deletion, making useful ccommentary and edits ([2], [3]), as well as voicing his opinion via vote ([4]).

Canley is seen around the encyclopedia, making small improvements that improve the project as a whole ([5]). Overall, Canley is a bit of a hidden gem who can be trusted to judge situations placed to him in a calm, collected manner. I invite you to register your support, and grant the Mop to a great guy!

Anthøny 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honoured to accept, thank you. - Canley (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm pretty well-versed in AfD, speedy deletion, proposed deletion and countervandalism, so they'd be ideal for me to get my feet wet in the admin sphere. Other than those, I'd keep an eye on the Incidents noticeboard and for backlogs building up in the usual admin areas. I'd like to get into working on some of policy, templates, and portals, and I'm very aware these require a very delicate touch, robust consensus, and toes can be easily trodden on, so I'll be sure to be very careful and consultative before I take any steps in that area.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm most proud of contributing to saving several articles from deletion by rewriting and adding references, and seeing the AfD turn from Delete to Keep shortly after. Examples are: Smoko and Bogan. In terms of article writing, I'm very happy with some of the articles on Australian/Tasmanian politics I've worked on: Labor-Green Accord, Doug Lowe, etc.
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: The worst I've been involved with is several discussions on AfD that have become somewhat heated, but when I get a sense that the discussion is becoming aggressive or confrontational, I'll usually back off, sleep on it and either tone it down in the discussion or contact the user(s) involved on their talk page to work it out. At the end of the day, I haven't got any agenda or barrow to push, and while I'm passionate about Wikipedia, I don't think it's worth getting into any sort of conflict over.

[edit] Optional questions

  • 4. Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? If so, why? Simply south (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A. Wikipedia makes it so easy to correct and rewrite, plus I tend to do a lot of writing offline and if it's not going anywhere I won't post it, so I was going to say "not really"... however, I did just think of something: typos. I really kick myself sometimes because I tend to make quite a few more silly typos than I'd like, particularly as I am very pedantic about spelling and grammar in general, and partly because sometimes I tend to submit my edits without checking the preview properly. I pick up a lot of them myself, and I take part in WP:TYPO to hopefully redress the balance, but when I see a typo correction on an article I've started pop up on my watchlist, I'm certainly not proud of that. --Canley (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 5. When blocking a user, when should prevent account creation be used? Malinaccier (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A. When the user is creating accounts with malicious names, attacking or insulting other users for example. --Canley (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from Corvus cornixtalk

6. If your nomination is successful, will you add yourself to the "admins open to recall" category?
A. I'm determined to be accountable for my actions, but this voluntary recall system seems a litle too arcane, arbitrary and out of the mainstream for my liking. I'd like to see a bit more evidence of the system working, and from looking at the logs of recall requests, I'm not sure that it is. So in answer to your question, no. --Canley (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support. Good god, yes :) Qst 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 00:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support. Meeting him on the wiki and at Melbourne meetups, I had assumed he was an admin. Certainly, he will make a great administrator. --Bduke (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. Only problem I can see with this RFA is "has no block log" should be "has an empty block log". ;) · AndonicO Talk 00:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Fixed :) Anthøny 12:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support I see no problems here. --Sharkface217 00:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. Looks fine. Let's go BLUE--Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Er, not one already? Daniel 01:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely, Strong support Trusted and respected editor. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Yep, all looks good to me. RMHED (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. — DarkFalls talk 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Definitely. Kakofonous (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support Looks good here! Bgs022 Questions? Comments? 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Spebi 01:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Nothing wrong that I can see here. Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Absolutely, no worries about Canley. (Who could oppose the guy who was inspired to write about such cultural memes as smoko and Not happy, Jan!, even if he was entirely wrong about David Tench! ;)) Sarah 03:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. --'n1yaNt 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support There seems to be nothing to suggest that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support - an excellent and long-term contributor to Australian articles, and thoroughly versed in the mechanics of Wikipedia. Euryalus (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support. Has been an excellent contributor to Wikipedia and particularly Australian related articles and I would think he would continue in the vein as an Admin. --Roisterer (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. Excellent contributor over a very long time. As an aside, I've really appreciated his constant updates of events in 2006 in Australia, 2007 in Australia and now 2008 in Australia, which have effectively become a newsfeed on my watchlist. --Melburnian (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. There is absolutely no reason not to. Maser (Talk!) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support It's good to see a candidate who works to source and improve articles which otherwise might be deleted. Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support per nom. Harland1 (t/c) 09:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Good editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Everyone else agrees. Must be good. Rt. 11:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Yep--Phoenix-wiki 11:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Forgot-to Support, as nom. :) Anthøny 12:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support Sounds good! docboat (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support -- a trusted editor who'll use the tools wisely. - Longhair\talk 13:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Looks good (i.e., the nomination, don't know about the candidate). I dorfbaer I talk I 15:21, January 2, 2008
  34. Support Has everything I'm looking for Mr Senseless (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support Would make a great admin. Timmehcontribs 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support. Great work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify and meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support. No problems with me on this one. Razorflame (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support Great editor, no problems. Good luck! Midorihana∫∞ 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support, Canley's contributions have made Wikipedia a better place, and I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending the tools be given to him. Lankiveil (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
  40. Support Looks like a good administrator candidate. Archtransit (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. Weak Support. I very nearly opposed per the answer to q6; it's not the recall system that's at fault, it's the behaviour of some admins who refuse to honour their commitment to recall, and I don't understand why the candidate isn't willing to be open to recall. However, it would be grossly unfair to oppose all candidates who are not open to recall (since some people are going around opposing all candidates who are open to recall, and I don't want candidates to be stuck between a rock and a hard place). I reviewed the candidate's contributions and I'm very happy with them - a healthy amount of participation at AfD, coupled with extensive work on improving articles and adding sources (per Nick mallory's comments above, it's good to see a regular AfD participant who also works on improving articles, rather than becoming a "professional AfD patroller", a common problem at AfD). So although my support would be massively strengthened if he were open to recall, I am willing to support this candidacy. WaltonOne 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support Cheers, LAX 11:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support Fine. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support. Singopo (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support Good luck! GlassCobra 08:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 18:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  47. Appears to be a very good editor. Acalamari 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support this request. Well done.--VS talk 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support -Dureo (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support - trustworthy editor - will be a good admin - Peripitus (Talk) 05:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Support Great editor, judging by contributions. One note; Anthony, you called AfD a vote! Noes. :P Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 07:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I'm sure he appreciates it, but you already are listed as number 15. Dureo (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support Get that mop and bucket shined up and ready. Jmlk17 07:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  52. Strong support Good editor, operates in good faith, I've seen him rescue several worthy articles in a dire state on AfD and I believe he will be very handy with the mop. Orderinchaos 09:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support - I trust Anthony's judgement. The Transhumanist 20:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support - I have always liked his editing contributions --Matilda talk 22:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support. Rebecca (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  56. Australian-Cabal-Support. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support Refuses to be listed in the recall category CAT:AOR . Hesperian 12:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  58. *Cremepuff222* 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support Per nom, good editor.--Strothra (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support Looks good to me. Though (not related to the candidate but to this RfA) I think niether supporting nor opposing should not be related to recall. That's just me. James086Talk | Email 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  61. sure. --rm 'w avu 11:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support - Give em' the mop. Tiptoety talk 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose

Oppose Refuses to be listed in the recall category CAT:AOR . Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I respect your opinion, I also respectfully disagree with the point you have made. Recall is absolutely voluntary, and opposing an RfA because a candidate anticipates not listing his or herself in that category undermines the voluntary nature of the system in question. Furthermore, it also seems to question the judgement of the administrator(-to-be), in that they must be listed in a recall category in order to be trusted. In a case such as Canley's where that is clearly not the case, the question remains concerning whether or not you are assuming good faith on his part, and indeed whether you are simply making unfounded suggestions of non-trustworthiness. I'm not impressed. Anthøny 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that users are being blanket-opposed for both not listing themselves and listing themselves means that the bureaucrats could probably apply some discretion here :) Daniel 08:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference. The Wikipedia community is asked to trust the new administrator with the tools. In turn, the new prospective administrator refuses to trust the Wikipedia community with the recall tools. The other situation is different. A new administrator trusts the Wikipedia community with the recall tools. An editor thinks that part of the Wikipedia community is not trustworthy so opposes the new prospective administrator.
Ryulong has been the source of controversy. He is more behaved now than before his recalls. Whilst the recall process might be improved, I think Ryulong would not have changed his behaviour had there not been a recall. Given that Canley seems nice, I'll reconsider the oppose when I get back from a short wikibreak (it will just be a day or two). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You make some excellent points, MrsEasterBunny, and for my part it's more a lack of understanding of the recall process when put on the spot by a question from an editor clearly opposed to the process – like several other candidates I had only just heard of voluntary recall very recently – that prompted my reluctance than a blanket refusal to add myself to the list. I will certainly reconsider and look more closely at the logs and talk pages. If adminship is "no big deal", this shouldn't be either I suppose. --Canley (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no "recall tools" to trust the community with, so I'm failing to see the point. Agreed with Daniel's point above. Orderinchaos 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There are. The admin who places their name in the CAT:AOR is trusting that the community will not abuse its powers to recall someone when there are no grounds for recall. Canley is a nice person so I retract my oppose. I don't even want to put a neutral because that ruins Canley's vote count at the top and he's don't nothing major to deserve that. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact is, it's like telling people that a voluntary donation for entry into a museum must be paid... whoops, did my cynicism creep into this discussion? --rm 'w avu 11:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
An administrator must be willing to do things that are righteous, but provoke drama, and he's clearly not. Drama is sweet. I love watching The Days of our Lives. [[Image:Fellatio.png|This is the lake]] 11:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC) striking for consistency, other votes this user made were striken. -- lucasbfr talk 15:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
signature unlinked, user is indef blocked. -- lucasbfr talk 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
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.