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

Canaen[edit]

Final (0–1/20/3) end 04:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Canaen (talk · contribs) – I'm honest. I like to think that I'm farily intelligent, as it's what people tell me. I can be trusted to do what I say I'll do, and to help others if they need it. I don't always have all the time in the world for Wikipedia, but when I do, it's usually a lot, and it gives me some free time. It'd be nice to be able to help people with that time more so than I can without admin powers. I'm not very good at describing myself, but I'm certainly open to question.Canaen 08:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

  1. Strong Support: Most users below brought friends into mix over Veganism article dispute. (Note- I have been using wiki for a long time, however anon. through NAU libraries.) Figured I would through in my support for someone not part of the wiki elite. redpatcher 10:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit NSLE (T+C+CVU) 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose: User just violated 3RR today in the article Veganism (see [1], [2], [3], [4]), showed extremely belligerent attitude in the ensuing edit war, leaving edit summaries like "Fixing the ignorance of Idleguy" while blanking whole sections. With this attitude, I don't think the user is ready/suitable for adminship. --Ragib 09:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Also, I'd like to point out that the user has less than 500 edits over a year (Kate's tool is not running now, but I can see that the contribution page doesn't go beyond the first 500 entries). --Ragib 09:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose: He's actually close to a block for harrassing Idleguy and got general uncivility on the Veganism article. I have a feeling he wants to become an admin for the wrong reasons. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose: He has actively sought to edit articles and remove large sections which are clearly cited with sources and has been very negative on me as stated by above admins. I would not want to see him as admin anytime soon. Idleguy 10:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose: In addition to harassing Idleguy, he has harassed me for making changes to Veganism that violate his POV. He uses multiple IPs to the point of sockpuppetry and, in general, has a negative and taunting attitude. He edits in bad faith and has a complete misunderstanding of NPOV. Skinwalker 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Clear oppose. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. as per all of above.--Dakota t e 19:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - essentially asserts that he will use admin powers in his own conflicts. BD2412 T 20:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose for reasons cited above. Silensor 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - should not use admin powers in own disputes. Willing to change vote next time.--File Éireann 21:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose less than 500 edits despite almost a year in Wikipedia. And reasons stated above. Olorin28 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. "Close to a block" and "admin candidate" in the same sentence doesn't sit well with me. Mo0[talk] 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - FrancisTyers 23:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, Low ammounts of edits, very low use of User talk, need more interaction. Your contributions to Wikipedia, (of) which you are particularly pleased article below is a Red Link xaosflux T/C 00:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose all of the above --rogerd 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - not convinced that user would make a good admin -- Francs2000 02:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. We don't need more admins. 202.58.85.8 07:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC) strike out anon vote, anon users cannot vote on RFA.  ALKIVAR™ 08:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - only a small (<500) number of edits. --Bachrach44 17:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Oppose: User fails to endow reasonable confidence for correct behavior as admin. -- Znode 07:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose: gave the wrong answers to the RfAd questions (I didn't even realize that was possible!) Ashibaka tock 02:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Oppose Somebody call a bureaucrat to close this already. Everything I think has already been said above. karmafist 20:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Answers to questions...seem...questionable. As per Woohookitty (below). --Wikiacc (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Not to pile-on, but please withdraw? NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 00:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please?' ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Merovingian 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

That makes sense. Though, I'd make it known that I don't see very much difference between using sysop functions on an article you were working on, and Calling on a friend to do it blindly. Canaen 06:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Except "a friend" do not do it blindly. If you see any actual examples of admins on Wikipedia behaving irresponsibly, you are free to bring it up, instead of giving unsubstantiated claims. -- Znode 07:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would hope that they wouldn't in the future. If I thought that it were worth it, and that it would do me any good, I would bring the issue into the light. However, until I see a second occurence, particularly one that hinders the improvment of an article I'm working on, I shall refrain. Canaen 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. I deal with a lot of Radical, Controversial articles. Veganism and Anarchism-related articles in particular. Being able to protect pages for a bit so that we can resolve differences would be unimaginably helpful. As well, easy-revert abilities. Unfortunately, I'm not on for extended periods of time all that often as mentioned above, so I won't be the most active Sysop, but I hope that that won't discredit me right-off.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, I am very much pleased with the establishment of the Scottish Wikipedians' Notice Board, of which I am a semi-active participant. The controversial topics I am generally far from pleased with, as there is always room for struggle.
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. Not so much, actually. Recently however, several users have been distressing me as they are simply confusing the Veganism article with irrelevant information that is misinterpreted, so as to mislead readers (bordering on Vandalism). So far, I have made my qualms known, and cleaned up the article, in full view and open-ness. Waiting for said users to defend the content they keep reverting, with no defence save a personal offence.
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.
Category