Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ckatz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Ckatz

[edit]

Final (55/0/0); Close as successful by WjBscribe at 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Ckatz for adminship. Ckatz has compiled over 20,000 edits since January 2006 specializing in all things television, astronomy, and Canada. He's been mentioned as a good admin candidate more than once.[1][2] He is active at WP:AIV, WP:AFD and numerous WikiProjects, and contributes to guideline discussions. His work as a recent changes patroller stretches back over a year and he puts rollback to work cleaning spam. He's even dabbled at WP:MFD, WP:TFD and WP:RFD.[3][4] His user page shows several barnstars and I found no hint of incivility. A dedicated well-respected Wikipedian who is overdue for the mop. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination, with thanks to Wknight94 for the kind writeup and to HiDrNick for his offer to nominate me some months back. --Ckatzchatspy 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Over the past two years, I have tried to gradually expand into newer and different aspects of the project, and I see the role of administrator as a natural extension of that growth. In addition, the administrative bit would also allow me to simplify necessary tasks that I am already doing. For example, instead of tracking and repeatedly reverting an obvious vandal while waiting for AI/V to respond, I could address the matter directly. Similarly, there are a lot of housekeeping issues (such as page moves) that I'd like to help out with, jobs where right now I can only respond by "filling out the paperwork" and waiting for an administrator. I feel confident in stating that my track record with other tools - including popups, Twinkle, vandal-patrol software, AWB and rollback - demonstrates a responsible and careful approach that I would carry into all aspects of the position.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This question can be answered in a number of different ways; with that in mind, instead of a particular edit, or article, I'd like to focus on how I edit Wikipedia. I like to think that I bring a consistent, fair, and even-handed approach to the project. I try to presume good faith on the part of a contributor, and assess contributions with that in mind. For example, when reviewing a new contribution that at first glance appears questionable, I will take the time to do a quick search on the content, to see if I can find references or other mentions about it. If the contribution still isn't suitable, I'll try to suggest alternatives.
Over the past year, I've definitely gravitated towards a more technical role on Wikipedia, doing a lot of article clean-up, assessing new contributions, reverting vandalism, getting involved in some policy discussions and other such matters. That is in part by choice (my "real-world" career involves a strong role in content creation, so this presents an opportunity to do something different) and in part by my personal and professional schedule, where I have many, short periods throughout the day to do "quick hits" (as compared to uninterrupted periods for more involved tasks.)
I've tried to stay involved in a wide range of topics, again because it keeps things interesting. Looking at my "top contributions", I see a number of subjects that I'm interested in - along with others that I've no personal interest in, but that I've found need constant attention. Wikipedia, as with life, is an ongoing learning process, and I try to keep that in mind; if I make a mistake, I'm always prepared to take responsibility for it, and then work to correct it.
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: While I'm not happy to admit it, I have been involved in some conflicts over editing. A lot of my work here includes subjects that, while not "controversial", tend to attract a lot of newer editors and (unfortunately) a fair bit of vandalism. That can occasionally lead to situations where my revert is itself reverted, or a change I make is rejected because of a lack of understanding as to the various guidelines and policies Wikipedia operates under. Often it takes a few back-and-forth conversations to sort things out, but I've been fairly happy with the results to date.
As for stressful situations, I've certainly had my share of angry comments, nasty talk page messages, and even a one-man "Ckatz hate club" on Yahoo (courtesy of a banned user). I try to put it in perspective, and remember that this is something that we volunteer to do (ultimately) for fun. (Plus, no matter how long they may spend typing up vitriolic diatribes, it only takes a click or two to delete the text.)
How will I deal with conflicts in the future? I have two responses; first, I can say that I'll certainly continue to try to avoid it whenever possible. I've found that the longer I contribute, and the more I contribute, the easier it becomes to find ways to interact with potential "problem" users, and help them to see what the problem is and how to avoid it. Second, I feel that the addition of the administrator bit won't really affect the process significantly. If there is a personal disagreement between myself and another editor, it would not be appropriate to use the role of administrator to "resolve" that dispute. Even if I'm an administrator myself, I'd have no problem with requesting the assistance of another admin if it appears that my use of the "tools" would conflict with a personal involvement in the issue.
Comment I hope that the above responses help in your assessment of my candidacy. Please feel free to ask about any of my contributions if you would like more information. --Ckatzchatspy 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Keepscases

4. Do you know the tune of Pachelbel's Canon without checking? Be honest.
A: You know, I studied and studied for this exam, but there's always one question... Well, in the spirit of being honest, I'll have to admit that while I do know the tune (having just asked my partner to sing it), I couldn't recall it based on the name when I saw your question. (I generally find it easier to recall a song title, for example, from the first few notes than to recall the tune based on a title.) --Ckatzchatspy 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Centish

5. One area I've noticed you put a lot of work into is maintaining external links. On 12/18/07 you commented that you were opposed to the inclusion of a specific external wiki out of concern that the wiki contained instances of original research and speculation. Since the link was eventually added and wasn't reverted, could you explain your final determination on the issue? Did you agree that it passed WP:EL or did you just decide to remain neutral and withdraw your objection? --Centish (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thanks for the question. With respect to that particular link, both sides raised good points. Personally, I'm still not convinced the link belongs, but it is important to remember that WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. Accordingly, exceptions are allowed and in the end it became a matter of consensus to include the link. (Prior to the recent discussion, there had been a long-standing consensus to not include fan sites.) Will the discussion ever resurface? Hard to say, but for now it certainly isn't a high priority given that there are more important projects at hand, including a push to improve the overall quality of the project's articles. --Ckatzchatspy 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Q: If I may ask a follow-up question, if WP:EL in its current form were hypothetically a policy rather than a guideline, do you believe it would support or preclude (or neither) inclusion of such sites and why? --Centish (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Personally, I think the current wording - if interpreted as a policy rather than a guideline - would preclude the addition of sites such as the one in question. Generally speaking, many contemporary series have an official web site; it is also common to have an affiliated wiki. That can limit the benefits that might be realized from linking to a fan-driven site, especially given that such sites tend to lean toward more speculative interpretations of the subject matter. In addition, when you allow one fan site, you tend to get a lot of "me too" additions, as other sites argue that they should get the same access as "site X". (This is certainly not limited to fiction-related articles... I've found the suggested option of removing links and replacing them with an "Open Directory" category link helps a lot.)
Beyond that, I also feel that the text would need strengthening if it were to be adopted as a policy. These changes would be needed to cut out the existing ambiguities and provide more clarity in assessing what is acceptable, along with some specific wording that addresses the issue of fan sites in particular. (Discussions about this surface every so often, but I've yet to see something concrete settle in. A clear directive from the general membership would be beneficial.) --Ckatzchatspy 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Stifle
7. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. Article space only, and only if a free image is not available. The use of the image must improve the overall quality of the article, and cannot be used in templates or for purely decorative purposes. If the subject is alive, then it is generally considered possible to obtain a free image. (However, use of a non-free image may be warranted if it would be impossible to obtain a new image, or if the representation of the individual is significant; for example, if it depicts them at a much younger stage of their life, and if that younger "look" is an important aspect of their notability.) The image must include a copyright tag and a proper fair use declaration, or it is subject to deletion. --Ckatzchatspy 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support! Beat the nom. Will not go nutzo with the tools. Unlikley to block good-faith contributors without discussion first. ➪HiDrNick! 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Dlohcierekim 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Some very impressive contributions and experience. Definitely not going to misuse his new admin tools. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Great edit summary usage, good edit count, deserves the MOP. :) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - should have had the mop by now.   jj137 (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Very good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I have the utmost confidence that this user will make a tremendous admin. Excellent editor, very versatile. Got tinkles. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Late to the party nom. support. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Good all around, plus I have always been impressed with how well this individual handles unreasonable editors. Doczilla RAWR! 03:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: I find that the editor has handled him/herself well in light of several bad-faith editors, and that the contributions thus far have been very positive. I see no reason why you would abuse adminship if so granted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support You're not an admin? Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 03:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Just talk to your partner about classical music stuff, OK? Keepscases (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Looks good. Majorly (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Long-term editor with broad experience. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. · AndonicO Hail! 11:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support no evidence they will abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Seen him around doing great work. Will certainly make an excellent administrator, no doubt at all. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Some outstanding work over at AIV. Rudget. 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per above. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support And this Rfa didn't happen before because...? :) Jmlk17 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - prolific editor, great vandal-fighter, with the scars to show. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. We've certainly been on opposite sides of the table on some issues, but I don't feel as if he would be a bad, or careless administrator. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. yup - all the best Khukri 23:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support As per nom. Good track with over 14000 mainspace edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No problems here. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. After reviewing Ckatz's contributions, I am confident that he has the necessary experience, and has sufficient levels of trust, to function as a project administrator. Best of luck, AGK (contact) 20:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, seems a solid candidate. I am reasonably satisfied that they will not abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  31. Yes Will (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Sounds good Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Best of luck. :) GlassCobra 07:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Anyone who has an external website dedicated to hating them, must be doing something right! I've seen this user's work related to Canadian places and Canadian stuff. He made a great little template for 8-way geographic locations. —MJCdetroit (yak) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support, very responsible editor. @pple complain 17:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Pleasent, civil, well-rounded editor who can only be a net benefit to the work Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support good luck. Pundit|utter 01:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Will make a fine addition to the admin corps. —Travistalk 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - --Bhadani (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I have had positive experiences with Ckatz at WP:HEROES. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Bandwagon support. This candidate is a good one. нмŵוτнτ 14:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Time to get your long overdue mop. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per below? --Niyant (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support You would make an excellent administrator! Johnny Au (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - past contributions reveal an excellent article editor with a wealth of experience in the 'machinery' of Wikipedia. Should make a great admin. Euryalus (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Wow, impressive user. Give em' the mop. :p Tiptoety talk 01:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - No problems here —ossmanntalk 20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Seems solid in my book. ArcAngel (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Extensive line of edits. Puts helper tools to good use. Can be a good admin.  UzEE  21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Good editor. - Shudde talk 00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Excellent user: will make great use of the tools. Acalamari 00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - With 20,000 solid edits and a great track record, why not? Littleteddy (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I'll join in before this closes. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. suppport JoshuaZ (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ckatz&oldid=1140401630"