Select Page

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Canadian-Bacon

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


Canadian-Bacon

Final (101/2/3); Ended 04:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian-Bacon (talk · contribs) – I'd like to nominate Canadian-Bacon for adminship. He was one of the first users I saw avidly fighting vandalism when I started patrolling recent changes. After a short wikibreak, I was glad to see him back to his previous roles. A very efficient vandalfighter, he is clearly aware of the circumstances under which should a block be applied. Also, good record of participation within the Wikipedia space, such as XfD and RFA. His recent editor review is naturally prompting very positive feedback. 100% edit summary usage, friendly and civil, I can't really see any cons about this user that would surely make a fine admin and use the tools wisely. Húsönd 01:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this offer. Canadian-Bacon 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: At many times of the day, the backlog at WP:AIV can get dangerously long and many vandals are able to run rampant for up to an hour before an admin is able to pay attention to their case, so I don't think it would hurt to have an extra hand to help clear the backlog there. Another problematic backlog can occur at WP:RFP where another pair of hands wouldn't hurt and I feel that I would be able to provide assistance. I'd also anticipate watching WP:AN, most notably WP:ANI and WP:AN3RR and providing what help I could there. As far as deletions go, most of my experience is at WP:AFD and would be able to help in determining concensus and closing deletions there, as well as learning the ropes at the various other XfDs until I'm comfortable closing there as well. I could also provide help at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion where the backlog can become very long at points and clearing them quickly is important especially with potentially libelous attack pages.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As far as my article contributions go, I'm very pleased with the work I've done on Jay Peak. The article has gone from a stub to an article that looks at least half-decent. Another article which I'm pleased to have contributed to is YTMND which has been through a few challenges over the last few months. I'm also pleased with my contributions to Barrhaven which I've been editing since I signed up for an account. However, many of the contributions which I'm most pleased of haven't come in article form. I'm very pleased with the anti-vandalism work which I've done during my time here, as it has accounted for the vast majority of time I've put into the encyclopedia. As well, I'm quite proud of the mediation (although a small ammount) which I've done at WP:MEDCAB, in particular, the work regarding the Controversy section on the article for Keith Locke. This was especially important to me as I feel that I am a fairly level-headed individual and being able to play the part of a neutral party is one of the things which I pride myself on
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: As far as edit conflicts have gone I've been fairly lucky in avoiding any major ones to this point. As far as smaller ones go though I was involved in a small conflict on the page for Newgrounds when one user began repeatedly removing sections that he felt didn't deserve mention. I requested that he stop these removals so that we could determine concensus and try and make everyone who edits the page happy, to which he replied that what he was doing was in accordance with policy and that making everyone happy was not important. At this point I decided that it wasn't worth fighting over and stopped making major edits to the article while he trimmed it down to a size that he deemed acceptable. I tend to stay away from articles where POV can play a big factor as I don't believe that fighting with other editors is a constructive way to to contribute to the encyclopedia. In any cases where conflicts do arise I tend to back down and allow things to sort themselves out in the long-term rather than engaging in revert wars. However since I do believe that I can keep a fairly level head in cases of conflict, I've tried to help with a few cases at WP:MEDCAB with moderate success. As far as stresses on Wikipedia have been concerned most of them have come from external sources. I do my best to keep these stresses separate from my editing work, which is the cause for my large Wikibreak in October while I worked through several large projects at university.

Optional Question by Sharkface217 03:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?
A: You had to give me a toughie eh? The real issue about asking candidates their age comes down to two things really. First off is the main issue, which is Privacy Concerns. Though the candidate could easily lie about their age, many candidates may feel their privacy is being invaded, this is especially important when we look at the new WP:CHILD. The second issue at hand is the question of how optional it is to answer the optional questions. Recently it seems that the optional questions have become far more obligatory than they were ever intended to be, and this could leave many young editors feeling as if they have to reveal their ages. So, though I don't have anything against the question in Theory, in practice it seems to be very divisive. That being said I have supported young RFA candidates in the past regardless of their age and will continue to do so in the future, though, I hold nothing against those who would oppose young candidates since everyone has their own reasons and I'm not one to judge what they think, even if it runs contrary to my beliefs.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support! HA! I beat the nominator here.... anyway, I've seen Canadian Bacon on this place for a while. He is long overdue for Adminship. Sharkface217 03:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you too much support. Since the edit counter doesn't want to load, I'll assume you don't have something stupid, like no talk edits. -Amarkov blahedits 03:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. I wasn't expecting that to actually be a problem. Changed to neutral. -Amarkov blahedits 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support as nom. Beaten again, argh! Good luck. :-) --Húsönd 03:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom! Basically you are a very strong user who flat out deserves the tools. Cheers.— Seadog 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Just came from WP:AIV where CB (I hope you don't mind me calling you that) is hard at work-- a simply marvelous vandal fighter! Dar-Ape 03:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support per nom and my interactions. Come on, now you can clear out the WP:AIV backlog for once instead of contributing to it. ;) --210physicq (c) 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong-ish Support Has done incredible vandalism reverting! Great job! --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 03:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Good vandal fighter, and seems trustworthy. I am sure he will use the tools well. TSO1D 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Strong candidate. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - [insert cliche here]. MER-C 04:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support the kind of editor of which I have no qualms about giving admin powers.--Jersey Devil 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support John254 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Cleared for Adminship Excellent vandalfighter. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 04:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. From my experience, Canadian-Bacon has been nothing but an extremely civil and dedicated user, and should make a fine admin.-- danntm T C 04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Canadian-Bacon was all over the redirect vandals tonight. Give this man (woman?) a mop!--Kchase T 04:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok, we all forget what gender I am from time to time :P. Canadian-Bacon 05:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support A great vandal fighter! Gzkn 05:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - somebody's gotta clean up after the bot :o -- Tawker 05:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support Very dedicated user, would make a great admin. Somitho 05:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Absolutely! Glen 06:02, December 16, 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support per nom. Michael 07:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support a great guy. -- Selmo (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IP's can't !vote in RFAs. Please sign in.--Kchase T 07:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was my vote (logged out somehow) -- Selmo (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. <cliché>I thought he already was an admin.</cliché> --Slowking Man 09:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-16 09:24Z
  23. Support Looks like a good candidate. (aeropagitica) 09:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Seen around a lot, so yes. Bubba hotep 09:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, excellent contributor and fine admin-to-be, but now I want bacon, darnit. By the way, with some 2'500 user talk edits, I'll have to disagree with Amarkov: any failings he might have probably don't include an inability to communicate with others. Sandstein 09:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support He is an excellent vandal fighter. I've seen him around, a lot, and he is a great, civil user. He would be a great admin. ← ANAS Talk? 13:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Looks good to me. --WinHunter (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nom. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 14:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --Majorly (Talk) 14:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Terence Ong 14:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. --SonicChao talk 17:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Scrambled egg support. Good user, but would recommend xe looks into other processes besides AFD as well. (Radiant) 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: Looks good to me. -- s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You already commented just 4 hours ago (#28). Kimchi.sg 18:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He voted already. Sharkface217 19:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So sorry. Please forgive my absentmindedness. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 00:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support --1568 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support A respected editor, with alot to offer. Has quietened off over the last month or so, but edit history shows will respect the tools, and am sure will be willing to work outside of current areas of expertise. Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I am certain that he will do what he can do well, and will seek advice as needed. Will not abuse tools.--Anthony.bradbury 00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support a good candidate and vandal fighter --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Weak Support. Great user, could have had more experience in a few areas, but I'll sign on. I am a longstanding member of Jewish Fans of Bacon. - crz crztalk 01:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weak Support I think Canadian-Bacon will make a fine admin, more communication would do you well hence my weak support. James086Talk | Contribs 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Khoikhoi 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, possible sockpuppet of User:Ham.Support. — CharlotteWebb 04:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Yeah. Definitely. Appui. Oui. Certainement. Jorcoga† 05:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Yes. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support - Great vandal-fighter. Insanephantom 09:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support. I have seen this guy a lot. Rettetast 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support- Per good vandal fighter. --Natl1 13:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Useful. yandman 13:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Because it's lunchtime and his username is making me hungry. Also, seems to be a good vandal fighter Just H 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - fully qualified, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - great user and vandal fighter. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support-Looks great all around. Total trust.Ganfon 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - No concerns here. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Of Course, Support Great editor A+ Adminship is a yes :) WikiMan53 T/C edits 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong SupportReally good editor. Vandal-fighting is top-notch, too. King Toadsworth The Princess is in another Castle! 01:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support absolutely!! A great asset here: he's hard-working, friendly and contributes. He'll be fabulous as an administrator. -- Samir धर्म 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Positive contributor all around, you have my full support. 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. All-around great user. =) Nishkid64 02:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. A strong user who can use the tools. Heimstern Läufer 02:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. I've seen this editor around doing good work. Plus, very strong answers to questions. delldot | talk 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, looks like a great candidate. Kusma (討論) 10:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per nom. Coemgenus 13:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Good editor. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I am confident that he would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Should make a great admin. Dina 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support This has nothing to do with the fact that i love having bacon for breakfast, i casted by vote of support based on the questions answered by the nominee.i don't know this uxor personally nor i have talked to this person in any of the wikipedia talk pages. --RebSkii 19:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support <insert yet another tired old cliche (which is one :-)) here> (WP:100 anyone? --teh tennisman 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Based on what I've seen from Canadian Bacon in the past, he seems fit for the job. --andrew|ellipsed...Speak 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, good vandalfighter, will be an asset. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support please we need more vandalfighters. Alphachimp 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --WinHunter (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Winhunter, but you can only support me once :P Canadian-Bacon 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Pile on support! But really, this user is a great vandal fighter and would be an asset as an wp administrator! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Seen only reasonable, civil discussion on AfD. --Groggy Dice T|C 03:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support -- Gogo Dodo 05:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support He will be a good admin. Dionyseus 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Bucketsofg 11:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Despite comments below, he looks experienced enough to me.--R613vlu 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Hopping on board the hoser bandwagon. Good candidate, will use the tools as intended. Agent 86 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Granted, he doesn't have too many talk edits and is a bit new, but he more than makes up for that elsewhere. --Wizardman 20:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Mmm, bacon. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Seems like a great candidate. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Get on it! Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 01:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Weak Support A great user overall, but you need to have more talk edits, and maybe a Featured article for your "wiki-curriculum". ;-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Per nom. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. DVD+ R/W 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Great anti-vandalism work. Asteriontalk 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Joe I 21:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. the wub "?!" 22:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Pile on Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 22:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support- You'll be a fine administrator--SUIT 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support -Pile-on support, actually. -Kukini 00:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support -A great editor. hopfully this one goes to WP 100.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeon1006 (talk • contribs).
  93. Support -Will do great.--CJ King 03:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support, will make a good admin. --Rory096 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Particularly impressed by common-sense and cool-headed talk page contributions. --Dweller 17:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - Sure, more mainspace edits would be nice, but C-B can help out in selected areas and make a contribution that's enough for me. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Has done excellent work fighting vandals. Chairman S. TalkContribs 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support i'll help this get to WP:100 here, you pass my criteria but try to talk to people a bit more, for instance i've got half your total edits but 10 times as many talk edits, still you seem to be a good editor †he Bread 05:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. support, It' OK --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, yes. :) Proto::► 13:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Encouraging answers, great work all around, and I trust that this person will make a great admin as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. To steal a phrase from somewhere, "we can't only give admin tools where they relate to vandal fighting, we have to give them all". Equally, while whack-a-mole may be fun, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means that candidates should have some solid contributions in mainspace. I don't see them here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Angus, I prefer more article writing, the articles listed for number 2 aren't very strong (unrefernced) and I see little after that. Sorry Jaranda wat's sup 01:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Simply too few talk edits. I'd still go with weak support if you had lots of XfD discussion, but you don't. -Amarkov blahedits 04:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be too worried. He's edited in other talk categories and communicates clearly. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-16 09:26Z
    If by "other talk categories" you mean "user talk", yes. But I don't really care about user talk past the extent of warning vandals. -Amarkov blahedits 15:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Canadian Bacon is obviously a dedicated and sensible vandal fighter, but that in and of itself doesn't require the tools. I'm pleased to see some participation at AfD, but there's very little time being spent in the Wikipedia namespace outside of that. I care little for the idea of special-purpose admins who only take on one or two roles in the community; the sysop powers cannot be delimited in such a way, so the candidates should be vetted for fitness with regard to all of the duties of adminship. Canadian Bacon has apparently little to no experience in mentoring problem users and arbitrating content disputes, two roles for which an admin must be suited in my opinion. I cannot vote oppose, because the candidate has demonstrated good character and I must give him the benefit of the doubt, but I am concerned about the lack of well-roundedness. Good luck, CB. A Train take the 13:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral: Almost halfway there for talk edits (per my recommended minimum of 200); in another two months, I could've said "Support" for this. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.