Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Callanecc

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndreJustAndre (talk | contribs) at 02:46, 3 December 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Callanecc

Final (138/1/1); ended 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC) - Callanecc is now an admin Andrevan@ 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Callanecc (talk · contribs) – I'm very pleased to be able to put Callanecc in front of the community as a potential addition to the admin ranks. Back when I passed my RFA, I spent a couple of weeks treading very carefully whilst I got used to the new toolset. During that period, much of the most useful and pertinent advice came from Callanecc's direction - such was his knowledge of administrative tools and procedures that I assumed he must have been a long-term sysop; it was something of a surprise to be informed otherwise. Callanecc's competence and breadth of experience is evidenced by his appointment to a number of trusted roles on Wikipedia; as well as the run-of-the-mill rollback and reviewer rights, he is also a file mover and template editor, an ArbCom clerk, an OTRS responder and an account creator. In these positions he has been exposed to areas of Wikipedia that many admins would find daunting, yet his careful and methodical approach means that he navigates them with ease.

I have yet to see Callanecc lose his temper in a dispute, nor fail to back up his position with sound, policy-based arguments. Where other users are concerned, his attitude has always been that of a helpful guide, assisting both new and more experienced editors (including yours truly) to navigate the perils and pitfalls of the site. It's an approach which lends itself perfectly to the role of administrator, and I can easily envisage him supporting the content creators and maintaining Wikipedia's integrity whilst remaining largely in the background, politely pointing out the path to others.

Both his attitude and experience speak far more eloquently for Callanecc's suitability than I ever could. I'd ask you, therefore, to consider granting him the role of administrator; he will be an even greater asset to Wikipedia once equipped with a mop. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I am also very pleased to be Callan's co-nominator for adminship. As a fellow clerk, Callan and I have been in constant contact since January 2013, and he has shown a great deal of maturity and understanding every time we interact. Down to numbers, Callan has 20,800 edits, most of which are from his period as an active user (from January 2012 onwards). He has dedicated his time to a wide array of things from content work to account creation, and has managed to do so without being involved on any major or conflictive dispute. Most of the dramas he has been involved with have to do with his job as a clerk, but outside of it, nothing worth mentioning.

Apart from never been blocked, Callan has an impressive CSD log, and a nice PROD log that showcase his understanding of basic core content policies, and as a member of the clerking team, he is also aware of conduct policies, since they represent part of his work. He is also knowledgeable about other interesting and important policies about copyright thanks to his work as an OTRS volunteer, which is a area that would benefit from Callan having the tools.

Without much else to say, I invite you all to take a look at his contributions, and you will see that Callan is not only ready, but also has the spirit and best interests of Wikipedia close to his heart, and is prepared when it comes to administrative tasks. Therefore, I present him to the community to be granted the tools, so that he can do a better job at the tasks he does. — ΛΧΣ21 21:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind comments and confidence in me! I gladly accept the nomination. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My main experience with admin type areas has been dealing with vandalism, so I'll start working at AIV and RFPP where I am comfortable and experienced. The other areas I have a fair amount of experience are with new page patrol and page deletion so I'll also help clearing out the backlogs with CSD candidates and AFDs. My timezone puts me on Wikipedia when the majority of active "front line" admins aren't so I generally see backlogs which need admin attention. The admin tools would also come in handy for my OTRS work both for handling requests which need protection and/or deletion as well as when we receive permission to use images which have been deleted.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The articles I've created, because at the end of the day that's what Wikipedia is for. Content creation doesn't come easily to me so when I create articles like Dave Sharma I'm quite proud and happy with it.
But I think my best contributions are in the various places where I can help others, such as getting them set up with an account and talking them though their first edits (generally by email), answering their emails on OTRS and sometimes a simple quick edit to get them going (ticket (OTRS agents only sorry) and edit).
I've reviewed a number of articles at WP:AFC (these are the ones I accepted) last year and have been doing it on and off since. The thing I enjoy with AFC is that it gives users who would otherwise be unable to contribute a chance to do so, and it allows for collaboration (this for example, it's relatively old and I was pretty new, but an example of what I mean none the less).
I'm also quite happy with the discussions I've closed at AFD and ANRFC (for example 1 & 2), some of I needed to discuss further first. But please have a look and see what you think (searching for my username on this page should work).
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 been in a few conflicts, but none of them have been too crazy. Unfortunately it comes with the territory working in counter-vandalism and as an ArbCom clerk. I've also been involved in conflicts between editors (see here for example).
I've generally found that it's best to either take a break and get perspective or ask someone for a second opinion either on the substance of the conflict or on what you should do next. I've also provided some third opinions and worked with involved editors to try and get to a consensus, this for example.
I'll continue to do the same thing in the future, whether it's a dispute over content, a warning I've given or an admin action the best course of action is to talk and hopefully resolve the issue (like this).
Additional questions from Wifione Message
4. If you were to !vote in this AfD, what would be your stand? If you were to close this AfD today assuming it's pending closure (without choosing the option of relisting), what would be your closing decision and statement?
A: Wow! This is an extremely complex case, and I don't see myself getting anywhere near something like this at first without an experienced admin or two helping me along the way. The tl;dr version: I'd vote to redirect to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Suspicion per BLP and BLP1E concerns. There is a consensus to delete and redirect the article to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey so that's what I'd do. See the collapsed bit below for detailed reasoning and my full statement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed reasoning and my closure statement
To everyone reading this I apologies for the length, but I wanted to give the question the best justice I could.
How would I vote? There are a large number of reliable sources which seem to demonstrate notability per the GNG. However I don't believe that WP:CRIME would apply because Reich was not a perpetrator or wrongly convicted. There is also a strong negative perspective in the article, and per WP:BLPCRIME I'm not sure that that is appropriate to include a lot of other material about other offenses Reich is accused of because she wasn't convicted of the majority of them. It seems to me that Reich's notability was originally high profile meaning that she wasn't covered by WP:BLP1E. However, now I feel that his profile has changed to being low-profile and so is now covered by BLP1E (notability is not temporary, but it seems BLP1E can be). To that end I believe that Reich is notable only for the false confession and so is covered by the BLP1E policy. I feel that the article has a serious case of breaching WP:AVOIDVICTIM (such as the detail about Reich's childhood) and so if kept will need to be cleaned up significantly, this will lead to the article being stubyfied and focusing on the false confession (which as I've shown is covered by BLP1E). Given that Reich has effectively disappeared since 2011, strongly suggests to me that Reich wants to move on and is leaning towards being a non-public figure. After that essay it comes to my !vote, given my justification above regarding the other material in the article I would !vote to redirect to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Suspicion and maybe create an anchor directly to the paragraph about Reich.
How would I close it? Assuming you and voters in this RFA would also rather I didn't take the easy way out and say no consensus. In this case I've chosen to do a close statement similar to that of an RFC given the high profile nature of the discussion and hence of the close - I'd rather have people understand why I did what I did then be left wondering. My closing statement:
The result was delete and redirect to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey. This is an extremely complex discussion which referred to a number of guidelines and policies and their interaction in reference to this article. Those voting to keep argued that the subject clearly met the GNG and some argued that BLP1E didn't apply because of the continuing coverage. The consensus, and those voting to delete argued the only stand-alone event the subject was/is notable for is the false confession as the other events received the coverage they did because of the subject's involvement in this single event. Therefore the article is covered by the spirit, if not the letter, of the BLP policy (specifically BLP1E) and so it should be deleted. Some voters suggested that the resulting redirect be fully protected to enforce this outcome, at this stage I haven't done that but I impress upon everyone reviewing this decision that if they wish for a different outcome (including if they wish to create an article) they should first contact me on my talk page (per WP:CLOSEAFD) then submit a deletion review if required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Iselilja
5. User “I know best” has been involved in edit warring and other conflicts over at the article “Fucked-up”, and he is now blocked for a week. Would it be appropriate for an admin to unblock him on the condition that he promises to stay away from the article? If an admin has unblocked on this condition which the user has accepted and the user starts editing the article again after a couple of days without violating any standard policies, should there be any remedies against the user? Would it make any differences if he has been warned by an admin that his edits to the article after the unblock is in violation of his “article ban” and he still continues?
A: I remember seeing a discussion about this recently but I can't find it, if anyone could direct me there that'd be very much appreciated.
The unblock policy states that users may be unblocked if the "circumstances have changed, [or] a commitment to change is given" and this section implies that imposing conditions is an acceptable reason to unblock. So yes it would be appropriate for the admin to unblock on that condition, as long as the user has agreed. I'd be hesitant to reblock in the first scenario, I would first give a reasonably strong warning to the user that they are breaching their unblock condition, which might lead to either being reblocked or not being given the opportunity to be unblocked with conditions again. I can't really say whether a warning would make a difference to whether I'd reblock, because it depends on exactly what the user is doing with the article (if, for example, the conflict has been resolved then any reblock would be punitive, though I wouldn't be willing to unblock them with conditions again) and the user's past history (I have to assume they've been blocked a number of times before given it was a one week block, and if all that was to the same topic or article I may suggest a topic/article ban on AN). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Epicgenius
6. How much of a wikipediholic are you? Do you have a score, and if so, what is it?
A: Haha, I think being willing to file an RFA is a pretty good sign of being a Wikipediholic to some degree. In answer to the second part of your question I haven't taken the test, it looks a bit too daunting for me to have a go at now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Carrite
7. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another user name? If so, what name or names was or were those?
A: The only two accounts I've edited with is this one (Callanecc) and User:Callanecc (alt) which has less than 100 edits and I use for testing and on public computers. For disclosure I also have two doppelgänger accounts, User:Callanec and User:Calanecc, which I have never and never plan to edit with. The three accounts are disclosed on my user page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Northamerica1000
8. To what degree do you plan on contributing to discussion closures at AfD? What is your opinion regarding User:WilyD's comment in the neutral section below regarding your !voting statistics?
A: Mainly extending the non-admin closures I've been doing into clear delete cases. At least in the beginning, until I get some more experience, I don't see myself getting too involved in the ones which could go either keep or delete (apart from the odd, obvious no consensus). WilyD makes a very good point and I can very much see where they, and others, are coming from and their concern. I think in my early days I lent towards deletion as the norm. As I've become more experienced, understood how Wikipedia works and created some content myself (plus reviewed and moved to mainspace AFC submissions), I feel that my default (or preference) has changed towards keeping unless there is evidence otherwise. But I stopped voting at AFD (which I started as an extension of contested PRODs) before I realised and applied the importance of only deleting where there isn't another option. Meaning that I don't have evidence of that change, however I hope you and others reviewing my RFA can trust that I will be careful whenever I use the delete button (or vote, etc, for deletion). I hope that helps to allay any concerns people have. In any case, I think it's important that admins who use the delete button are available to talk and justify their decision with others, and that's what I plan to do whenever I can. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ottawahitech
8. Is a “content creation” background important for administrators?
A: I've sort of rephrased the question in my answer to is content creation important but I believe I'm still answering the question. Yes for a few reasons. The first is that they are expected to administrate around content. And to be able to do this effectively they need to know how content creation works and the effort which goes into it. Content creation is also a good way to both demonstrate and practice the application of a range of policies and guidelines. On a more technical level the autopatrolled right comes as a part if the package. But at the same time there are a bunch of other rights and expectations which come as part of being an admin or which are busy entrusted to them. So I hope the community can trust me not to abuse/misuse that flag, and trust that I have the knowledge and experience I need to be a new admin.
Additional question from Ottawahitech
9. Under what circumstances should red links be removed?
A:

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Yes! — ΛΧΣ21 02:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Long overdue. I think my comment here speaks for itself. Kurtis (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's about time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rschen7754 02:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Obviously. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Baseball Watcher 03:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm a bit ashamed to say I've never heard of the candidate before this evening (I feel wiki-old), but I have a feeling this candidacy is going to go very well. +1 to the inevitable pile-on. Good luck! – Juliancolton | Talk 03:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NW (Talk) 03:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Of course. TCN7JM 03:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sure. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support It's about time! I'm confident he'll make a great admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Wifione Message 03:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Good news -- Diannaa (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. I am also surprised that this didn't come earlier. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. About time. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 04:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. support Hobit (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support - Helpful, experienced and has a positive track record. ///EuroCarGT 04:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I'm another who thought he was already a sysop as he guided my early efforts. Important contributions in OTRS and ACC don't show up in public stat's. Callanecc is a patient and knowledgeable mentor and teacher as well as worker who quietly improves the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 04:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support As per Yunshoi and his excellent nomination statement.User has been editing regularly since Jan 2012 . Good Work in Account Creation having gone through this while patrolling the New Users Log and as an Arb Clerk. Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Great candidate. I am One of Many (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Looks good; dist is a small surprise. Glrx (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support – GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support: Mark Arsten and specially Doc Tree have said everything. Excellent work at Wikipedia and ACC. --Tito☸Dutta 06:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Outstanding contributor over a wide range of subjects and areas. We both reverted vandalism to the same page two minutes apart about an hour ago. (Not determinative, of course, but a nice coincidence in view of this RfA.) Donner60 (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good personal interactions with the candidate, has my trust. SpencerT♦C 08:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Hmm, how weren't Callanecc an admin already? KTC (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Rather delayed Support as nominator (what? I was sleeping!). Yunshui 雲‍水 08:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Yeah! Great and professional CVUA instructor. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Dlohcierekim 08:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. – Steel 08:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Will be a great admin. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support I've seen Callanecc around in a number of admin style areas and he has always handled himself competently and effectively, will be a great addition to the admin ranks. Valenciano (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support obviously. --Stfg (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support this one falls directly into the lap of "you're not already?" Over the years I have seen them around, I've seen plenty of clue, no abuse, good thought processes, and I believe there will be generally positive use of the toolset based on those past behaviours ES&L 11:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support if only to save me having to remember that he/she isn't an admin when I see their name on something. Which happens quite often. Sound candidate with no problems that I've seen. Peridon (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - He seems like a sensible guy. Nothing has been presented that would make me oppose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - no isesues whatsoever. GiantSnowman 11:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - I always assumed they were an admin. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support No concerns Jebus989✰ 13:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Yep Lettik (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - likely net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Trustworthy and qualified. Miniapolis 14:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Easy. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yes Yes and Yes! Sohambanerjee1998 15:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Knowing that this was coming, I should really be up there as a co-nom, but it all happened while I was out of town for 36 hours. I don't add qualifiers such as 'strong' or 'weak' to my votes, but if I were to, this is certainly a candidate whom I most firmly believe would be an excellent admin. I first got to know Callanecc through his work at the WP:CVUA as one of the few mature participants there who had not turned the project into a MMORPG. His additional work as an Arbcom clerk and OTRS agent (and I know what that involves) should leave no doubts as to his knowledge of policy. Polite, level headed, always willing to help - even admins! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support deserving! -- ɑηsuмaη « ৳ᶏ ɭϞ » 15:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support This is one of those cases where I thought he was already an Admin! I've had some discussions with Callanecc about ARBCOM matters and he was always direct and professional despite my many questions. Happy to support you! Liz Read! Talk! 15:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Of course! - His contributions and demeanor speak for themselves. He's already handy with the broom, the feather duster and the vacuum cleaner. Why not give him a mop too? - MrX 17:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - solid candidate, with plenty of versatility. Jamesx12345 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - No qualms here. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Natural transition from their current roles. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - I was active at the Ebionites 3 Arbcom and Callaneec performed well as case clerk. He/she appears to have the experience and maturity needed to make them a fine WP Admin.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Absolutely a net positive. Mkdwtalk 18:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support - I honestly thought he already was one. Phightins is Gone (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Per more than convincing statements by Yunshui and Kudpung. Widr (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - No issues here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. This RFA may end up being a close one, but I think you've got a shot... INeverCry 19:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Excellent candidate. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Long Overdue! My experience with this candidate comes from Account Creation, and I have only good things to say. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Let's just pile on :) Secret account 21:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. EXTREME! Oppose - For not showing up here earlier. One of the most qualified candidates around. Good luck, Callanecc. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 22:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Long time coming.--v/r - TP 23:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - trustworthy and experienced editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Very well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. I have no personal experience with this person, but they sound like a great admin candidate. Seems like a no-brainer. Rikster2 (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support SUPPORT – very trustworthy candidate with lots of edits; it looks like they are fit to become an admin. Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I've been wondering when this RfA was going to come around and I couldn't be happier to support you, Callanecc. MJ94 (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support --cyrfaw (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Extensive experience in admin related tasks and handled that well. I agree that this is overdue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support – I've never interacted with the candidate, but looks to me like he's very experienced and can be trusted with the mop. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support No reason to oppose. Waiting to see you with the mop !!--Pratyya (Hello!) 10:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Impressive answers to the questions. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Delighted to have you as an admin. Welcome aboard! :) -- œ™ 10:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Weak support. I am little uneasy with some of the CSD nominations such as US-ASEAN Business Council and Gyri temporales transversi. However the vast majority of nominations have been deleted. Lacking content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. "I thought he was one." Deb (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I am happy to support this individual. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per everyone else. Maybe someone should block him for a minute or two just so there is something negative to weigh against. --DHeyward (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Solid, hard-working, mature, and helpful. A pleasure to work with.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I have to agree you are a pleasure to work with. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support As others have said: thought he already was an admin. Anyone who has the patience to sort through Wikipedia's ever-growing crap pile and find publishable gems gets my vote. WilyD's neutral does raise some concern, so I hope that Callanecc exercises caution when dealing with CSDs and other deletion processes. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 18:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Everything looks good, and the answers to the questions (especially Q4, which I was very impressed with) are not only satisfactory, but above satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. What I have seen of Callanecc's work on Wikipedia is that this person has the right combination of objectivity, poise, patience, and steadfast dedication to neutrality to be a good administrator. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. This is a very easy support for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. They seem an experienced candidate, and it is good to see that they have both article-writing experience and experience in a more policy-related area like ArbCom. It Is Me Here t / c 22:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I see no reason not to. buffbills7701 23:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - I have seen this editor around in the past year, and after a brief look at the questions and edits I am happy to join in the chorus here in granting extra buttons. Jusdafax 00:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - I trust this user. --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - overall good candidate. Elockid (Talk) 04:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - A good choice as an admin, per the above supports.TheOverflow (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - The candidate has the right approach, especially with community interactions. Skillsets and mix of content and maintenance work good. I am seeing some well-respected community members with an excess of clue giving support. But that is irrelevant. I see a solid candidate. Good luck mate Irondome (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Can't see any reason this user doesn't deserve it. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Thanks particularly for your work at AFC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - very helpful and good editor. All the best. Tolly4bolly 13:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Yep! Iselilja (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support.^^What they said. Great candidate. — sparklism hey! 14:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Strongest Possible Support Callan is one of the most mature and level-headed people I have ever had the pleasure of working with on Wikipedia. I am very happy to see him here at RfA and I think he will make a wonderful admin. (One more comment and we are in WP:100 territory.) --Guerillero | My Talk 19:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose (?) - He's making the rest of us look bad in comparison. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - Good candidate, Most votes, Good luck. Blurred Lines 22:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Most votes? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support – Silly me thought Callan was already an administrator – just goes to show how exceptionally well they’ve managed their time here on the Project. Really satisfied with their work on RPP and AIV (always a plus!) and taking into account their impressive work in other areas, article management (CSD/PROD) highlights any rationale for support. Good luck & all the best! —MelbourneStar☆talk 00:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Weak Support in concurrence with Sal above... Technical 13 (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. The hell, you have my support as well. Take care. Alex discussion ★ 00:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - Modernist (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support --Rzuwig► 13:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Give this man a mop! --Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 13:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. 3 cheers for Callanecc! Although, please consider being less of a deletionist, I hate deletionists. Wincent77 (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Appears to have a good head on his shoulder and he's a deletionist, i have a special place in my heart for deletionists. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That better be the special place in your heart for hate. Wincent77 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Errr no lol I am a deletionist myself. It's ok I don't have enough time to tell you all the things wrong with me ;) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. Easy decision really. jni (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support per Deb. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 17:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - I've never interacted with you personally, but 100+ support !votes and no opposes is good enough for me! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - Great candidate. FunPika 21:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Strong support given everything above. 114 (now 115) support votes, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 21:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support, someone on my "What, he's not an admin already?" list. Huon (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Clueful, trustworthy, and (lucky for us) willing candidate.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support long overdue. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Strong Support - Callanecc has been invaluable in account creation, and I know he'll make a fine admin.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  01:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Honestly, I thought you were one already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - Clean block log, adequate tenure, no indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Good.--MarshalN20 | Talk 07:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Yes, OK. Good candidate! --►Cekli829 13:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support No issues, and seems solid enough. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Does effortlessly well the sort of things I tend to muck up. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support, with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Count me among those who assumed he already was one. Happy to pile on to make that a reality. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. NativeForeigner Talk 23:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Based on looking at his edit history and seeing all the reverts, DYK nominations, and participation in community discussions. Finealt (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. I agree. Callanecc will make a fine addition to the Admin team. Cindy(talk) 17:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Late but obvious support. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Strong support, very competent user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Obviously a great candidate for adminship. Best of luck to you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support I think that Warden raises a valid point in his oppose, which I encourage the candidate to take to heart. But for me, the positives of this RfA far outweigh the negatives. I wish you well, and thank you for your willingness to undergo this ordeal, and to assist the encyclopedia as an administrator going forward. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support, a little for selfish reasons: I'll be pleased when Callanecc no longer has to call on others to put through clerk actions that need sysop rights ;-). No reservations at all about this candidate. AGK [•] 13:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. I've come across Callanecc a few times; a great editor. Acalamari 16:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support, with caveat. Two criteria indicative of failure are tripped: AfD vote didn't match result 15.8%, Too many edit summaries are of the form "Reply" and "comment". Clean block log, 28 appearances on ANI, a sampling shows these to be uncontroversial. Three criteria indicative of success are tripped: Many edits (quite a lot in User Talk, presumably TW notices), Admin practice: Clearly in need of tools, given extensive RFPP and AIAV posting, Great CSD ratio of 1.5% (going back to July). The candidate meets their own previously stated RfA criteria. I advise the candiate to be cautious when closing xfD discussions, and request more meaningful edit summaries on talk pages. Josh Parris 00:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose The candidate's content creation is meagre. Looking at what there is, 2012 English Channel scallop fishing dispute seems to represent a minor fishing dispute as if it were the battle of Trafalgar. It seems to have been a minor news item and the article can't even decide what day it occurred upon. This reminds me of another recent diplomatic incident — the Jimmy Kimmel Live! controversy — for which Bonkers the Clown was indeffed. That seemed to be an over-reaction in the other direction but such lightweight stuff doesn't merit admin rights either. Warden (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Callanecc would become more involved in article creation. He has other good points that has already covered up this. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 16:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Colonel Warden makes a fair point, but we have to accept that, as the years pass, the opportunities for newcomers to make substantial contributions to "serious" topics will be fewer and fewer, and this will be reflected in the edit history of candidates. Deb (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's distinguish between new-article creation and content creation more generally. There may be fewer opportunities to create new articles on "serious" (whatever that means) topics, but there are plenty of rubbish articles out there to rewrite or improve, in just about all subject areas. I wouldn't vote against anyone based on a lack of new articles if they've done a decent share of those things. --Stfg (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But the candidate doesn't do much article improvement either, does he? 99% of our articles are not of good quality and so there's no shortage of such work to be done. I reviewed all the candidate's edits for April and I only found one edit which seemed to be proper editing. It was to Clovis North Educational Center. In this edit, various things are done. Among them, the statement "It was established in 2007 with Norm Anderson as principal..." is changed to "It was established in 2007 with Scott Dille as principal...". This change seems to be incorrect because it appears that Norm Anderson was indeed the initial principal and Scott Dille was appointed in 2011. So, that's one significant content edit in a month and it was erroneous. This isn't wickedness — accidents will happen — but it indicates the level at which the candidate is operating when it comes to our primary activity and purpose. The candidate should not be presuming to oversee and control other editors until he has demonstrated a higher level of competence and experience. Warden (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anybody cares. Nick (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As you don't seem to care enough to enter a !vote, I'm not sure what to make of your gnomic comment. The conventional wisdom is that adminship is no big deal and so a careless attitude is to be expected. Warden (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse off track discussion.—John Cline (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • WP:CSD#G11 states that "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." For adminship, I prefer editors who are willing and able to perform such constructive work. Warden (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The "article" was an advert that had nothing to do with the description of industrial ceramics, but there is nothing to stop someone from recreating it as a proper encyclopedia entry. In any case, Callanecc had nothing to do with the deletion, so how is this relevant to his RfA? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jianhui67 tagged that page for speedy deletion and this was done, despite the obvious notability of the topic. Jianhui67 appears to be a protegé of the candidate and so has been taught by him. This teaching activity seems quite relevant to the candidature. Warden (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was me who tagged that page for speedy deletion. When that page was created at that time, the content inside was unambiguous advertising. That is why I tagged it as G11. Do not even blame Callanecc for his teaching. I was still not very sure that time (September) as I was just a newly-graduated student. So blame me for tagging the wrong thing that time. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 19:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to dispute the logic of the oppose, which is reasonable, but is content creation a requirement to be an administrator?--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us create content. Some of us tidy the place up. Peridon (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Colonel Warden: I signed up for the AFC/A course because I am somewhat not sure about some policies of deletion and notability. There are only 3 instructors currently. Theonesean is not in my timezone. I was about to choose Kudpung to be my instructor at first. But I saw that he was not available. So I chose Callanecc to be my instructor. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 17:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't work, then teach.
If you can't teach, then administrate.
If you can't administrate, then legislate.
If you can't legislate, then litigate.

No teacher can watch their student 24/7. No student takes in all they are taught first time. Peridon (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral - AfD record shows a history of voting for deletion in almost all cases. In >80% of articles that would end up kept, Callanecc argued for deletion (although these are mostly old, they're all that's there to go on). CSD log also has a high rate of bad nominations (more at older times, but US-ASEAN Business Council and US ASEAN business council (for instance) were nominated in August as G11 and G12. G12s yes, but G11? No. Although the nominator also touts the PROD log, it also appears to show and editor who wants to delete first and ask questions later (if ever). In an era where we're concerned about declining participation, the delete first approach among admins who do new page patrol/CSD is a huge part of the problem. Similarly, most interaction with new users is dumping the large, intimidating templates on their userpages, which contributes to the hostile environment new users encounter. Although they have a lot of positive interactions, I can't find any with new users (which might otherwise allay my concerns) - although none of the ones I looked into were necessarily unduly hostile. So I can't quite oppose (not that it'd matter), but I'm concerned they don't have the right mindset for the admin tasks they want to undertake. WilyD 09:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admins won't be able to see the earlier versions. I agree that the promotional nature was low, but the intent was probably seen in the 'author' being User:US-ASEAN Business Council. Different admins work in different ways. I'd possibly have scrubbed the G11 from the reason. Possibly not. The G12 was the important reason. Peridon (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and I always argue that there is no such thing as a "bad" nomination if done in good faith. There are ones that don't meet with general agreement, but that's a different matter. Not trying to gang up on WilyD or anything, though. :-) Deb (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @WilyD: I'm guessing it's not exactly what you're after but these are the few I found on a quick look were 1 and 2 + this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate's record of voting needs to be taken into context. It seems like the majority of his recent votes were the right ones, which I think demonstrates good judgement rather than rampant deletionism. AGK [•] 13:59, 2 December 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Callanecc&oldid=584304427"