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

Cantthinkofagoodname

final (58/0/1) ending 23:50 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Cantthinkofagoodname ( talk · contribs) – CTOAGN has been a registered user for about six months now, and has spent that time well, writing two FAs, becoming the Wikipedia equivalent of a household name in the football (soccer)-article-writing subsection of the community, assisting newish users in learning the Way of Wikipedia, and just generally being a top bloke, and doing it all while supporting the wrong football team. He's already a great asset as an editor, and I'd like to see him become a great asset as an admin as well. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 13:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 23:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Extreme nominator support. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support No problems with me. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 00:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support - Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk) _(Contribs) 00:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Goal eh Support Dr Debug 02:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Extremely long username support. (KTHXGOAL) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 恭喜发财! 05:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. -- Tantalum T e lluride 06:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support -- Ter e nc e Ong ( 恭喜发财) 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. M e rovingian { T C E} 06:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support -- Whouk ( talk) 12:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support. Would be strong support, if only he didn't support the Manure Man U. Grutness... wha? 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support. Agnte 13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. F.C. Vote of Support. Qwghlm 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support. Good contrib's, no problems. Marskell 15:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support unlikely to abuse powers, but share some of Grutness' reservations about the editor's support for the Manchester Marlins Pete.Hurd 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support John Reid 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Goooooooooooooooooooooal! — BorgHunter ^ubx ( talk) 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support. Good experience with the user, especially with regard to David Beckham.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. If-I've-ever-given-a-support-vote Support One of the most responsible, level-headed, intelligent editors I have come across. - Aabha (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support. Oldelpaso 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support -- NaconKantari e| t|| c| m 20:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Back of the net support! howch e ng { chat} 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support No reason to oppose! -- M @ th wiz 2020 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support. Should make an excellent administrator. Hall Monitor 00:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support-- Ugur Basak 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support. Surewhynot? Pschemp | Talk 05:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support, fantastic work on the history of Manchester United pages. Be very careful about whacking people with the blocking stick as soon as you gain admin privs, though. Proto  t  c 12:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support. I have been very impressed by CTOAGN's dedication to Wikipedia. I have absolutely no reason to believe that he would be anything but a level-headed admin. Rje 14:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support: -- Bhadani 15:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-02-01 15:37 Z
36. Support Wohoo! Let's get a Featured Article on soccer during the Superbowl (Superball?) — This user has left wikipedia 16:39 2006-02-01
37. Support. Welcome aboard, Cant. Can I call you Cant? – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 19:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support good editor. -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support. Mushroom ( Talk) 00:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support -- Jusjih 03:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support cantseeareasontonotsupport.-- MONGO 06:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support. -- Adrian Buehlmann 10:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Definitive Support. Without a doubt, CTOAGN (who incidentally does NOT support the "wrong team" - at least in my humble opinion) is a fair and honest editor, who has developed poorly written pages (mine especially) and would be a very good Administrator (again, humble opinions abide). DAAdshead 15:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support All in 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support. Hope you enjoy the maintenance chores... haz ( user talk) 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support Mjal 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support. Excellent editor, give him the mop and the flamethrower already. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support. See no reason for concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support Great editor, a valuable contributor within the Wikipedian community - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support without making any comment whatsoever about why, exactly, I'm supporting, because it's so durn obvious after all. BD2412 T 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Cantthinkofagoodreasontooppose. >Radiant< 11:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support. -- Myles Long/cDc 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support, after edit conflict. Silensor 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Support. — A 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support. I thought he already was one! WikiFanatic 00:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support I've worked with CTOAGN on several articles and he is a very good and trusted Wikipedian. Essexmutant 14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support, not like you really need it, but I didn't want to miss the chance of voicing it. Congrats! Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 21:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support. Jonathunder 23:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Neutral

1. While I appreciate your "I am primarily interested in editing" stance, the eagerness to use the revert button and to chase down vandals concerns me. Please see WP:ANOT. Please also be aware that one does not require administrative privileges to revert. Avriette 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   For the record, ANOT is not policy or guidline, and was created last week. And while one does not need admin privelages to revert, it really really helps especially with frequent vandalism - and one does need adminship to block said vandals. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   However, it was forked from WP:GRFA where it had been living for quite a while. howch e ng { chat} 22:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 00:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• See Cantthinkofagoodname's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I'd better correct a couple of things that fuddlemark wrote:
  • I was only the major contributor on one of those FAs - Denis Law. I did a good few hours work on Arsenal F.C. to get the article featured, but Qwghlm deserves the credit for that one.
  • I've been here for 9-10 months.
  • I do not support the wrong football team. :-) File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'm going to be very busy for the next day or two, so might not be able to answer questions as quickly as I'd like (UK tax return deadline is tomorrow). I'll answer any that come up as quickly as I can. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'll set up an email address during this RFA and notify you when it's done. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Done. CTOAGN ( talk) 12:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Remove that image from your sig and I'll support you. Please. — BorgHunter ^ubx ( talk) 02:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Done. CTOAGN ( talk) 12:24, 31 January 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, 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've seen new admins have problems getting into situations that need someone with a little more experience, so I'll start slowly. I'll make use of the revert button straight away, of course, and I'll block persistent vandals that I spot instead of listing them on AIV. Once I've got some experience of that without any complaints that I'll watch AIV occasionally and block vandals that are on there. I won't use sysop powers in any areas that I don't have reasonable experience in, so I won't, for example, close AFDs unless I get more involved in that area and have a good idea of how it's done. I'd have liked to help with writing SQL querites (I've got 5 years' experience as a professional SQL developer) but it doesn't look like Asksql is coming back.

I'm much more into editing than cleanup, but would find the tools useful now and again. I think I've been around long enough and done enough work on here to show that I'm not going to use them maliciously, but I'm not going to use them as often as other admins. I don't see this as a problem myself, but I know there are those that don't agree.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. The contribution that I'm most pleased with was taking Denis Law from little more than a stub to an FA before reaching 1000 edits. I'm also the major contributor to F.C. United of Manchester, Manchester United F.C. and David Beckham. FC United is especially pleasing as the club is very new so I've been writing about its history as it's been happening, and the article regularly gets praise on the club's messageboard. It's also attracted a lot of good edits from anons.

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. Nothing major. I think my edits have been reverted a total of about 5 or 6 times.

Some time ago, an anon added some POV edits and complained on WP:3O when I reverted them. [1] He/she also re-reverted some of the changes but was quickly reverted again by User:Sam Vimes. I decided just to ignore the listing on 3O unless/until someone offered a third opinion, and it was eventually removed by another user. I gave a third opinion on Talk:Raffles Girls' School (Secondary) regarding whether Annabel Chong should have been listed as an alumnus. There were fairly strong feelings on both sides of the debate but it seems to have died out.

There was a discussion on Talk:Ronaldinho about whether a sentence along the lines of "Ronaldinho is the best footballer in the world" was acceptable for an article, and recently I've been in a debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive#Renominating articles.

None of that has caused me significant stress. I find it more annoying when I do something like getting Manchester United's 125 year history down into a few short paragraphs and then seeing a newbie adding two paragraphs on the non-notable events of the previous month, but I have to remember that I was new once and my early edits weren't as good as they are now. I think I've always managed to stay polite in these circumstances and don't see that changing.

4. How do you rationalize the use of a copyrighted image ( Image:Fcunitedbadgepic.gif) on your user page? Have you considered removing it to avoid copyright problems? -- Tantalum T e lluride 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Note: BorgHunter ( talk · contribs) removed that image from CTOAGN's user page per WP:UP and WP:FU at 2:42. 31 January 2006 (UTC) [2] — BorgHunter ^ubx ( talk) 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It's been removed, but I feel like I should answer the question, even though doing so is unlikely to help the nomination (just the opposite if anything). I didn't have any ethical problem with the use of the image on my talk page and there was never any danger of the club taking offence at it being there (if I hadn't have been certain of that I would never have put it there). That said, WP:UP is clear enough and I don't mind it being taken off there. CTOAGN ( talk) 12:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! -- D e ath phoenix 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm having a busy day, as I said above, but I hope to have time to answer these this evening (UTC). CTOAGN ( talk) 12:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

5. When would you use {{ test1}} to {{ test4}}, and when would you use {{ bv}}?

A. Test1 etc. for "silly" vandalism such as writing "hello" or "look I can edit wikipedia!!!!", bv for more serious vandalism (profanity, "sneaky" vandalism such as making what looks like a good edit and changing a couple of dates) or users who've been blocked before (especially if more than once), as long as I'm sure it's not a dynamic IP address.

6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A. It depends on what they've reverted and why. If they were reverting obvious vandalism, there'd be no problem (the 3RR rightly doesn't apply to vandalism reversions), so I'd just add the page to my watchlist and possibly watch their user page in case they reverted again and were wrongly blocked.

It's much more likely that you're referring to an edit war though, in which case I'd suggest the users discussed their differences on the talk page and tried to come to a consensus. If the article was on a subject I understand, I'd offer my opinion. I'd also ask both parties to cite a source for what they were writing. I would be very reluctant to block someone for this unless they were being disruptive in some other way.

7. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A. This isn't an area that I plan to work on for the time being, but I'd have to be certain that the subject of the article wasn't notable and that few other people would consider them notable. If there was any doubt at all, I'd use AFD.

8. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A. I'd find some credible sources to cite for what I was writing. If I know who wrote something that I think is POV, I like to discuss it on their talk page first, but when I don't do this (sometimes it's so obvious that I make the edits straight away) I often leave a message on the article's talk page.

9. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A. The babysitting can be quite tedious. We have a few immature (not necessarily young - I'm well aware that we have some great contributors who are still at school) contributors who are constantly seeking attention and think that getting a consensus means whining on talk pages until they get their own way. I find the best thing to do is ignore them, but it's not always possible and it's sad to see people who can make good contributions to Wikipedia having to waste time arguing with them.

This doesn't affect me personally, but the system where logged in users can't use a machine if its IP is blocked is crazy. I realise IP blocking is needed now and again, but don't understand why the software can't make exceptions when a non-blocked user tries to log in on that IP. Maybe it's done that way to prevent vandals creating accounts and continuing to vandalise, but surely there's some way we can ensure that user accounts that have more than a certain number of edits and haven't been blocked can log in? Not perfect, but it would be a major improvement on what we have now. CTOAGN ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply

10 What's the policy trifecta, why do people think it's important, do you agree with it, and how should an admin apply it?

A. It's the three well-known rules WP:NPOV, m:DICK and WP:IAR, which some people say summarise the other rules on Wikipedia. I agree to some extent - if you're not breaking any of these rules you're unlikely to be doing anything too wrong. 'Ignore all rules' is slightly too much of a generalisation to be taken literally though - I've seen people use it to excuse breaking the other two trifecta rules which kind of misses the point.

Admins (and everyone else) should apply these rules with common sense. 'Ignore all rules' is a fairly good approach when dealing with new users - we encourage people to start editing pages as soon as they find Wikipedia and it's unrealistic to think that everyone will go through the MoS and all the policies, so it's sensible to give them a bit of leeway if they use the wrong type of section heading or put the wrong tag on an image and fix their errors for them or explain what is wrong while welcoming them rather than get upset because someone did something wrong. Applyjng the others seems straightforward to me - the policies for dealing with disputes relating to neutrality and incivilty are well documented. CTOAGN ( talk) 18:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.