Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceyockey

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.


Ceyockey

[edit]

Final (50/1/0); Ended 10:32 December 14, 2006 (UTC)

Ceyockey (talk · contribs) – Ceyockey has contributed to an impressive amount of articles over the scope of two years, focusing on articles about organizations and assorted biographies. Aside from that, he's active helping people on the village pump, and knows his way around process despite not being a regular. He can certainly be trusted with the keys to our broom closet. (Radiant) 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Nomination Accepted: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Statements

  • Time on XfD: I note some discussion in other RFA's involves the amount of time the candidate has spent in the various deletion forums. I have not spent time in those recently, but did spend substantial time in the TfD, CfD and RfD forums in 2005. I was involved in the discussions that led to the creation of RfD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification related to blocking of vandals: I did not explicitly say that I support blocks for repeat offenders previously, but I will by way of clarification. Repeat offenders - be they 'poopers' or 'haters' should be blocked. If a vandal spreads scat vandalism once - twice- three times and is properly warned in each case, a block is warranted on the fourth vandalism instance according to the existing blocking policy. However, there is a statute of limitations; four 'minor' vandalism instances over four months - not block worthy - but four 'minor' vandalism instances over four hours with warnings after each - block. I will state that again for clarity - repeat offenders are to be blocked, whether they spread scat or hate. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. to head off the potential follow-up question ... if it looks like someone is getting into a hot streak of vandalism - blocking without four formal warnings is, of course, permissible. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:52, 10 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:
I currently spend a fair amount of time patrolling a couple thousand pages for vandalism and would continue such surveillance, likely expanding it to cover some systematic territory around biology, business and biography. Administrative authority would allow judicious blockade following fair warning according to guidelines at Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The vandals I've usually encountered to date would not warrent blocking because they tend to act in a manner similar to 'he he - see, I can add poop to any article I want' rather than 'I despise this place and I'm going to blow up 100 articles in protest' or 'I really need to defame person X'.
An area which isn't specifically covered by the 'backlog' pages is in the complex page moves required to resolve some disambiguation page changes. For instance, if 'XXXYYY (disambiguation)' points at 'XXXYYY' and 'XXXYYY' is currentl a dab page but should be an article in its own right, the best way to resolve this is to deleted 'XXXYYY (disambiguation)' and move 'XXXYYY' to 'XXXYYY (disambiguation)', freeing the 'XXXYYY', which now is a redirect, to act as an article title without doing the 'no no' of copy-and-pasting content. I've run into variations on this circumstance several times and have usually passed it by as the process of explaining what is needed and nominating things for the non-controversial moves is not justified from a cost-benefit standpoint. With administrative authority, I could act on untangling non-controversial knots of this kind without second party intervention.
Finally, I think that spending time evaluating and acting on proposed deletions (PROD) would be a fine activity. I'm an inclusionist by temperment and I'd be inclined to try to fold content into related articles rather than delete outright if there is worthy content to maintain (for instance, I see KLTS Tower labeled with PROD; there are many many masts described in Wikipedia and I'd be inclined to fold the content into a list-article and redirect rather than delete outright at the end of the PROD period) ... though there are many articles so tagged that do not merit such consideration (for instance, Lovebaba, which I wouldn't have tagged with 'content seems unrelated to title' but rather 'unverifiable content').
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
I'm most pleased with a) Template:Infobox Journal (it gave academic journals an infobox of their own distinct from the generic Infobox Magazine template); b) the set Template:Top4, Template:Mid4 and Template:Bottom (though largely unused now, this was an attempt to port functionality from Wiktionary into Wikipedia as well as an attempt to write useful usage information for a template; the corresponding template set is used widely in Wiktionary ... at least at the time that I did the port to Wikipedia in August 2005); c) Attorney General of Delaware (unlike most of the other articles I've started, this filled in a basic hole in the explication of an elected office in a state of the United States where both the office and the state, Delaware, are underserved by editors; it also was created to serve persons who were going to vote in the 2006 mid-term elections in Delaware with some explanation of one of the offices into which they were going to be voting someone (by way of disclosure, I live in Delaware)).
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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:
The edit I'm most pleased about was a compromise wording in an article that in September 2005 ended a feud at Libertarian Party (United States) (see Talk:Libertarian_Party_(United_States)#Negative_Press_section_definitely_Point_OF_View). In this case, there was a standing feud between folks who wanted to use a section title that contained some variation on "Negative Press" versus those who wanted a neutral title containing some variation on "In the News". Neither set of choices really got to the heart of the content and implied the section was only a catch-all for emerging press reports that highlighted the foibles and successes of Party members. In reality, the section dealt more with the distinction between political and philosophical libertarianism and highlighted the ups and downs of persons pursuing office under either of those umbrellas. Choosing the section title "Libertarian identity" in one short burst of keystrokes settled the matter and it has been calm on that part of the article ever since.
I've been in a number of stylistic feuds since coming on board in the context of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation and Category:WikiProject Stub sorting. However, I've never been deeply involved in a truly disruptive conflict that impacts on a high profile, controversial topic that could result in the popular press taking notice (such conflicts are for instance like the Kolkata/Calcutta naming conflict or the WebEx controversy or the sometimes recurring Userbox Wars) nor have I been the subject of arbitration. After having gone through the period of occassionally stomping away from my keyboard with elevated blood pressure, my current philosophy is 'this too shall pass'; most conflicts are stylistic rather than content centered (or centred - another style conflict, that) and I believe in the 'content is king' argument for not setting the forest on fire by escalating style conflicts to conflagrations. For truly disruptive content arbitration, there are heads far more experienced than mine to tap for facilitating equitable outcomes.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Optional question from James086: Should people pay more attention to admins' views in discussions, XfD's and content disputes?
A:
No. Admins as editors should be treated like everyone else. In fact, an admin should in most cases be unrecognizable as such while engaged in conversations over content issues or while engaged in deliberation on the XfD forums. Admin tools are not meant to provide more leverage for the opinions of admins in content conversations; they are meant in part to facilitate the emergence of balanced outcomes in the face of disruptive behavior on the part of other editors. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:
WP:IAR is problematic in that it relies on a subjective criterion of 'improvement' and 'maintenance' of Wikipedia. If we Assume Good Faith, then many non-consensus notions of 'improvement' can be easily pursued with impunity under the WP:IAR clause. A key thing that is missing is the essential notion of 'consensus' in the WP:IAR policy. WP:IAR is an important part of the Wikipedia culture because it is a tacit admission that few if any rules that emerge from the culture are all encompassing or cover all future eventualities. Productive application of WP:IAR should lead to re-evaluation of the rule(s) that have been broken and, therefore, lead to evoution of the Wikipedia rule-set. Destructive application of WP:IAR should be dealt with through established dispute resolution processes.
WP:SNOW assumes that for a given decision, the consensus is known prior to sensing for it. I agree that WP:SNOW can be applied equitably; the problem is the ire that its application can provoke in those who disagree with its application. Therefore, the impact of its application is very much dependent upon the temperment of the potential un-consulted editors who would disagree with the decision. Such impact is also dependent, but to a lesser degree, on the willingness of Wikipedia to accept that the policy was applied incorrectly in a particular instance; such willingness is instantiated in, for instance, Wikipedia:Undeletion policy.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A:
Blocks are put in place to prevent an editor from altering or amending content in a manner that is destructive or disruptive to Wikipedia, regardless of the scale of the content alteration. In one sense, all blocks are punitive as they 'punish' an editor by removing their editing privileges, though the point-of-view evinced by the Blocking Policy states the reciprocal, that blocking actions are 'protecting' Wikipedia from the results of disruptive behavior. Blocks in response to undesirable editing behavior are no different in principle from removing a child's television viewing privileges or putting a criminal behind bars - some degree of freedom to act is removed. The key to being equitable is to block on the basis of action, not stated intent (i.e. don't get baited into blocking) or anticipation of intent (i.e. don't predict the future). However, the future might hold a circumstance that necessitates invoking WP:IAR, even here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A:
If the article provides no historical or industry context and the content focuses on describing in detail the products or services provided by the company, along with links to at least the company site and perhaps to each of the products and services provided by the company individually, all of those being external links ... those taken together would provide sufficient justification to consider the article under this speedy deletion criterion. However, I've not been confronted with this decision before and each article is unique. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kind of a long one - my apologies. You're at C:CSD, about to delete an article for an A7 band. It has an image of the band, PD. What do you do with it, if anything? What if it's copyrighted? What if the deletion is a G11 for a corporation - what do you do with the PD photo of the building and the copyrighted corporate logo? What if it's an expiring prod with same? Thank you. - crz crztalk 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A:
If the image is copyrighted and has not been explicitly ceded to a licensing scheme that is compatible with GFDL, it needs to be removed regardless of the status of the article in which it appears. Let's assume that the image fits all the 'ok to include' criteria, though. The non-notable band: delete the image along with the article if the image is not used in other articles than the one to be deleted; if the article about the band is non-notable, than an image of the band to be included in the article is also non-notable. The spam company-article: delete the image along with the article if the image is not used in other articles than the one to be deleted; this assumes that good faith efforts to create a stub article from the spam article or find an appropriate article in which to mention the company have not met with success. If the company can be included in Wikipedia as a stub or as a list item or as a mention in a topical article, then the image should be migrated to Commons as potentially of use to Wikipedia in relation to the article mention; this fits with Commons' scope statement "files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project". If the image in the cases noted above is already on Commons and is being included from there, due diligence in investigating use across Wikimedia projects should be done before initiating deletion proceedings for the image on Commons (umm, I've never had to do that, so I don't know how difficult it would be). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In the past 24 hours I just encountered my first speedy deletable image and kind of botched the nomination but got quick help and have a better appreciation for the IfD/MfD process now. (so many processes, so little time - but they are well-oiled machines with many moving parts rather than Rube Goldberg devices). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Indeed. (Radiant) 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Great user which definitely has the priorities of an admin. Acs4b 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Without a doubt. TSO1D 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Wikipedia needs more admins with regular Village Pump experience. Sharkface217 04:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely! Grutness...wha? 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Get on it. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Handles vandals well. Good editor, won't misuse tools. Delta Tango • Talk 05:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Quite a sufficient level of contribution at the projectspace & time on the project implies familiarity with process. WP:talk edits include 934 edits which include Stub sorting, Manual of Style with emphasis on disambiguation, Stub types, TfD, Templates, Redirect pages, Stub sorting/Guidelines, Citing sources, Stub types for deletion & Fact and Reference Check. This would appear to be sufficient wikiproject-related to satisfy the most stringent test. Editing is sound. Positive contributions to the Libertarian Party (United States); came through a rather famous dispute as generally resonable; meets the civility standard. No signs of incipient meglomania. Trustworthy enough to be an administrator with the ability to block/unblock/delete and reserrect. Do us proud - Williamborg (Bill) 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Looks like a reasonable candidate. (aeropagitica) 05:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Very good list of contributions, constructive attitude, substantial experience - there's nothing not to like. Sandstein 06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--Jusjih 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. How could I not support this candidate? yandman 11:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support The only reason I hadn't supported 'til now was because I was waiting (not long) for an answer to the question, which was highly satisfactory. Full support. James086Talk | Contribs 12:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Yes. =) Nishkid64 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Rettetast 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support looks like a good candidate.-- danntm T C 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Well presented nomination that satisfies any criteria. Agent 86 19:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. - crz crztalk 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Qualified candidate for adminship. Hello32020 22:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support –The Great Llamamoo? 01:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. bibliomaniac15 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Whenever I've seen this editor's work in the past it has always been good. -Will Beback · † · 06:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support A very good editor. Excellent nomination. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Always good to see a worthy nominee; good luck!. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support This is a valuable wikipedian. TonyTheTiger 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support as all of my interactions with Ceyockey have been very positive. Very qualified, IMHO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support solid answers to RfA questions and has a good contribution history with plenty of disambig work. Seems like a fine candidate.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-09 00:48Z
  33. Support Every possible reason. The Mirror of the Sea 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support good candidate. feydey 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I've seen him around for a long time and he's never shown any signs of being a dick. What more could you ask for in an admin? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Seen him all over the place. A good, thoughtful editor. Will make a great admin.--Anthony.bradbury 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Solid answers, appears to have the qualities to have a steady hand on the tiller. Skyemoor 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support. I see him all over the place, solid history of contributions, strong answers, and most of all, the correct answer to John254's question (c.f. User:Mindspillage/admin). Titoxd(?!?) 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support no problems, good contributions, great candidate. ← ANAS Talk? 12:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Will make great admin, although I'm not very fascinated with his article contributions. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment smiles I'm tempted to ask what would fascinate you, but I believe I understand where you are coming from. I have not done much long composition on Wikipedia, rather opting for addition of short passages or relatively minor revisions. That is mostly a consequence of my feeling the sustained time to do a good rewrite on an article is substantial and I've not had that to devote; by the same token, my not having done it suggests (to me as well) that I might not do well at that activity. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support balanced contributions and temperament, active anti-vandal (much needed at this time). Skyemoor 15:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)User has already voted once. --Majorly 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, definitely. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Poop he he - see, I can add poop to any RfA I want. --Daniel Olsen 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Are you kidding?! Conscious 13:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Zaxem 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Terence Ong 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. - BanyanTree 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - some of the people who I have been most impressed with in my short time here are admins who make it their job to help others rather than hinder them. Ceyockey looks to me like he'll be that sort of admin. Milto LOL pia 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus
  49. Support Seems good. Just H 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. riana_dzasta 10:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose -- Stated refusal to issue blocks for scatological vandalism: "The vandals I've usually encountered to date would not warrent blocking because they tend to act in a manner similar to 'he he - see, I can add poop to any article I want..."[1] John254 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This candidate has posted the following on my talk page: "Do you believe that a single scatological vandalism instance warrants a block? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)"[2], to which I am responding here, since it relates to this RFA. A "single scatological vandalism instance" might well merit an immediate block without warning, if a user posts a graphic photograph of human excrement to an unrelated article, or if the vandalism appears to be similar to the work of a known prolific vandal. Users engaging in ordinary text-based scatological vandalism should be warned with template:bv, and blocked if they persist after the warning. In any event, the statement "The vandals I've usually encountered to date would not warrant blocking because they tend to act in a manner similar to 'he he - see, I can add poop to any article I want" is totally unacceptable, as it implies an unwillingness to issue blocks for scatological vandalism. I find Ceyockey's assurances to the contrary to be unpersuasive, especially as scatological vandals should be blockable before they have managed to commit four acts of vandalism, even without a specific finding that "it looks like someone is getting into a hot streak of vandalism". John254 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification of your position. I believe we mainly differ on the anticipated degree of response to this type of vandalism and the impact that it has on Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that you feel I do not take tough enough a stand against vandalism. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I feel compelled to say one more thing here — if the general consensus were 'block scat vandals on sight', I would do so. I don't think there is such a general consensus though - but I could be wrong and that would be a consequence of inexperience rather than obstinance. If that is the concern, that I am going against generally accepted practice, I don't intend to do that and would abide by generally accepted practice in this area. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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/Ceyockey&oldid=1146588545"