Meta:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Candidate withdrew

Kanonkas

Kanonkas (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

I'd like to nominate Kanonkas for adminship. He has almost 500 edits of which 150 to XWiki spam reports, so I'm sure he could use the tools. He's already familiar with them as he is a bureaucrat at Commons and a sysop at the English Wikipedia. --Erwin 10:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Erwin. I accept. --Kanonkas 10:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support First! --თოგო ^(D) 10:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support First + 1! --Erwin 10:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good and experienced user. Barras (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, brilliant user. Fully trustworthy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per a number of issues about lack of knowledge of policy (indeed Meta policy), communication etc on Commons. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I am not opposing at this time, I share Herby's concern, I think that perhaps more seasoning time is needed here. I'm also concerned about this... I would ask if Kanonkas thinks he's got the time and energy to devote to this additional responsibility, or if conserving strength might be a better approach. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a small health issue that I don’t expect will last long. By the time this request is closed I expect to be back to normal. I'm confident I'll be able to keep my energy and time to the current responsibilities and an additional one. If I didn't, I wouldn't have accepted at this time. --Kanonkas 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone whom I trust. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Herby. Majorly talk 17:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm of the opinion that he can do this sort of maintenance work without many issues. So I feel he can be a net-positive with the admin bit. PeterSymonds 18:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Herby and Majorly. Razor flame 04:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was quick to support Kanonkas' request for additional tools early-on, but since then I've found numerous problems which lead me to question Kanonkas' suitability for the role. This is essentially an expanded version of Herby's rationale. In particular, communication has often been severely lacking, which would be critical if he were working on the spam blacklist. Reviewing his work there thus far, I don't see that he has shown sufficient judgment with respect to what should and shouldn't be blacklisted - in particular, I notice he's never made a single independent recommendation (the only recommendation was actually made by Jorunn) - that is an area I would want to see a pattern of good work prior to giving extra rights. His work in other areas (primarily evaluating reports & links and removing them where appropriate) is OK, but that does not translate into the requisite skill or knowledge with actual blacklisting, as I mentioned. I believe strongly that he should not be given tools affecting several hundred wikis until it is shown that he has the knowledge and judgment to use the tools appropriately - and that has not yet happened. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Herby and Mike. Finn Rindahl 10:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.snoopy. ✉ 09:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy to be doing this, as I have worked with Kanonkas and I nominated him for 'crat (not his first run, I actually opposed a previous run) at commons, because I thought he'd changed his approach significantly. But the concerns that Herby and Mike raise are significant. I had hoped to see the concerns Herby raised addressed. Sorry, not at this time. Perhaps at some future date? ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry to do this but I do not support this request for adminship, Kanonkas does great work here and on other project but he cant really deal with comments. On Commons he made a mistake with granting a user adminship with only 2 support votes where the Commons policy says that there need to be three votes, after trying to email him, contacted him on IRC I was forced to make a public note about this, in return I got a message that I should make a public apology because the way I acted was wrong so even when he does something against policies the other party needs to say sorry for pointing him on his mistake. But to bring this back on Meta, Kanonkas does work on the SBL this affects a lot of wiki's and can cause a lot of damage, I would rather see a user works on the SBL that can say I'm sorry I made a mistake than a user You need to say sorry because I made a mistake and you pointed me on that and I know we all make mistakes and nobody is perfect but I do not thing you're ready for a other adminship. Huib talk 17:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Question: - Kanonkas a little while ago we spoke on IRC about me running for adminship here on Meta, you told me that Meta was the worst project we had and that you would not get active there, could you please tell us why you changed your mind about that? Huib talk 17:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]