Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:06, 7 May 2020

CaptainEek

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (102/32/4); Scheduled to end 04:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

CaptainEek (talk · contribs) – As it has been too long without a nomination, it is my distinct pleasure to nominate Captain Eek for administrator. Having first joined Misplaced Pages in 2014, they really committed to the project in June 2018. Over that time they have blossomed into an excellent editor who is ready to be a Wikipedian administrator. You could certainly choose to support them because of their content work at Cactus wren (which they took from stub to FA) and at Vermilion flycatcher (stub to GA).

Maybe instead you’ll choose to support them because you’ve seen their work assisting editors at the AfC Help Desk or the Teahouse. AfC is a particularly tough help desk since many of those editors come in frustrated after having their draft declined, and often they have a conflict of interest; Eek is always respectful and helpful while still holding the line on our policies and guidelines. That’s not the only place where their thoughtful comments have enhanced the project. Everytime I read a comment of Eek’s at AN or ANI, I see someone with a level head and the best interests of the project and editors at heart. You can see similarly fine work from them throughout the project, whether with speedy deletions, at AfD or AIV, and in their RfC closes. So please join me in supporting CaptainEek for administrator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination

CaptainEek first drew my attention about 8 months ago when I received a request on my talk page to help with a request for a third opinion. I wasn't able to provide much guidance, but I observed as CaptainEek skillfully explained sourcing policies, expounded on best editing practices, helped to investigate sources and provide feedback on wording, and patiently worked with the other parties to improve the article. Since then I have continued to watch as CaptainEek mentored and adopted countless users, responded to their questions, and calmly taught them everything they needed to know to contribute to the encyclopedia. CaptainEek has all the qualities I look for in an administrator – a patient demeanour, a solid knowledge of policy, a willingness to teach and to grow the editor base, and a clear understanding of what this grand experiment of ours is all about.

I am grateful for the opportunity to help present CaptainEek to the community as a valued contributor – a content creator, a problem solver, a teacher, a wise and friendly face. For all these reasons, I believe that CaptainEek will be a great administrator, and I hope you will all agree with Barkeep49 and me and offer your support. – bradv🍁 03:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Howdy hello folks! I humbly accept. As is standard, I make it clear that I have never edited Misplaced Pages for pay, and have no other accounts. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ⚓ 03:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I wish to initially help out with vandalism, and work AN & ANI. The tools would also help me in the arena of NPP and AfC, such as in dealing with copyvios, username soft/hard blocks, etc. With that being said, I've always thought this question a bit odd. We don't just hand admins the tools they want, we hand them all the tools. I imagine that as an admin I would eventually end up using most of the tools available. However, I would dip my toes in pretty slowly, sticking to simple tasks such as AIV blocks and hanging around ANI, before carefully exploring the rest of the toolset. Additionally, I would close more contentious discussions. Though I think that any experienced user should be able to close a discussion, I understand that many members of the community wish that our most contentious discussions be closed only by administrators.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: My proudest piece is definitely the Cactus wren, which I took from stub to featured. It was the article that got me into editing Misplaced Pages, and I was very hyped that it was my first FA. Overall, my work in bird and plant articles is very enjoyable, and I feel that I do my best work there, including a recent GA for Vermilion flycatcher. In Misplaced Pages space, I have done a lot of work reviewing at AfC, and especially at the AfC helpdesk. I am also quite proud of my work adopting users, and helping out at the Teahouse and helpdesk. I think encouraging and teaching new users is one of the most important things we can do, and it is very rewarding :)

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: *Pirate voice* "If ye be asking if I had any mutinies? That's a nay matey". In all seriousness, my generally chill demeanor, and use of light nautical jokes has kept me out of trouble. That's not to say I haven't been in conflict, but the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle has yet to fail me. Additionally, my work in giving third opinions has given me a good feel for how to resolve conflicts. I think the most important thing is to assume good faith. Sure we say it all the time, but it is really so crucial. I've come across so many editors, who on first glance appear to be vandals, but upon assuming good faith realized were newbies who just hadn't gotten the hang of things. We were all new editors once, and being helpful and understanding goes a long ways. In dealing with more experienced editors, AGF takes a different tact: the key is civility. Even when an editor disagrees with me, I have to AGF that they honestly believe what they are doing is helpful, and realize that I could be wrong. Keeping discussions calm and structured makes sure that everyone gets along and that ensures that its easy to AGF. At the end of the day, I find it important to remember that we are all working to build an encyclopedia together.

Addendum: I see that people were looking for a more specific example of how I dealt with conflict in my past. I have not been in a great deal of conflict, but I'll point out an example that sticks in memory. Some time ago, I declined an edit request on Chelsea Manning. FeydHuxtable stepped in and questioned if that was the right move. We had a conversation, it was civil, I realized I was wrong, and changed a decision after listening to valued feedback from Feyd. I hope that anytime I'm wrong, I have the ability to realize so, as I did there.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from MightyKid

4. Given the purpose of WP is to build an encyclopedia, what is your take on people using more then one account to edit and how do you think it breaches community trust -- especially if the edits are not vandalizing?

A: If an editor has multiple declared accounts that they are using for legitmate purposes per WP:LEGITSOCK, such as to make edits on mobile so their password doesn't get stolen, that is okay. But regular sockpuppets, where an editor uses multiple accounts to make them look like separate people, are a serious problem. Sockpuppetry is one of the biggest possible breaches of the community's trust. Even if the accounts aren't vandalizing, Misplaced Pages works on the assumption that each of us is one voice. If someone has multiple undeclared accounts, they can use that to unfairly influence discussions or win edit wars.

Additional question from MightyKid

5. You encounter the following usernames at WP:UAA. How would you handle them and why?

• Tom Brady

  SexyEditor

  ILoveWikipedia

  HappySteward

  12-443-5678

A: Well I have to thank Bagumba for giving me the answer to the first one, as they have already soft blocked for impersonating a celebrity :) For SexyEditor, I would not give a username block. I would check their contribs to make sure they're not a troll however. ILoveWikipedia could be reported as misleading, but its not something like "WikipediaAdmin", as its not claiming to be something its not. I would not block. HappySteward is misleading, could be seen impersonating a steward. I would hand out a soft block, or a hard block if their contribs were negative. 12-443-5678 looks like it could be a phone number? I would check their contribs, and a google the number (which in this case is basically 12345... so I found nothing) to see if a hard block for other reasons was justified.

Additional question from Ritchie333

6. Why did you use rollback on this good faith edit, and why do you think it is not neutral to say Jo Cox was murdered instead of merely killed?

A: That edit was an error on my end. I made that reversion using Huggle, and take full responsibility. I was going too fast, and didn't look for the context around the edit. After that edit, the editor I reverted was understandably annoyed, and so I reached out to them and apologized. Ritchie, you and I also talked at that point. It was an enlightening conversation, and I contemplated the incident a great deal afterwards. It was a consequence of me valuing quantity over quality, and not assuming good faith. I realized that I needed to be making more quality contributions, and deal with newbies in a less boilerplate arena. Not too long after that incident I stopped using Huggle, because I realized it wasn't a helpful tool and encouraged WP:BITE behavior, and I dedicated myself to being more helpful. I've spent more time at the help boards, took on more adoptees, and worked more on content. For a sysop, this is a very valuable lesson. The tools, if used too fast or without thought, can be very harmful. Anytime I would ever use the tools, especially as a new admin, I would take my time, and be certain that I was making the right edit in the right way. It is better to make one good block a day, than to make ten good blocks and one bad one a day.

Additional questions from Naypta

7. You said above you find the question about what administrative work you intend to take part in to be odd. When should an administrator not take part in work which they are technically given the tools to do?

A: Well whenever an admin is WP:INVOLVED in a situation, they should not be using their tools, or the stature of their office, to affect an outcome

Follow up: Can you foresee any situation in which you were an uninvolved administrator but would not act using your administrator tools? Why or why not? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A: If I was unsure in a situation, and didn't know if I should use the tools, I wouldn't. I would ask for advice from another admin, or I would simply leave it to someone else. Better to not act, than to act wrong.

8. Do you think it is more important to be bold or be careful as an administrator?

A: Being careful is more important as an admin. As an editor, it is good to be bold. But an admin's tools are powerful, and should be used only when it is certain that they are being used right. Spiderman hits the nail on the head here: "With great power comes great responsibility"

Additional question from Dolotta

9. What areas of the English Misplaced Pages are you the weakest?

A: Technical areas. I'll be honest: I don't know how much of the coding or backend stuff works, such as script writing or doing template code. There are folks who do incredible work in that area, but I am not one of them, and I leave any technical edits to the pros.

Additional question from King of Hearts

10. An article is initially created by copy-pasting content from another website. Other editors come along and expand the article with properly written content (while leaving the initial content in the article). Later, it is discovered that the initial revision is a copyvio, and the offending sections are removed from the article. What actions, if any, will you take regarding the revision history of the article? Be specific about which diffs you intend to revision delete, and which of the three options you will select on the revdel dialog (you can select multiple options).

A: The non copyvio edits need to be preserved as best as possible to properly attribute contributors. The offending revisions with copyrighted text would be revdeled, with as few edits as possible being hidden. I would only hide the edits (i.e. "Hide revision text"), but not hide the edit summaries or contributor, unless there was another reason to hide them, such as being purely disruptive RD3 material.

Additional questions from Lee Vilenski

11. Your account is older than this, but you have been somewhat active regularly since June 2018. How might you respond to an extremely experienced editor who posts to AN about a subject you disagree with?

A. Disagreeing with an experienced contributor centers around respect, and a willingness to consider that I could be wrong. I would ensure that the conversation stayed focused on the content, not the contributor. I would calmly and concisely lay out my argument, and discuss it with the experienced user. If we couldn't talk things out, I would seek the advice of another admin. That's the great thing about Misplaced Pages, the community is there to provide help and mediation should the need arise.

11a. you have less than 40% of edits to mainspace. In your opinion, does this help or hinder your ability to resolve content disputes?

A. I believe that my work offering third opinions has been good experience in resolving content disputes, which I'll note is made up of edits to talk and Misplaced Pages spaces, which increases my non-mainspace counts. My edit breakdown is also a consequence of making a lot of edits through the AfC process, which inherently skews your percentages away from mainspace, and from tending to keep my content edits big (doing a lot at once instead of piecemeal).

Additional question from Interstellarity

12. In your opinion, what is the minimum criteria for an editor to be an administrator?

A: An editor is ready to be an admin when they are ready. I don't think we can create a "one size fits all" model of adminship.

Additional questions from Clone commando sev

13. would you if the situation arose violate one of wikipedia's policies to ensure that an article contains nothing but the truth?

A: Verifiability is not truth. Our articles do need to be as accurate as possible, a great many readers rely on us. But the "truth" is not our goal. As an encyclopedia, our goal is summarize reliable secondary sources, supported by primary and tertiary sources where appropriate. We are not crusaders for the truth, we are merely trying to present knowledge to our readers. It is also our job to present things from a neutral point of view. By presenting information neutrally, and giving due weight, we allow our readers to make informed decisions. Our readers are smart: we don't have to tell them something is true or false, or right or wrong, we can present information from reliable sources and they can figure it out.

13A. if yes, where would the limit be?

A. To answer this, I need to talk about ignore all rules. IAR doesn't mean that we actively and constantly ignore the rules, it reflects the fact that our rules are based on consensus, and that consensus can change. IAR in many ways underlies all of Misplaced Pages, as it reflects the fact that we have no immutable law, and encourages innovation. I don't think IAR should be invoked often. But especially when we're dealing with bureaucracy, IAR is an important tool to prevent Misplaced Pages from becoming Byzantine in its complexity.

Additional question from BasicsOnly

14. How would you respond to suspicious articles such as this article on Mr. Deepak Rao which is currently being investigated by the Bullshido Martial Arts Watchdog society as well as the Rickson Gracie Association for fraudulent claims? In your opinion does this article follow the requirements for a living person to have an article with regards to notability? What about with regards to the questionable integrity of the edits on this page over time and the suspicious claims? (E.g. multiple law degrees, medical doctorate, BJJ blackbelt from an academy that does not exist, unverifiable JKD ranking from a dead practitioner?, etc.) Deepak Rao

A: Struck as inappropriate WP:COATRACK. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions from Can I Log In

15. 24 hours into this RfA, here is what I'm seeing standing out in the oppose section. Immaturity because of your pirate joke in Q3, support of an unblock request, lack of experience, "hanging out" at AN(I), and bad usage of rollback (which you've addressed in Q6). Could you address those opposes or tell us why someone wouldn't support you?

A: The office of admin does require maturity, and seriousness. But we have to remember that Misplaced Pages is something people do as a hobby, i.e. for fun. Humour makes everyday editing more enjoyable. But I understand that in the course of admin work, humour can be problematic. In the course of my admin work, I would refrain from jokes, especially when blocking users, closing discussions, and using the tools. Also, the use of my "naval persona" is more for the benefit of new users who I interact with, for example my adoptees are my "crew".

I'll note I wasn't the only one to support the unblock of CaptainOccam. My view is that we should offer folks a rope, and that it is easy to ban people again if they misbehave. But to keep people blocked forever no matter the changes they make? How is that productive to us as a community? Still, looking back on it, I see that I misjudged the scale of Occam's misdeeds. It is clear that Occam has been more problematic to the community than I realized. However, as I am not a functionary, there is no way I could have known the same things the functionaries did. Still, if this says anything about me, it is that I believe contributors should be given second chances, and that we should be cognizant that we are blocking real human people, not just faceless accounts.

The issues of rollback I have covered in Q6, and the moral is: I'm being more cautious and focusing on quality, and would be overwhelmingly cautious as an admin. As an admin, I would also be open to voluntary recall, which would further ensure that I was careful and accountable.

Lastly: I'm glad that folks are opposing me, because it is an opportunity to learn. IF I passed with 100% support, my behaviors really wouldn't change. But because folks are willing to point out my shortcomings, I am able to notice them, and work on them. This RfA has already been very enlightening, and I have a laundry list of improvements to make. I realize that I need to take a closer look at the rollback guidelines and carefully go through the admin's reading list. Its a lesson to always investigate and not make assumptions (except for good faith). And its a lesson to always keep learning.

16. You seem to be a dispute resolution person. Would you be willing to close contentious discussions (e.g. XfD, RfC, whereever)?

A: I imagine that I would deal with both XfD and RfC type discussions. Though for XfD, I would enter in very slowly, I would stick to non-controversial discussions for a good six months to make sure I have a feel for things before I would even think about more contentious discussions. Its not like I would be closing a contentious RfC a day either, it takes a lot of work to make sure that you have read the entire discussion several times, understand all the relevant policies, have looked through the article/supporting material in question, and written an air tight close.

Additional question from Teratix

17. In Q1, you expressed a desire to close contentious discussions as part of your administrative duties and work at AN and ANI, where discourse can grow heated. Could you give an example of a discussion you have closed, preferably contentious or otherwise complex, which you feel best exemplifies your judgement as a closer?

A: I've gone through the archives and found a variety of examples, which I hope will answer your question. I gave a no consensus close on the touchy subject of Propaganda. For a taste of controversial ANI work, see this close. Though I must note that I prefer closing RfC type discussion, as it is less drama filled. See a village pump close here, dealing with the finer points of templates (a close I wish I'd had template editor permissions for). I was also part of this team close on Talk:Australia/Archive_20#RfC_dated_23_June_2019_-_Should_religion_be_removed_from_the_infobox?. I haven't closed as many discussions as some folks, but I find it rewarding and critical work, and hope to carry it on. Discussion closing is no small task, and requires a lot of examination, context building, and revision to craft an excellent close. At the end of the day, one has to remember that its not a !vote, but a contest of policy and arguments. Discussion is about building a rough consensus, not perfect consensus. And afterwards, a closer must of course be willing to listen to feedback, and have the ability to re-examine their decisions. I hope that I have all of those qualities, and am excited to keep polishing my skills.

Additional question from Robert McClenon

18. This question is about conflict of interest and in particular about paid editing. In cases where an editor states that they do not have a conflict of interest, but questions are raised, how do you think that administrators should balance the assumption of good faith against appearances, or against a duck test? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Valereee

19. CaptainEek, responding to opposes in the oppose section is a no-win for candidates; your decision not to is wise. If there's anything in the oppose section you'd like to respond to, please do. Consider this question indefinitely open but optional.

A:

Discussion

• Links for CaptainEek: CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for CaptainEek can be found here.

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nominator. – bradv🍁 04:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Support I've seen them around and they'll be good with the tools. All the best. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 04:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Support: Nominated by two people I have great respect for, and has a solid history of responsibility and listening to the viewpoints of others. Waggie (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
5. This is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Support, I expect great things from this one. BD2412 T 04:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Username may frighten children. History of impersonating naval officers and questionable ANI poetry. Levivich  04:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   I'll AGF on the username, most people here are concerned about what this person brings to Misplaced Pages and how this person will contribute. MightyKid (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   @MightyKid: Levivich's !vote is in the support section, the comment is pretty clearly sarcasm. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

8. Support - i have seen a few of your edits and talk page posts and they are all constructive and follow the policies VERY well. Clone commando sev (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
9. Support — Barring the fact that I actually thought they already were one, CaptainEek will make a great administrator if promoted. A calm demeanor, helpful to new users, and a willingness (and track record) to participate in the AIV/counter-vandalism side of the project. I wish you all the very best, CaptainEek! —MelbourneStar☆ 05:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
10. Oppose Per Admiralty Law, a seaman needs to be at least an admiral to be an administrator, hence why the two words share the same first four letters :P. In all seriousness, though, TB's oppose gives me pause and I likewise am unenthused of their answer to Q3 brushing aside conflicts, but I'm ultimately sure that they can Eek out a respectful existence in the admin corps for themselves. (I'll stop with the puns now, hopefully I've made myself clear that they're fine IMO.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
11. Support. CaptainEek is a dedicated, skilled editor who has the judgment, maturity, and competence to be an administrator. They have a clear need for the tools and they've earned my complete trust that they'll be a net positive with the mop. No one is born ready to be a Misplaced Pages administrator. There is a great deal of on-the-job learning involved and I can personally attest that every new administrator takes some missteps. The qualities that will make CaptainEek such a good administrator are their willingness and demonstrated capacity to learn, to adapt to challenges, to take both criticism and praise patiently and evenly. These traits come through well and clear in even a quick glance at CaptainEek's contributions – at the Teahouse, at AfC, at AfD, in community discussions, on their talk page, and when writing articles. CaptainEek's thoughtfulness and dedication to the project are exactly what we need in a new administrator now. CaptainEek has earned my strong support. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
12. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
13. Support - Has all that would be expected from an admin. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
14. Support – Clearly experienced and trustworthy. I also disagree with Tony that supporting an unblock request is indicative of poor judgement. I want administrators to refrain from acting unilaterally, not from holding an unpopular opinion. Kurtis 08:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
15. Support, I thought the captain was an administrator already.--Eostrix (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
16. Per Kevin, Barkeep, and the bird articles. I understand the opposes by Tony and Serial#, and they gave me pause, but ultimately I think the editor will be a net positive with the tools. There will be a learning curve, but Cpt.Eek doesn't strike me as someone who will not listen to friendly advice should someone bring a mistake to their attention. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
17. Support Always willing to help, very knowledgable, postive attitude and great problem solving / conflict resolution skills.   // Timothy :: talk  10:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
18. Support My interactions have all been positive. My criticisms of their use of English during a pre-FA check were received constructively. The opposes caused me to hesitate, but having researched a little further, I find it difficult to see how the Cap'n won't be a net positive. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
19. Support - Very helpful editor to all at the Teahouse + Help desk. Interstellarity (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
20. Support. Arr, here we have a good content creator and a trustworthy page patroller, who helps out new users. I think we need to make this person an admin, mateys. epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
21. Support. Has the qualification and did well. RuiyuShen 13:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
22. Support. Excellent candidate per above. While agreeing they may have showed a little youthful impetuousness, concerns are offset by the fact that they're open to swiftly changing their mind in the face of alternative perspectives (I gave them a barnstar for this last year.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
23. Support. Has content-building experience, and good temperament. I am taking in TB's comments below but I think CaptainEek will be a net positive overall Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
24. Aye, Aye Captain. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
25. Yarrrr — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
26. Support Has clue, I don't remember any negative incidents involving them. SemiHypercube 14:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
27. Has clue, not a jerk. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
28. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
29. Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
30. Support Very helpful and mature, exactly the type of person needed as an admin. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
31. (edit conflict) Support - Very nice work on Cactus wren! I believe this demonstrates that you have the skills necessary for adminship. To address TonyBallioni's concern, there's no way for CaptainEek to know about that since he is (obviously) not subscribed to functionaries-en, and content from the functionaries' mailing list isn't posted on-wiki for privacy reasons.
    As always, I don't see how any "AFD stats" are remotely relevant, since that's one of the most trivially gameable ways to "look good". (Simply vote with the majority in AFDs that are obviously going one direction to look good in the tool.) I'd rather a sysop who isn't afraid to offer a dissenting opinion over a yes-man who only encourages an echo chamber.
    Also, the answer to Q3 is clearly satireical. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
32. Support — Crossed path with him on one or two talk pages; knows his WP stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmab (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
33. Support Will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
34. Support Net-positive, no large issues. Vermont (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
35. Support The candidate is trustworthy — avoids careless errors. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
36. Support, I've had nothing but positive and helpful interactions with Eek. He's clearly very knowledgeable, and his work on Cactus Wren is admirable. I support an admin willing to voice his opinion and go against the grain rather than simply saying yes because everyone else is. I have no doubt he'll make a great admin. QueerFilmNerd 19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
37. Support Full steam ahead. - FitIndia 19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
38. Support Another "thought they were one already" support, which is as strong of a support as I can give. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
39. Support A great candidate with an excellent record of both content edits and constructive contributions to discussions.YUEdits (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
40. Support I feel that the Captain will make a great admin! GrammarDamner how are things? 20:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
41. Support Reasonable answers to the questions, appears to be competent and level-headed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
42. Support per above, per noms, CaptainEek will do great. --Puddleglum_{(How's my driving?)} 22:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
43. Super Support. I am proud to admit CaptainEek is one of the best of us and easily one of the nicest people in our community. I probably trust their judgement more than I do my own in all honesty. CaptainEek is just a very reliable person, and I was happy to encourage them to run in this RFA. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 23:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
44. Support. Fantastic editor with great experience who can be trusted. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
45. Support; points made by several opposers are valid criticisms, and there does seem to be something of a concern that CaptainEek can jump into things without quite enough due consideration - and clearly that's something that needs to be worked on. But overall excellent attitude and range of contributions seems sufficient to me, I think a clear net positive as an admin. ~ mazca 23:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
46. Support I'm often bothered by some of the most important and viewed articles on Misplaced Pages being pushed to B status or good article status and then left there. CaptainEek has shown some great leadership in avoiding this as he organized an FA push for Abraham Lincoln, that I have recently become involved with. It is really nice to see the 39th most viewed article and probably the most important US president being given some serious attention to be pushed beyond a "good" or "satisfactory" article. This combined with his collaborative and kind demeanor assure me that it would be worthwhile for him to become an Admin. Aza24 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
47. Support Editor is a clueful, kind, and pleasurable to work with. I believe they have taken comments in the oppose section to heart and will make better choices in the future. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    I also believe that. Ironically if I weren't a nom I'd have asked a question to let them demonstrate that rather than having to just speculating it is true. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

48. Support per L235. I have no doubt that CaptainEek is an experienced, positive member of the community who is worthy of the admin tools. DraconicDark (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
49. Supporrrrrrt. An RFA is not a decathlon. An admin doesn't need to be good in every aspect. In this case his marrrrrvelous work at WP:AFC and WP:NPP shows that he can work with newbies well, one of the important aspects of an admin. Of course, some users deal more with vandalism and less with good-faith newbies, in that case strong AIV competence is needed, as in the case of Materialscientist and Oshwah. CaptainEek doesn't seem to be one of this kind and from what I know, CaptainEek intends to serve clueless (?) newbies and his humor definitely helps. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
50. Support, good record at AfD and in other admin-y areas, excellent content record, history of assisting new editors, good sense of humour. Would clearly be a net positive. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
51. Support – Everything checks out, by now this user certainly deserves admin. Is also tolerant and welcoming to (and of) newcomers, which is one of the best aspects of a good admin IMO. dibbydib (T ･ C) 02:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
52. Support - net positive, and I trust the nominee will restrict themselves to subjects they feel more comfortable and as such are more experienced in. Iseultparlez moi 02:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Support - CaptainEek seems like a cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything. At Misplaced Pages, we don't think it be like it is, but it do. Good luck! CombustibleTaco (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Struck as a sock of Technoquacker. To the few who support me, I'm afraid I'm just dropping in for a moment. To the many who don't, not to worry, I'm just dropping in for a moment. CaptainEek, best of luck! --Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

53. Support has a clue, from my (albeit limited) interaction with them they seem quite competent. -- a lad insane (channel two) 03:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) ETA: I really don't think their supporting one unblock request is that big a deal. Sure, it was probably a questionable choice to support, but really. It's one unblock request. -- a lad insane (channel two) 08:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
54. Support I don't think the points supported by those opposing have any relevance. From what I can see, the central issue for many is that he supported the unban of an individual deemed disruptive. That should not have any relevance if it was put to vote, as otherwise he is being penalized for merely being part of a democratic process. Essentially that just says, "If you don't vote the way we want you to, then we will remember this and come back to bite you down the line". I don't see that as something to support. Additionally, from what I've seen here and from looking at the candidate's past activity and contributions I don't see any excess immaturity or incivility. Nothing seems professional, and I can't find any fault in their conduct. Concerning integrity it seems there is no fault to be found there. Additionally, as for motivations I see just the willingness and desire to improve the Misplaced Pages community. Though I was unable to ask my question to them, I see from the responses to the other questions a generally good judgement and character as well as a positive attitude that is constructive for the community. I support this nomination. BasicsOnly (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    BasicsOnly, Essentially that just says, "If you don't vote the way we want you to, then we will remember this and come back to bite you down the line" approaches a personal attack. Would you please strike that? —valereee (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Valereee: events have moved some, and BasicsOnly has now said they will stay away from this RfA. SERIAL 12:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

55. Strong Support Good content work and impressive community building. The pirate gimmick is funny. I also frankly can't help but notice the volume of people in the oppose section using incorrect pronouns for the candidate, signaling either that they weren't paying enough attention to actually cast an informed vote or else that they are inappropriately hostile for reasons that don't belong at RfA. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    I don't think it's a nefarious plot. There are various supports using the same pronouns. It's just easy for someone to rush in with "he'll make a great admin!" which snowballs into more people who aren't inspecting the userpage to just assume it's correct, because everyone on the internet must be male. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    I also don't think it's a nefarious plot. But it is not a signal of a careful vote. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

56. Support - from their response, I can clearly tell that the user clearly knows their stuff. MiasmaEternal 05:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
57. Support No major red flags that I can see and nothing, so far, in the oppose section that shows any major issues. PackMecEng (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
58. Support My kind of candidate. Happy to support. I encourage the candidate to explore script writing and template code. While it's fine to leave things to the experts, as all admins should have a working knowledge of such things. But not a show stopper for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
59. Aye. I've been impressed by the Captain's friendly helpfulness towards newbies. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
60. Support for excellent work in key areas, and because a sense of humor is a rare on Misplaced Pages. Satisfied with answer to question 15. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
61. Support. The candidate has made mistakes, just like all of us have - if we as a community set our standard for adminship as "never made mistakes", we would have no admins. I don't see that the humour is an issue at all, if anything it livens things up a bit From their responses to the questions above, I can see someone who's willing to try and make a genuine go of it, admit when they've made a mistake and done something wrong, and do what they can to fix it. That's the key quality I think is most important in an admin. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
62. Support - I like the candidate, and whilst I appreciate a bit more work to mainspace, no one can complain that the user doesn't know content creation with a stub to FA. Whilst "won't misuse the tools" isn't a particularly strong argument in my opinion; we should be promoting good editors such as this one. WP:NOBIGDEAL is to be expected here. As a suggestion to the candidate - don't embroil too hard into the "drama boards" straight away! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 09:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
63. Support. Excellent communication skills, visible in CaptainEek's answers to the questions, and in their interactions with other editors in talk and project space. Great content contributions. I am confident that CaptainEek will accept the opposing rationales as constructive criticism. — Newslinger talk 11:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
64. Support. I know them as a polite, cooperating and hard-working editor with impressive contributions such as Cactus wren which was a great pleasure for me to review. They will make good use of the tools and pay heed to constructive criticism. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 11:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
65. Support Positive attributes greatly outweigh negative.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
66. The documented lapses in judgement do not rise to the level of serious concern for me. Good, competent editor. – Juliancolton |  13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
67. Support. None of the reasons given to oppose seem strong. Some of them seem unreasonable. The candidate seems plenty good enough. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
68. Support. Excellent work in key areas, mature demeanour, interaction with new editors. Would be an excellent admin. Cjhard (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
69. Support — Despite the issues(minor) the oppose raise or have pointed out, there’s no denying that the candidate’s intentions are good, they are relentless in their hardwork & most importantly they definitely have a “clue” In the end in my honest opinion they are a net positive. Also they possess a great sense of humor, having an admin with a cool demeanor isn’t a bad idea.Celestina007 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
70. Support — They seem like they can handle the tools of adminship, and their work with bringing stubs to FA is truly admirable. Thanoscar21 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
71. Support --Minorax (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
72. Support - no question that Captain Eek has the qualities to be an excellent admin. He is a problem solver, and a neutral one. _Talk 📧 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
73. SUpport per nominator and my own observations of user, though I do understand the reservations of those in opposition, for whom Ihave great respect. I think this will work out. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 15:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Support per nominator. In addition, I feel confident CaptainEek has learned from their past mistakes raised by those opposing. --MrClog (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Moving to oppose. --MrClog (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

74. Support While I understand Tony's concern about the CO unblock request, I don't see a pattern of bad judgement, just a disagreement on one specific issue. I am confident the Captain would be a fine addition to the admin corps. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
75. Weak support: I'm surprised to find myself here for a candidate who says they want to work at ANI, because I believe the noticeboard represents everything that's wrong on Misplaced Pages. Nonetheless, I see no compelling arguments of consistent and sustained issues with CaptainEek's editing. I see a !vote to unblock a neo-Nazi, made without having understood the context. Not good, but we all make mistakes. It's not a reason to think that CaptainEek would misuse the tools in such a situation (as that's why you need community consensus for things like that). I see a very offensive mistake made about Jo Cox, but CaptainEek didn't know the situation, occasional false positives on Huggle are forgivable and CaptainEek handled the hostile response by both an IP and an experienced editor very calmly. I do not see a temperament problem, and I don't have a problem with any of the pirate jokes, so long as they're not made in discussions where there are users that are distressed or angry. Picking some edits at random, I see CaptainEek being true to their word about being patient and friendly to newbies. Overall, the opposes I see are explainable simply as this is a user who has made a lot of contributions to areas where it's easy to make mistakes, and those mistakes will be noticed and remembered by experienced users. Their AfC and NPP work (areas where we need hugely more attention) is what tips me over the edge to support. — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
76. Support - I don't see any indication in their past editing to suggest they would misuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
77. I guess if I'm going to leave a snarky comment, it would be rude not to ultimately cast a vote. At first, I was leaning oppose, since the concerns are fairly legitimate and CaptainEek is far from what I would call a Misplaced Pages veteran, but ultimately, I think I've seen enough good judgment and character from the nom to trust they won't charge headfirst into contentious disputes right off the bat. As a result, I don't think it is all that necessary to make them wait a few months to come back to an RfA they would pass with certainty. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
78. Support. Definately has the technical competence/knowledge. After reviewing some edits, no issues regarding behaviour (a plesant and heloful editor). The only issue is judgement. Outside of their poor !vote and rationale on the unblocking of Captain Occam (per TonyB below), I see no other material issues of judgement. The noms also have good judgement and read of charachter. Therefore, prepared to give benefit of the doubt on that issue, and don't see the rationale for deferring this for another 6 months. Britishfinance (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
79. Support My analysis is substantially similar to Bilorv's. What we do at RfA is essentially risk management. We don't seek perfect candidates, because they don't exist. We analyze the potential for disruptive behavior versus the potential benefits to the project the candidate brings. This particular candidate has in the past over-agf'd an unblock request, and was once too quick on the trigger with some automated tools. If they becomes and administrator I wouldn't be surprised if some point in the future they over-agf's, and at some point has an instance where they too quick on the trigger with the power tools. What I don't see is an overwhelming pattern of evidence where this is a consistent problem. I do see a good attitude in recognizing their past mistakes and willing to apply their experience to proclivities towards making the same error again. Therefore I think the candidate will be a net benefit to Misplaced Pages if adminship is granted. I disagree there is no need for the tools, and I like the appropriately applied humor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    I like this analysis a lot. I see myself in Captain's tendency to assume too much good faith, and if anything mistakes like you mention are what helped me become a little less starry-eyed. These calls are hard, and nothing made me realize that faster than actually having to make tough calls. Captain's demeanor when dealing with mistakes makes me believe that, even if they were to make a bad decision, they'd take the feedback well and do their best not to make the same mistake again. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

80. Support I understand the arguments presented in the oppose section, however, the candidate's answer to question 15 in my opinion nulls these issues for the purposes of RfA. Question 15 shows understanding, self-reflection and that they can take and use constructive criticism. They have two GAs and one FA which certainly shows dedication to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. In short, I think this candidate can be trusted to have the tools. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 18:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
81. Strong support based on meeting and getting to know the candidate at a wiki conference, whom I trust with the tools based on knowledge and commitment to the project. Jonathunder (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
82. Support. My limited interactions with this user have given me the impression of good judgement and a diplomatic attitude. I am not swayed by the nitpicking in the "oppose" section about an understandable though controversial comment in a confusing AN discussion, an obvious pirate joke (what's wrong with a joke now and then, as long as it won't lead to misunderstandings?), and other minor quibbles. With that level of nitpicking in RFAs we would never get enough admins. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
83. Support - We need some more light-heartedness from Misplaced Pages adminship. I don't see joke-cracking as incompetence. --WMSR (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
84. Support basically along the lines of 78.26 above. I believe giving CaptainEek the tools is likely to benefit the project. Pichpich (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
85. Support - I met this user at WikiConference North America at they were helpful in making me feel included in the Misplaced Pages community as a new user and answering my questions —Jno.skinner (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
86. Support Net positive. W42 23:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
87. Support Eek is a content creator and demonstrates vast amounts of good faith in dealing with the often chaotic NPP/Afc area. I'm not convinced by the opposes; Eek should not be at fault for being manipulated by a user who's storied history took place well before Eek edited. I myself was close to voting oppose on that appeal (see my comment in the discussion), and I still don't think adminship should be denied over one incident of misplaced good faith. Moneytrees🌴 23:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
88. Support - 100% agree with Moneytrees. The opposition is largely insignificant, with the exceptation being this implication that Eek supports unblocking Nazis. It seems inappropriate to me. From my reading, the worst offense Eek committed was endorsing an unblock in response to a GAB-compliant unblock request which Eek stated that he believed to be in good faith. The notion that Eek supporting a user on the basis of an acceptable unblock request somehow translates to Eek being a Nazi supporter is a bit excessive. At worst, Eek overlooked some easily-overlooked details and was manipulated by a disingenuous unblock request. This is a bit silly. Eek is clearly an overwhelmingly net-positive, clueful, friendly, reasonable, good faith editor with no serious problems. Likening him to Nazi aplogism because he supported one reasonable-but-lying unblock request is ridiculous. ~Swarm~ 02:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Swarm: *Nobody* has accused CaptainEek of *being* a Nazi supporter, and *nobody* has likened CaptainEek to Nazi aplogism! I likened Captain Occam to Nazi apologism, but that's a different Captain. I think Eek was naive in believing the disingenuous unblock request, and failed to check the background properly, and that those together constituted sufficiently poor judgment for me to oppose. But at no point have I ever made Nazi accusations against Eek himself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    Maybe CaptainEek is being confused with HauptsturmführerEich? Levivich  17:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

89. Support net positive. I agree that mistakes such as the ones identified by Clayoquout and Tony are concerning, but I don't think that these incidents add up to a pattern of behavior indicative of likely future abuse. _signed, Rosguill 03:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
90. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 03:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
91. Support Has been helpful and professional in all interactions I've seen them involved in. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
92. Support Measured responses to questions, seems very competent and professional. Very thoughtful and willing to admit when he is wrong. Net positive. Paradoxsociety 05:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
93. Support Think will be a good admin! Obhf (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
94. Support - Meets my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 11:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
95. Support - I have read Tony's oppose and I understand the concern, but I think CaptainEek could still make a good admin if he is careful not to jump into sensitive situations. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
96. Support Speaking as one captain to another, I believe you have the ability to properly navigate the Misplaced Pages shoals. Capt. Milokan (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
97. Support Mainly to counter the silly opposes for making a pirate joke. The user strikes me as someone who learns very quickly from their mistakes and will make a fine admin. We don't have any admins who never make mistakes. Not even me. SpinningSpark 12:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
98. Support Seems to be good choice. - Chandan Guha (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
99. Support I see some isolated instances of poor judgement, but no serious problems or worrying patterns. Clear net positive. 78.26 and Bilorv sum up my thoughts well. – Teratix ₵ 14:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
100. Support Good guy, exactly the sort of person the admin team needs. Ed6767 (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
101. Support. I understand the concerns expressed below, and many of those opposing are folks I have immense respect for. But what I see here is a couple of isolated misjudgements, and not a pattern of bad judgement. If there's a pattern here at all, it's that CaptainEek assumes too much good faith, and that is not something I'm willing to hold against another editor. CaptainEek, regardless of whether this passes, I would quite strongly recommend not working at ANI/AN, and focusing on the more bread-and-butter parts of the administrative backlog. The administrator noticeboards are toxic; working there successfully is a skill that takes a while to develop. I tend to avoid them myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
102. I can't easily bring to mind an occasion when there have been so many people whose judgement I hold in high regard sitting on opposite sides of an RfA fence. My own observations tell me that Cap is friendly, polite and helpful. The opposing side has found some serious lapses of judgement, but I know that I've made enough of those myself in the past - I can forgive that in someone willing to take feedback on board, which is what decides this for me - Eek seems able to take this on the chin and learn from it. So, while I considered saying 'not quite yet, come back in six months', I prefer to say 'go slow, learn on the job, and bear in mind about what people have said here'. So, yeah, support. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Unfortunately I do not think they have the judgement to be an administrator, and am afraid they would rush into sensitive situations they are not familiar with based on first impressions. I'm also not impressed at all with their answer to question three: that is an opportunity to be introspective and think about how past conflict on Misplaced Pages would form the way one becomes an administrator, in addition to showing the community that you know how to take feedback. Instead we get a pirate joke, a statement that they think themselves to have a laid back demeanor, and generally good advice but nothing that shows us how they would actually interact in a conflict, or shows us the have the ability to be self-reflective.As an example of something that I find particularly concerning for someone who states that they want to work at AN and ANI is their comment in support of Captain Occam's unblock request a few months ago. While I'm normally not one to hold votes against people in an RfA, I think this one is particularly concerning. Captain Occcam had been canvassing support by playing "pick a functionary" via email, lying to people saying that his block was due to oversighted information about another user, and by trying to be sympathetic on the Wikimedia Discord and talking about his situation there. CaptainEek self-discloses as being a participant on that Discord channel, and was the first person to support unblocking one of the single most disruptive users in the history of the English Misplaced Pages, whose entire history on this project has been one drama after another based on pseudoscientific POV issues.Now, most of these issues were before CaptainEek was active, but I'm still concerned with what this reveals: this is a pretty quick rush to judgement probably based on hearing about it from Captain Occam (not their fault) given how CO'd been talking about it off-wiki for a while, where they rushed to support someone anyone who has dealt with in the past can tell you isn't suited for this project (see entire thread). That rush to judgement over something like this type of unblock request is an issue for someone who wants to work on noticeboards, and combined with the lack of answer to question three, I'm winding up here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni:, since your block of Captain Occam was based on private evidence (i.e. emails to functionaries and other users), why did you consent to it being appealed to AN in the first place? It doesn't seem fair to ask for the opinion of the whole community on an unblock appeal, and then criticize those who want to extend good faith for not being privy to all the details. – bradv🍁 01:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

   My block was absolutely not subject to private evidence in any way. The issue was CO was falsely claiming it was in order to circumvent community review of his block, which was a community block, not an OS or functionary action. I also don’t expect anyone to know that, and agree it would be unfair to criticize them for that, which wasn’t my intent. I apologize to the candidate if it seemed I was holding them to that impossible standard. I only mentioned that here because it sets the context: Captain Occam was trying to get unblocked by any means necessary, both through emails to individual OSers and through other off-wiki measures including bringing up the unblock in the Wikimedia Discord server. The fact that the first two supporters here were active discord members suggests that CaptainEek likely just rushed to support someone he recognized without looking at the actual history of the individual. I don’t want administrators who are willing to jump into an AN thread because they’re sympathetic to people they know from a chat channel.TonyBallioni (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni: I suppose the best thing I can say is that, to my knowledge, CaptainEek and Occam had never interacted publicly in the Discord before 7 January 2020. Occam didn't post that much, and there is no real reason to suggest most people there would be particularly familiar with him. The day in question, Occam posted something (since deleted) encouraging users there to weigh in on their appeal. Eek did that after reading all the relevant arbcom cases (based on their previous onwiki comment).
   Everything else is just as Bradv said, I suppose. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 19:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

   Thanks for the comment. Like I said. I’m going based only on the publicly available stuff, which as Boing! explains below is enough to cause serious reservations. My view is very similar to Boing!’s with the added bit that I think it looks really bad to be the first to comment in these circumstances. Basically you can also add “and per Boing!”, since his thoughts and mine are fairly similar here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

2. With all due respect to the candidate and nominators ,!voters can only play the hand they're dealt. While the work at the AfC HD is commendable, I don't see that interest over at the AfC talk page, which CE has never edited (giving the candidtae the benefit of the outstading ping, which was only yesterday). For comments at ANI, well, obviously see ^^^. As for deletions: 16 CSD noms this year, 70% alignment at AfD, and has closed six discussion. As for their AIV filings, I see 3 this year—none since January—and their last 50 go back to January 2019. I'm afraid I am not seeing the doubtless laudable work that the nominators wax lyrical over.I'm also slightly troubled by Q3. I hope, as TB suggests above, that it was "just" a pirate joke; we don't need any (more) admins who treat disagreement with them as a form of rebellion! (Avast, avast, etc) Perhaps a few less jokes in project space? Even so, notwithstanding the above, I recognise their commitment to civility. All the best! SERIAL 08:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC) To clarify further to Boing!'s notes, I fear a cogent argument could be made that either the candidate didn't read the thread/assess the evidence/make a value judgment before commenting on one of the most high-octane unblock requests seen outside FRAMland; or they did read/absorb/ and deliberate and still came to the conclusion that they supported the unblocking of an editor who was an unashamed fellow traveller of a paid-up (insert modern Naziesque party of choice) advocate. Neither of these is good optics, to say the least: either the candidate jumps into emotive issues without doing their due diligence, or doesn't think it necessary, or they think that Captain Occam is the kind of editor Misplaced Pages is really in need of. An unfortunate set of circumstances, to say the least. SERIAL 18:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

   We could always send him to WP:Requests for Arrrrrbitration I guess. Ritchie333 10:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   love the humour. MightyKid (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   Ritchie333, watch the pronouns you use. Don't assume everyone on the internet is a male.

3. I have a tremendous respect for the nominator and his judgement and would love to support just based on that. I must, however, oppose based on my fear that the candidate doesn't have the same quality in the abundance needed in our community. Lots of AFG and welcoming new editors and so on, but sometimes that's not enough. Despite Barkeep49's nomination, i believe that i have seen the candidate make comments i couldn't support on the drama boards (Tony's, above, is a perfect example); i wouldn't want to guess why, but the jumping in with a comment too soon or not sufficiently thought through is not what i look for in an admin. Sorry not to support. Happy days, Lindsay 09:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Like Lindsay, I would say that I respect the noms significantly. But Cap has a history of not using rollback appropriately. If I were to take some of the recent examples, such as – in this rollback, he reverted an IP (with the boiler plate summary "addition of unsourced content to a biographical article"); but the IP had had already self-reverted their erroneous additions before Cap arrived. Post that, Cap went on to warn the IP on their talk page for stuff that the IP had already corrected. And in this rollback, Cap reverted an IP's editorial opinion, without giving either an explanation in the edit summary or on the IP's talk page. And here, Cap rolled back a valid article talk page comment (however opinionated) by a new editor and then went to their talk page to give a boiler plate welcome, which went like "Thank you for your contributions..." That doesn't make sense. Such and other rollback attempts of Cap show a lack of understanding of how to handle new editors, as well as a lack of understanding of the rollback tool. To some extent, new editors will have some distress if dealt like this and would not feel welcome. I'll be pleased to support Cap once I am assured over a few months that they would stop being trigger-happy (sorry to use the term). Lourdes 15:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Tony and SN. Nihlus 15:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose per SN and Tony, The ANI unblock support I can let slide as I've supported things in the past which I've soon regretted, The AFD participation is okish however the lack of AIV reports and XFD closures aren't, I'm also not entirely pleased with the fact they want to work at AN/ANI .... (There's more to this site than one noticeboard and one swamp.}. –Davey2010 19:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose The answer to two of the basic questions concern me. In Q1, "hanging around ANI" does not sound like a productive use of an admin's time, and saying he they will "close contentious discussions" is a bit difficult to evaluate when neither the candidate nor either of his their nominators have given any specific examples of him them closing discussions in the past. Which brings me on to Q3, which is also weak. Using humour in an RfA is rarely a good idea (see the RfA advice page) so that got me off on the wrong foot. There are vague references to BRD and AGF without, again, giving any actual examples of interaction with specific editors or specific conflicts. Without any details, how am I to assess whether he they will be able to keep a cool head as an admin? There is also the Captain Occam thread that Tony mentions (I don't see how he they can be one of the first to jump in and support unblocking in such a complicated case) and Lourdes's concerns over rollback. Taken together this is enough to put me in the oppose column.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
8. Oppose per the arguments presented by TonyBallioni and by Serial Number 54129. Also per Clayoquot below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
9. Oppose Several concerns have been articulated by the editors above. My concerns are that the candidate has only created 11 articles (one was deleted)- one is a disambiguation page, and most are rather stubby. in addition the candidate has a very high delete !vote record at AfD (many AfD nominations as well). My belief is that it is easier to lean toward delete when one does not have experience creating articles. An administrator should have experience building an encyclopedia since the main jobs of an administrator are to protect content and content creators. Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   @Lightburst:, did you happen to miss their work on Cactus wren and Vermilion flycatcher? Cactus wren looked like this when they started on it, and this is the state Vermilion flycatcher was in. There are a lot of things one could criticize CaptainEek for – too kind, too trusting, too funny, too eager – but I don't think lack of content creation is a fair judgment of their abilities, nor of their track record here. – bradv🍁 23:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   @Lightburst: I'm noting some data here not to change your vote, but just to pass on some information. Back in December, I noted on an RfA that the average deletion results at AfD for a week was 63.9% . I just re-did these numbers for April 21-27 and came up with 65%. CaptainEek's deletion vote % is 65.3% . CaptainEek's percent of delete votes might be higher than you like, but it's very reflective of the average state of AfD. Just something to consider. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

10. Very reluctant oppose, as there's a lot to like about Captain Eek. What puts me here is this AfC decline. In this project we can't afford to lose incredibly good content like that, and we can't afford to discourage new editors who put in that kind of effort and have that kind of expertise. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
11. Oppose: the vote in support of Captain Occam's unblock request was a deal-breaker for me. The related case, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive229#Captain_Occam, was linked in the first comment on the thread and should have guided the response. Other issues brought up above are also a concern. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    @K.e.coffman: When you say the AE case was linked in the first comment, did you notice that the first comment was made by CaptainEek themself? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

12. Based on the concerns raised by TonyBallioni, Clayoquot, and others, I am unfortunately not seeing evidence of the good judgement that I expect from administrators. It's concerning that the candidate says he wants to close contentious discussions when there is little indication that he has done so in the past and demonstrated competence at it. (There are places where non-admins can close discussions such as RSN and AfD, but it doesn't seem that the candidate has been active there.) buidhe 05:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Tony Ballioni. I am not of the belief that we should be lenient when it comes to Rfa's because of a shortage of admins. While acknowledging the candidate's skill in reaching FA status and his level-headed Afd comments, I am concerned about the unblock request and the off-putting humor in an inappropriate venue. I could be wrong, because I have not delved into it, but I'm concerned that the Captain-Captain connection is what might have clouded the candidate's judgment over there. I am concerned about how being a member of a clique in WP can cause errors of judgment to otherwise clear-headed individuals. I say this as someone who has respect for the nom and yet refuses to allow that respect to trigger an automatic support vote. StonyBrook (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
14. Oppose (regretfully) per Lourdes and others. Too many recent, minor issues to be comfortable. Please work on the areas raised and come back in 6 months. GiantSnowman 09:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per KE Coffman.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Someone who thinks a neo-Nazi apologist who collaborates with Emil Kirkegaard (User:Deleet) should ever be unblocked does not show the judgment I want to see in an admin. I did think hard about this, considering the possibility that CaptainEek wasn't aware of the full background to the Captain Occam case (and perhaps unaware of Captain Occam's skills as a liar). But it was CaptainEek's own comment, the first in the unblock request discussion, that highlighted the AE case leading to Captain Occam's block. And in that case, Captain Occam's links with neo-Nazi racism were made abundantly clear. So CaptainEek clearly did understand who and what Captain Occam is. I wanted to find a way to support this RfA, but I really can't, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    The editor interaction search with Deleet and Captain Occam shows almost no common articles. Can you specify the nature of this collaboration and the neo-Nazi apologism? The only comment in that AE thread that mentions Nazism is the one by Bishonen: --scroll down to the selfie of Kirkegaard in front of a nazi salute -- Emil Kirkegaard is to be sure not the subject here, and I'm not saying Captain Occam is responsible for him, but Captain Occam's concern lest Deleet is driven off by BMK's "behavior" leaves me cold. So the apologism and collaboration is based on one comment by Occam that he was concerned about Deleet leaving Misplaced Pages. Or if this collaboration is based on your private doxxing evidence of some sort, why do you expect CaptainEek to be aware of it? TonyBallioni's oppose vote is a lot more reasonable because it addresses the actual off-wiki canvassing by Captain Occam. --Pudeo (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    "if this collaboration is based on your private doxxing evidence of some sort" - it isn't. Deleet is open about his identity on his user page and Kirkegaard's neo-Nazi racism is well documented, and the trail of Captain Occam's history here and evidence of his vocal support for Deleet/Kirkegaard is not hard to find. I'm sure you can find it if you actually bother to look (and no, I don't mean using an inapplicable tool like the editor interaction tool, I mean using the investigative and deductive powers of your brain). I would have expected a potential admin candidate to investigate Bishonen's comments before making their unblock request recommendation. Now, you might be happy for racists and neo-Nazis to be welcomed back here without properly checking (I really don't know), but I'm not, and a potential admin candidate shouldn't be either. And that's really all I have to say to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Oh, one last thing... Bishonen wasn't the only one in the AE request to identify neo-Nazi/racist connections - MastCell did too, identifying a connection with eugenics, and Captain Occam himself details his apparent concern for Deleet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, I forgot that both CO and Deleet joined the new Psychometrics task force so it is probably right to say they "collaborated". This in fact shows up in the interaction search as the only meaningful result (and indeed commented by MastCell), but this wasn't the main focus of adminstrator comments – that's two out of nine admins. Deleet was blocked only 10 months after that AE thread and the block reason is private. --Pudeo (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Pudeo: Just looking back over my response to you here, and it comes over as a bit abrasive. Apologies for that - I think it was probably because I was steeped in the Occam/Deleet thing at the time, and that doesn't put me in the best frame of mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

17. Oppose per Boing! and Tony. I very rarely get involved in RfAs, but I think supporting that paritcular unblock request was an egregious error in judgement. I'm concerned because I'm not seeing anything that suggests CaptainEek understands that this is the case, and that is not a quality that I believe we need in an admin. -- a 12:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Tony & Boing Idan (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
19. Oppose Too soon and no apparent need for the tools. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
20. Oppose The Captain Occam situation is well-explained above and leads me to believe that Captain Eek is not ready yet for adminship. CE's demonstrated competence and sensitivity in dealing with what might be called "garden variety" bad-faith actors in places such as AfC and other venues in which they are active does not yet appear to have given them adequate judgment to deal with the occasional "horrible-faith" actors. The latter are definitely a very small minority but the damage they cause is extensive and all admins should be able to distinguish the two. I have no doubt that they will be able to accrue the necessary experience to do so but it is currently too soon to be confident in their judgment of edge cases. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Tony and many others on the support of unblock of occam. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 20:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
23. Oppose per TonyBallioni, not because of the way he voted on Captain Occam's appeal, but due to the Discord cabal vote brigading itself. I highly doubt that CaptainEek even knew all the background details about Captain Occam's situation, but he was most likely just persuaded by his messages in Discord. I can't support a candidate that has been active for just 2 years and already demonstrably participates in vote brigaging. Of course, many other editors in this section themselves brigade via IRC, but that's besides the point. --Pudeo (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Pudeo: Occam made a total of 141 comments in WP:Discord mainly over the course of two separate days. In comparison, I have made a total of 7,690 posts during a period spanning several months. Eek had never interacted with Occam before the latter's appeal. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 15:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

24. I was happy to see CaptainEek’s response to Q6, it was exactly what I was hoping to see and shows a lot of willingness to change. Tony’s oppose is concerning, but I might have been able to get past that, too. But Clayoquot’s diff in Oppose#10 shocked me; it was only a few months ago. This is what prevents valuable new editors from sticking around. CaptainEek, I think you’ll make a good admin eventually because I think you’ll take this feedback to heart and become better, but I’d like to see six months of that work. —valereee (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
25. Regretful oppose I was going to support as a net positive, but Boing! and Clayoquot put me here. Sorry. Miniapolis 22:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
26. Oppose: Per Lightburst, I'm exceptionally uncomfortable handing the mop over to someone with so few articles; I find experience building the encyclopedia to be an important factor, and the good CaptainEek just barely passes my minimum. I'm also rather unsure about Eek's need for the tools; thus, I must oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Javert2113 - A featured article is not good enough for you? That barely passes minimum? How many stars and green plusses are needed? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

27. Oppose per TB and Boing!, unfortunately. I voted to support at first, but changed my mind. --MrClog (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
28. Oppose - Tony and Boing have covered my thoughts on this already, I won't repeat what they said above. stwalkerster (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
29. Oppose There are too many recent issues which have been raised here. While individually these issues wouldn't rise to the point where I felt I needed to oppose the fact that there are so many and that they are recent give me great pause. These issues being those raised by TonyBallioni, Lourdes and Clayoquot among others. I encourage the CaptainEek to spend 6 months honing their skills, particularly in ensuring that they fully understand a situation before involving themselves, and then consider coming back to RFA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
30. Oppose Has demonstrated poor judgement and careless use of existing tools too often and too recently to be comfortable. In addition, some of the answers to questions are lacking clarity. _wjemather 09:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    Wjemather - Whilst the rest is of judgement against the candidate; is there a particular question/set of questions that there is a lack of clarity? You do have the option, of course to ask additional questions; and even ask for clarity on questions previously asked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 09:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    Lee Vilenski – Sure. Many responses are formulaic or extremely vague, including but not limited to Q7, Q8, Q9, Q12. They give the impression of not having given the questions full consideration. In addition, the admission that even basic tools facilitated sloppy decision making/poor behaviour (in response to Q6) does not instill confidence. _wjemather 10:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

31. Oppose. Sorry to do this to your nominee Barkeep49, but it can happen to any of us that the RfA process reveals things that we as nominators did not, or could not have been aware of until they were exposed by those who know. So when TonyBallioni, who mainly supports RfA candidates, and with a 'not a jerk' vote, opposes a candidate, it's not without a solid reason . A reason so solid that with K.e.coffman for whose work I have a very special respect, and Boing! said Zebedee and Lourdes, also opposing, is sufficient to convince me that CapitainEek has some way to go before developing the kind of judgement needed for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    There are many editors opposing who I deeply respect. However, to examine Eek using Tony's "not a jerk has a clue" typical RfA rationale, it's clear there's concern that the problem is that Eek is too much of whatever the opposite of a jerk is such. It seems to be the opinion of oppose voters that Eek lacks a clue. I would suggest, on the contrary, that given the high level content work, that given the openness to accepting criticism and admitting mistakes, and that given Eek's answers that they most definitely have a clue. But editors can come to different conclusions and as always I respect our discussion and consensus driven process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

32. Oppose per Clayoquot. I've spend enough time at AfC to know that you don't decline articles because they might get a {{technical}} or {{lead too short}} maintenance tag, you decline articles that are unsuited to the encyclopedia because they don't satisfy core policies such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:SPAM, etc. It's hard to chalk this one up as a simple mistake, since they wrote a long, thought out decline explanation. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 13:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. It is clear from CaptainEek's answers on the Teahouse that they display a good understanding of the workings of Misplaced Pages. They have no problem getting involved in multiple facets of the project, demonstrating their capability as a dynamic contributor. They are on the road to adminship, but they should gain a little more experience to fully master the areas in which they will take on a new level of responsibility as an admin. Hillelfrei 16:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Neutral at present. I believe they demonstrate an excellent track record and solid work ethic but will withhold supporting for a moment to allow myself a fuller examination of the oppose opinions. Chetsford (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Neutral I'm torn. Normally I wouldn't care about the unblock comment, but the candidate has expressed interest in AN/ANI. Even if it was just a temporary lapse in judgement, that's not a good look. I note that the candidate does have a clear need for the tools, and is experienced in NPP/AfC; I believe they'd be a net benefit there. CaptainEek, if this RfA passes, I recommend approaching adminship very slowly and being as receptive to feedback/criticism as possible. -FASTILY 22:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Neutral for the moment. I hate to oppose those willing to take on utility and drama work but the opposers have raised valid concerns that I’ll have to spend more time on. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• @MightyKid: Satisfty my curiosity, go on. Why was your fith or sixth edit to a talk page of an account that had been created the day after your own, but had (and has) never edited? SERIAL 13:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I was welcome by Pharaoh of the Wizards and clicking a link took me to another page. I initially thought this belonged to PotW only to realized this was someone else, overlooking the top of the page. MightyKid (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• The4lines, please read the answer to Question 1, as that likely has already answered your question. —valereee (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Valereee Ok thanks. The4lines |||| 14:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• So we have a 2 question limit per editor per RfA rule. Isn't Q5 in violation of that? It's a 5-question 1 question. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's only one question on how a string of username would be handled. MightyKid (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, it's a very new and I suspect young editor. They probably just discovered RfA and OMG I can ask up to two questions? :) —valereee (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, multiple-example questions have been around a long time. I got two of those at my RfA, from an experienced, CLUEful editor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, these sort of username questions used to be the fad at RfA back around 2017 or 2018—they've been discussed a few times, e.g. Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 245#Mostly general question about the 2-question limit and Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing#Procedural question on the "two questions rule". The consensus seems to be that they are allowable under the two-question rule, but we should use common sense and avoid assigning an excessive amount of busywork. Mz7 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

78.26, that was nearly five years ago. I don't think they're as common any more. —valereee (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh great, I just got called old. I'm not... old.... am I? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You're mature. There's a difference. :D —valereee (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Question 12 could be a little harsh. I mean, it's basically asking Eek to create their set of RfA criteria. Quite a few people's are succinct, but many of us who have created and listed them are quite lengthy. Both are viewed as legitimate. So it could be a massive question - mine was probably about 6 hours work to write and re-write. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Q14 seems inappropriate to me - it isn't even throwing a hypothetical situation out there, it's dragging an external (and possibly off-wiki) dispute into the RfA and asking one of the most leading questions I've ever read in an RfA. I know we often let problematic questions slide with the rationale "let's see how the candidate handles it," but in this case I think it's sufficiently disruptive to merit striking. creffett (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed, I've struck the question. Anyone other than the questioner, feel free to revert me if you disagree. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, both! I commented RE: question 14 on both of your talk pages. I'd be happy to hear your feedback! very respectfully, BasicsOnly (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that a request for adminship is not a proper place for you to pursue this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

il admit the naval theme is a bit strange. Clone commando sev (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The user's talk page explains everything if you're confused. -- a lad insane (channel two) 08:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Buchanan3: Please a) stop posting that question, which is either accidentally or deliberately disruptive, and b) log into your original account. Cheers. SERIAL 15:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI, Buchanan3 is now checkuser-blocked for misusing multiple accounts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks Newyorkbrad. serial 15:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)