Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:30, 25 May 2006

Cool3

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 (second nomination)|action=edit}} Discuss here] (4/6/1) ending 20:17, June 2, 2006 (UTC)

Cool3 (talk · contribs) – Well, this is a self-nomination. I decided to nominate myself a few moments ago while patrolling recent changes when my pop-ups stopped working for some inexplicable reason. Having already had a failed experience with godmode light, I resorted to reverting "the long way". Then, after tagging a page for speedy deletion, I realized that I would have a much easier time serving wikipedia with administrator tools (see later question answers). Anyway, I first edited on October 16, 2005. Because of my employment contract, my editing was limited to AfD until March 1, 2006 when I began editing articles and really became involved. In the ensuing time, I have done my best to supplement my intial AfD work with anti-vandal work and solid article writing. Cool3 20:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As I self-nommed, I naturally accept. Cool3 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support. Probably should have mentioned the first Rfa (which the candidate declined), but a quick review of contribs satisfies my requirements. RadioKirk talk to me 20:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As this seems to be an issue, I will now deal with the events of my first RfA. User:ErnestIsTheMan apparently took to heart the statement: "Any user in good standing may nominate any other user" and nominated me after I'd spent about a day on Wikipedia and logged less than 50 edits. Of course, at that time, I had nowhere near the sort of experience required to become an admin, so I rejected the nomination. However over the last 8 months, I feel that I have gained the experience necessary to become an administrator. I hope that the community shares my sentiments :-). Cool3 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, I think this RfA is doomed but I think Cool3 has the right stuff. People will oppose on number of edits, I really don't fall for editcountis, but I think you're unlikely to use the tools, adminship is not a trophy its a tool and might as well give it to the people who can use them -- Tawker 22:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - from his very first edit, he's been demonstrating a sensible and trustworthy attitude to janitorial duties. - Richardcavell 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 1000 edits should be enough for anyone. Cool3 seems trustworthy and willing to take responsibility, not to mention the perk of a featured article. He's shown interest in actually expanding Wikipedia, but has wasted time in "vandal fighting". I can excuse this though, given the FA, and the fact that until we adopt sensible measures (see user:ShootJar/Proposal, vandal-fighters are a necessary evil.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShortJason (talk • contribs)
Perhaps he has wasted some time, but his notable article edits are disctinctively above average, some people have <1% and were promoted not too long ago. Admins often end up with 0-1% due to the project distractions, 1-2% is fairly typical for non admins, 5%+ is pretty solid. He can do a little of both quite well it seems.Voice-of-All^Talk 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second, what do you mean when you say vandal fighting is "wast[ing one's] time?" --Rory096 23:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Y-y-yoda 23:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not enough experience yet. Some good contribs though.Voice-of-All^Talk 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where doesn't he have enough experience? Let me guess, vandal fighting? Well we don't even need vandal fighters! ShortJason 22:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has done a lot of good, but admins need plenty of project edits, and statistically, these tend to just be brute edit count, along with talk edits. It's article edits were qantity vs quality becomes a serious issue, and that is why I made the "notable edits" category, and as I said, he has quite a few. His article talk edits are a bit low for someone who want to be an admin. Admins should have some more focus in these areas. Not every user will, or will want to, and some of the best users don't; not all users are admins either. His edit summary use is OK, and he has plenty of vandal reverts (so there is not short fall there).Voice-of-All^Talk 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to lack of experience and failure to mention first RFA. Cynical 21:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He rejected that nomination so had no particlular reason to mention it here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not enough experience, looks like a good admin material for the future though abakharev 21:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Naconkantari 22:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. G.H e 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lack of experience. Will likely support in the future. :) Dlohcierekim 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. Will support in a few more months of high activity. --Rory096 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral The low main edit count sort of scares me, however, As Abakhrarev stated, there is "good admin material," just not for now. I feel split. Yanksox 22:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

See Cool3's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 22:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]

Username Cool3
Total edits 1049
Distinct pages edited 547
Average edits/page 1.918
First edit 23:41, October 15, 2005
 
(main) 564
Talk 35
User 47
User talk 150
Image 11
Image talk 3
Template 1
Template talk 14
Wikipedia 221
Wikipedia talk 3

G.H e 22:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Cool3's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

All user's edits.Voice-of-All^Talk 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Cool3 (over the 1045 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 192 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 25, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 16, October, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 74.62% Minor edits: 72.06%
Article edit summary use (last 564 edits) : Major article edits: 84.4% Minor article edits: 73.76%
Average edits per day: 16.94 (for last 200 edit(s))
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 5.26% (55)
Unique pages edited: 525 | Average edits per page: 1.99 | Edits on top: 11.58%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 26.79% (280 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 31% (324 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 18.37% (192 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 23.83% (249 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 53.68% (561) | Article talk: 3.35% (35)
User: 4.5% (47) | User talk: 14.35% (150)
Wikipedia: 21.05% (220) | Wikipedia talk: 0.29% (3)
Image: 1.05% (11)
Template: 0.1% (1)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.63% (17)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I will never forget my initial time on Wikipedia when I contributed solely to AfD. During that time, I observed many discussions in which a consensus formed and went undisputed, the minimum time expired, and yet no administrator had the time to delete the article for days. So, I certainly plan to spend a lot of time on AfD, deleting or keeping article as per community consensus. To avoid bias, I would not delete articles where I had been a part of the discussion.

More recently, I have become involved in anti-vandal work. I definitely imagine greatly expanding my contributions in this area. As mentioned above, I would love to be able to easily revert vandalism with one click. Additionally, I would use, albeit cautiously, my blocking capability to deal with persistent vandals. Of course, I would also occasionally supplement my anti-vandal work with page protection, when absolutely necessary.

Furthermore, I can imagine helping to update DYK, but I might wait to become involved in that until I have a bit more experience. In a way similar to my anti-bias AfD strategy, I would allow another admin to evaluate any article I wrote for posting rather than post it myself. Finally, I anticipate speedy-deleting the occasional page, and, naturally, I would try to respond to the requests of other users.

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

A: Well, it seems normal that I would be proud of the featured article Michael Woodruff. I began the article while on wikibreak, and took it from a one-sentence stub up to its current state. I think that its progression is an excellent example of how stubs can serve Wikipedia.

I am also proud of the first article I edited River Gee County. Despite having no prior knowledge on the topic, and having great difficulty locating sources, I expanded River Gee County from a stub into a decent article. To list just a few more, I am proud of my three DYK articles: Creigh Deeds, Egyptian land reform, and Peggy Stewart. Finally, I am proud of my ant-vandal contributions.

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: I got into a little trouble over the article Peggy Stewart as demonstrated by its talk page. Most of the problems stemmed from by lack of elaboration in the original version, leading to allegations of non neutral point of view, and some accuracy disputes. When one user declared "the article did not deserve to be listed in the "Did you know" column", I became somewhat defensive. However, I basically kept my cool and I think that the article ended up better after the critical attention it received. I may have been a little curt in some of my responses, I think that everyone ended up happy.

In the future when meeting with conflict, I will use the same strategies that I use in work and in life. First of all, I won't "sweat it". Conflict is a part of life and is inevitable. The best solution to any conflict, then, is to remain polite with the other person and attempt to continue in an amicable relationship while sorting out the source of conflict and reaching a resolution that can make everyone happy. After all, no one is ever 100% "right" in an argument. So, politeness and cooperation are the key.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 #:Perhaps he has wasted some time, but his notable article edits are disctinctively above average, some people have <1% and were promoted not too long ago. Admins often end up with 0-1% due to the project distractions, 1-2% is fairly typical for non admins, 5%+ is pretty solid. He can do a little of both quite well it seems.'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''<sup>[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]]</sup> 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 #:Hold on a second, what do you mean when you say vandal fighting is "wast[ing one's] time?" --[[User:Rory096|Rory096]] 23:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
+#'''Support''' [[User:Y-y-yoda|Y-y-yoda]] 23:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 '''Oppose'''