Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Cool3

[edit]

Final (30/28/10) ended 20:46, 1 June 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

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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-AllTalk 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]
    If you've seen user:ShootJar/Proposal, you'll no that vandal-fighting really isn't necessary in its present form. ShortJason 23:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Right... --Rory096 03:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Tawker. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Tawker. Mostly Rainy 05:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Experienced enough in my book. Adminship is no big deal. DarthVader 07:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Seems to be doing well. I'm not taking into account the first RfA, for reasons described earlier. ~Chris {tce@} 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Sadly, editcountitis reigns supreme. However, you're a very good user. Master of Puppets That's hot. 13:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Gladly support a user who knows how to seriously contribute to the content of Wikipedia. Aguerriero (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, seems unlikely to abuse tools, and the FA cancels out my editcountitis on this one. BryanG(talk) 19:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. IMO the whole edit count thing is usually to make sure the contributor is dedicated to what Wikipedia is actually about. If Cool3 has contributed a featured article and some DYKs, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind. Didn't BorgHunter get promoted with something like 1000 edits, and Hamster Sandwich with 1500? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct, BorgHunter's RfA was successful when he had "just about right at 1000 edits", see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BorgHunter. Hamster Sandwich succeeded with "Around 1500 edits", see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hamster Sandwich. My current editcount, 1096, falls between the two. Cool3 22:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per Tawker. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Over a thousand really good edits, passes 1FA, several other good articles, some experience vandalfighting and AFD etc, courteous and civil to a fault. Clearly to be trusted with the tools. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom. Froggy 03:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, relatively low number of edits but these are decently spread around the namespaces, participates on WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:VP etc. Nothing to suggest he'd misuse the tools. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, passes 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Jaranda wat's sup 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, he's seems trustworthy + good judgement and reasonable. Captainj 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I see nothing in Cool3's 1000 edits that makes me doubt his ability to use the tools wisely. -- DS1953 talk 20:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support He is an excellent editor and has been a pleasure to work with! InvictaHOG 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Seems like a good user. -- Shizane talkcontribs 02:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Responsible and competent editor, who can communicate well and who can be trusted to use the tools appropriately.Tyrenius 03:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I would've sworn I'd already voted Support per Tawker, RichardCavell, and Tyrenius. Joe 00:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Many of the oppose votes are very thinly veiled editcountitis: "not enough edits in namespace X" amounts to "not enough edits" when X could be just about any namespace. Look at the contributions, not the numbers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - so we have moved from editcountitis, through editsummaryitis, now to featuredarticleitis? How about judging people on their merits rather than a worthless number? Cynical 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Lapinmies 18:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support seems a good user. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - edit count raw numbers are overrated. You can rack up 100 edits in an hour if you want to - either positively by working recent changes or negatively by using Wikipedia like a chat board. Cool3 has shown that he can be trusted. That's what counts in my mind. BigDT 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Not enough experience yet. Some good contribs though.Voice-of-AllTalk 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-AllTalk 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) Changed to support Cynical 14:42, 30 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]
  2. Oppose - Not enough experience, looks like a good admin material for the future though abakharev 21:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 22:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per above. G.He 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose due to lack of experience. Will likely support in the future. :) Dlohcierekim 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, sorry. Will support in a few more months of high activity. --Rory096 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per others, but with more experience will be a much stronger candidate -- Deville (Talk) 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Needs more experience. ForestH2
  9. Oppose at this time due to experience concerns; will gladly reconsider within a few more months. Yamaguchi先生 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Needs more experience.--Jusjih 06:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Not enough edits. 1000 edits (including popup edits!) isn't enough in my book. And the three suspicious votes are troubling. Maybe after more experience. --Firsfron 06:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, lacks of edits and experience. --Terence Ong 12:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Not enough experience on the Wiki. PJM 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Nothing personal, just not enough experience yet. --kingboyk 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Maybe when you have more experience. Royboycrashfan 16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I rarely support when the editor has less the 2k edits. Computerjoe's talk 19:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose due to lack of experience. Will support in a few months. SCHZMO ✍ 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose on experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit count is low, but wehere has he ever shown any problems resulting from inexperience? ShortJason 14:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose on experience. To respond to ShortJason, it's not showing inexperience, but simply not editing articles long enough for us to truly know. I agree that the Michael Woodruff article (where I first met Cool) is a great article, but RfAs require a lot of time as a skilled editor. Staxringold 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose – for inexperience reasons, nothing personal – Gurch 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Self-nomination... hmm! Passes Diablo Test but needs experience. Will definitely support if someone else (preferably an established editor who passed the Diablo Test) nominates him again in, not earlier than, October 2006. Anwar 07:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply because he self-nominated shouldn't be a reason to oppose. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose based on my standards; nothing personal. Jonathunder 21:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, lack of experience with Wikipedia namespace, indicating a probable low level of familiarity with policy. Try again in a few months. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Not a case of editcountis but more of that experience is based not simply on number of edits but by the length of time editing. This user needs to spend more time on Wikipedia in order to understand enough about Wikipedia' policies and guidelines. --Wisden17 14:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - More exp' required, per all other opposers.--Andeh 13:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, just not enough experience. Keep up the good work, though. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Give it more time --Mahogany 15:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Not enough experience. --Cyde↔Weys 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. 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]
  2. Neutral. Keep your fingers busy for a couple more months. Deizio talk 15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Good editor, but needs more experiance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J.smith (talk • contribs) .
  4. Neutral. He's a nice guy, and his edits are good, he just needs to make more of them first. I look forward to supporting at a future date, but now is simply too soon. Keep up the good work though. RyanGerbil10 16:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - I don't know much of this user's contributions, but I believe he may be a very nice editor and sooner or later he may become a sysop, however, claiming, in a AfD discussion [1], that English language is necessary for verifiability shows lack of policy knowledge. Nonetheless, I believe that Cool3 may become an admin if he keeps learning and contributing. Afonso Silva 17:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - While doing my weekly check of articles involving me and/or my projects, I discovered my page had been vandalized, but Cool3 had already discovered and reverted the page to the correct version. I haven't ever participated in nominations or adminship or anything, but I am appreciative of his efforts and dilligence. It's always nice to see someone is looking out for the common good even without being asked to do so. I dunno if this is qualificatinos for support (hence the neutral vote), but if it qualifies I certainly support him. thanks dude! Blaxthos 01:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. Actually meets my specifications (barely), but I would like to see more interaction with the community. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. Not enough experience to support. With more experience... would consider supporting in the future. Nephron  T|C 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Would like to support, but there's just not enough history to go on. A few more months of edits and look forward to supporting. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral insufficent experience, will support in the future. --digital_me(t/c) 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

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.He 22:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 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 anti-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.
4. from user:ShortJason. A lot of people are saying in oppose votes that they think you don't have enough experience or enough edits. What is your response to these unfair allegations given that you have contributed an entire Featured Article, created a bunch of articles, and done more for this encyclopedia than a lot of editors who spend all day vandal-fighting and get made admins?
A. First of all, I feel the need to respond to your sentiment that vandal-fighting is a waste of time. If we didn't fight vandals, Wikipedia articles would be overrun with nonsense and insertions such as "John Doe is fat". In such an environment, featured articles and all content would be worthless; after all, what good is a spectacular article that has been blanked in favor of some vandal's pet message? As for the ShootJar proposal, the simple fact is that it is not the current Wikipedia policy, and even if it were adopted, I think we would still probably suffer form vandalism. In light of these facts, we must maintain a devoted army of vandal-fighters to protect the wonderful content we have already created. Also, these in the trenches vandal-fighters are greatly aided in their efforts my administrator tools, justifying their RfA candidacies.
As for my own edit count, I will be the first to admit that I have not amassed nearly the number of edits that many admin candidates have. However, I do feel that my contributions have been of high quality (a Featured Articles as you mentioned and several DYKs). In my eyes, and every one is entitled to a different opinion, this quality should count to eliminate editcount fears. Naturally, some editors will disagree with this view, and I respect their right to oppose my candidacy, but I feel that I have demonstrated trustworthiness, strong article writing, and a little vandal-fighting, good qualities for any administrator. Cool3 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Avillia's comment on the proposal's talk page seems to indicate that it would be technically impossible (or at least very difficult to enact), and I have my doubts about any editcount based system. However, I do agree that a multi-level protection scheme might do better. To make an odd ananlogy that popped into my head: full protection is like an atomic bomb and semi-protection is like a pocket knife when all you needed was a rifle. Still, its hard to determine who would be allowed to edit pages at different levels, we would probably have to have some sort of Requests to Edit Protected Pages which seems like useless bureaucracy. All in all, the current system works well enough, and the ShootJar system would be difficult to implement, so I favor the status quo, not out of ideological objection to ShootJar's idea but out of praticality. Cool3 13:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cool3_2&oldid=1138133800"