Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ccool2ax

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Ccool2ax

Final (11/16/18) Ended 12:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ccool2ax (talk • contribs) – Well, I'm honestly not the best-looking candidate on paper. I have under 2000 edits, I broke under pressure and was uncivil to a troll, I (in a lapse of judgment) AFD'd Family Guy episode summaries... twice. I, however, have grown as a Wikipedian; I think I am now sane enough to be an administrator. I want to be able to do more things to help Wikipedia, and I absolutely promise I will not do anything controversial unless there's a damn good reason for doing it (ie, I won't speedy something that doesn't exactly match a CSD). Well, here goes, guys. -- -- Chris is me 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: -- Chris is me 04:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional Statement:

If anyone thinks I've abused my admin powers in any way, and their request is reasonable, I will gladly give up the mop after a small review on a page somewhere (such as a user subpage). I won't abuse my power. I won't WP:POINT my somewhat radical Wikipedia views with the mop (like I did before). Thank you.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Well, I plan to do a lot of newpages patrol, deleting spam and nonsense. I'll periodically check CSD out of boredom, just like I do RC/Anti-Vandal right now (IE only every once in a while). I'll close AFD debates (and no, I won't go against consensus because I hate WP:NN), and... oh yeah! I will block vandals and 3RRers.

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

A: (from my ignored Editor Review)Well, I'd say I've done a good job down at the MySpace article. I remember cleaning it up so it sounded less like a kid wrote it. Then I came back to it and started watching it. I successfully "defended" the article from OR from Pnatt and John4grey. I'm also proud of The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail, which I changed from nonsense to that article I need to get around finishing... someday. It's not done, but I love the work I put in so far. It's a good play. See my contribs for the diffs.
I'm also proud of what I almost did: wrote an AppleScript to help find in-legit-article copyvios via Google. Someone beat me to it in Perl; I'll start running the script as soon as I can get perl installed on a windows machine... By the way, no it's not a bot (the script never clicks the "edit" button). -- Chris is me 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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: Have I? Yeah, a few times, unfortunately. In my first fe hundred edits, I added a paragraph about a podcast related to Camp Timberlane for Boys. I thought it was important to the article to add the podcast (I happened to run it, but I wasn't trying to plug myself. Honest.). Then BaronLarf came and deleted it, for "nn". Not knowing what "nn" was, I thought it was supposed to go in a new article. I wrote a 4k article on the podcast and stuff. Then it was prodded and afd'd and I learned about WP:NN (which I hate, not beacuase of my article being deleted, but for many, many other reasons). My other conflict is visible in my talk archives. I was really pissed at a sock of Pnatt so I called him an idiot and said that we would block everything he edited from. Whoops. Oh yeah, I also AFD'd Family Guy episodes... twice. Now I've discovered the Village Pump and Mailing list, where I've realized that people don't care and it won't hurt too much if we keep them. Sorry.

Recently, even in frustrating moments, I've kept a level head. I've learned my lesson.

Optional question from bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs):

Q. Why exactly do you hate WP:NN? bibliomaniac15 05:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A. I really just think it's a very flawed "guideline". Notability is a very subjective criteria for inclusion; (excluding vanity) the author of an article obviously thinks that his/her article is notable. Verifiability is better; if an article's facts can't be verified in third-party sources, it should be deleted. Besides, I don't see the harm in having a few verifiable, but nn articles.

Note: I see where Ccool2ax is coming from with his dislike of WP:NN but isn't the point of WP:IAR to prevent questionable but necessary policies such as Wikipedia:Notability preventing growth of our encyclopedia as they rarely can? I invite the nominated user to reply; cheers, Anthonycfc (talk • email) 14:42, Friday December 15, 2006 (UTC)

IAR does help Wikipedia grow; without it, Wikipedia would be much more of a bureaucratic mess. I don't see why the question/statemnt helps defend Notability; verifiablity keeps all the junk out, since sources are needed. Clarification, please. -- Chris is me 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Diez2 (talk • contribs):

Q. How long have you been active in editing Wikipedia? Diez2 05:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A.Depending on your definition of "Active", I have been active for about 18 months. In reality, I basically never looged in until October-ish, and then it was only a few edits (due to my crappy ISP, HughesNet). I have been semi-actively editing under this account for 13 months, slowed down only by massive real-life workload, which I should really be doing right now. -- Chris is me 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Ccool2ax's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

• Question (not an official question) — Why do you keep changing your signature? That and the fact that it is not even remotely related to your username make it really hard to keep track of which comments have been made by you. -- Renesis (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... I've changed the sig through the RFA. I really want my username to be "Chris.", but that was rejected. Sorry. Mine almost always has Chris in it, and I haven't seen anyone else sign with Chris as part of their username. -- Chris is me 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support For what it's worth, I was impressed by your honest and candid introduction and your pledge to accept checks on your admin powers. I've had quite a few run-ins with fellow Wikipedians myself, and what's important in the end is working for the greater good of the project. I don't think that all admins have to have a spotless past, and what matters most to me is that an admin will take the time to understand and respect Wikipedia protocol and respect their position. Support.--Folksong 07:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Moral support - a honest and accountable candidate, but the concerns raised below are, um, concerning. Suggest a withdrawal. MER-C 07:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I'll not vote as neutral but maybe the support votes would help you be more active. Good luck. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Tis true you are not exactly the best candidate on paper but you have displayed a rare virtue by displaying honesty over your past mistakes.__Seadog ^♪ 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support After reading your response to the NN question, I liked what I saw, here's to more breaking your way. Good Luck. StayinAnon 07:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support I also like his views on notability. ATren 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. support--Dario vet 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support You seem an ok guy, pitty you are not going to get through. Dolive21 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) - duplicate !vote - Tangotango 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

9. Support You've had very good edits, I support! —¡Randfan! 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
10. --Olando 19:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Moral Support - I have no doubt this editor will be a good admin someday, but for now I would also suggest withdrawal (per MER-C), and reapplying later when more experienced. Doc Tropics 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose without malice, I just think you need some more experience. :) Danny Lilithborne 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. You're not active enough, and I'm a bit worried about how apprehensive you are in your own self-nomination. I encourage you to get involved in the community first if you want to be an admin. --Wafulz 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Well, the apprehension stems from a a spotless friend I nominated with no apparent flaws who was taken down. I want Wikipedians to know that I've done stupid things in the past and that I won't go batshit. Really.-- Chrissperanza! chat edits 05:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Per Amarkov. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 07:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose between the edits mentioned in Neutral #1 and your reaction "I won't go batshit" to an opposition, I'd have to say no. I do agree that you've made remarkable improvement in this area, but I'm not willing to take the risk that you'll become an admin without a level head. I encourage you to edit more and bury some of these actions and try again sooner rather than later, you'll have my support then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StayinAnon (talk • contribs).

4. Oppose per Amarkov. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 12:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I really, really like the attitude - "I won't go batshit" - brilliant - but one has to draw the line somewhere and that comment to Cyde "Are you out of your mind" is inappropriate. Which is probably a bit rich coming from me, but I'm not the candidate at RFA. What is more, the subpage was about to be deleted at MFD (and the Wikispace version has already gone) without the db-author, so DRV was probably more appropriate than a repost. Moreschi 18:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - the uncivil comments are unexcusable at such an early stage, particuarly if we are to trust this user with the mop. Perhaps after a considerable drought of non-biting and WP:CIVIL violations the user should be renominated for sysop priviliges. My apologies and regards to the user, but this is my view on the matter. Cheers, Anthonycfc (talk • email) 14:42, Friday December 15, 2006 (UTC)
7. I'd prefer editors rather than people patrolling a beat. ... aa:talk 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, per this nom for speedy deletion made earlier today. At worst it does not meet CSD:G-11, at best it is worthy of a discussion at AfD. Also, he did not advise the original contributor, which suggests he may have deleted the article without discussion if he were an admin. Accurizer 21:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   I thought admins were supposed to tag articles too, so that 2 opinions could agree. Seriously, if that's not propaganda, than what is? That's some of the worst spam I've seen! Although talking to the original author is a good idea; I will in the future. -- Chris is me 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

9. Weak oppose per his ludicrous crusade against episode summaries (and not just in relation to Family Guy). -- Kicking222 15:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   That was in my past... I was much, much more stupid back then. Seriously. -- Chris is me 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose. The promises make me feel uncomfortable -- with so much of an administrator's work being subjective, experience and evidence of that experience are key. -- Renesis (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose 2000 edits is way to small of an edit count. Also, the candidate's answers to the questions did not satisfy me, I certainly do not feel comfortable with giving administrative power to this candidate. Dionyseus 07:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    Of course, an editors worthiness of a few extra buttons should be entirely based off of the number that comes out of Interiot's tool. What exactly as wrong with my answers? -- Chris is me 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose Needs more overall edits and more experience with tool-related tasks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Bubba ditto 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose: Normally, I don't like opposing RfA's - your work on the MySpace article is good stuff. You seem like a rather good editor on top of all this too, but I'm forced to oppose. Citing Amarkov's example of your comment on Cyde's talk page, and your opposition to WP:NN over one of your own podcasts (which may have been interesting, no doubt, but Wikipedia can't cover everything, sadly), I cannot support until you can prove a slightly more calmish tone - making crusades against episode summaries and calling out users won't help you in the long run. No hard feelings, I hope. --Nomader^Talk 23:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, I thought I made it clear. I do not oppose WP:NN because my podcast article was deleted. I would have deleted the article too. The connection beween my hate for notability and that article was beacuse that was merely the first place I heard of WP:NN. Got it? -- Chris is me 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    I apologize - it was a mis-understanding. However, I still am uncomfortable with the fact that you dislike the rule, and with some of the comments you made on some talk pages as seen above - I do hope that you can forgive my mistaken ramblings, but, I still keep my vote as oppose. Apologies for the mistake of warped wording, but my explanation for my vote still holds. I do hope you try again in the future, my vote would easily change. --Nomader^Talk 20:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose.--Madhyako Pradesh lo 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose He needs more experience. TSO1D 16:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. This was in your last 100 edits, which is not good. I really did want to support, but I can't overlook that. Also, I'm not sure how much I like that you'll try not to do anything controversial. You'll find that anything related to admin tasks is controversial. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   How is that not ridiculous? He asked for his page to be deleted; shouldn't he have the right to get it back without DRV? -- Chris is me 04:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   It may be ridiculous. That doesn't mean that "Are you out of your mind?" is any more civil. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   I was just about to say the same thing. Asking a fellow editor if he is 'out of [his] mind' is anything but civil. The situation was controversial, it didn't need to be exacerbated by comments like that. riana_dzasta 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   [Expletive]. Withdrawn. Ah, shucks. -- Chris is me 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral — Activity level is too low, sorry. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral some more experience, and a little more civility under stress. Sorry. riana_dzasta 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   In retrospect, that was rather terse of me. Honestly, you will make a much stronger candidate in a few more months time. Contribute more actively, and try to keep cool under fire - I know it's tough. Request another editor review - I'll try to drop you a line on this one, it's an often overlooked area - and maybe withdraw this RfA and request in a few more months. All the best, riana_dzasta 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral I suggest that you withdraw this RfA and open an editor review instead. You can use the feedback from this process to guide your future edits, as it will highlight the areas in which you need to improve. You can also go for some admin coaching too. This will open your eyes to some of the varied situations in which admins can find themselves. I also suggest that you spend time on new and recent changes patrol, tagging pages for improvement or deletion as appropriate and warning their authors at the same time. Vandals can be reported to WP:AIV if they are persistent. You can also get involved in XfD discussions. This will allow you to participate and give your opinion based upon policies and guidelines, also allowing everyone else to see that you have a sound grasp of the backbone of admin actions. You can also assist at the help desk and Wikipedia:Reference desk and contribute to the good and featured article discussions. Joining a Wikiproject or too, such as Wikipedia:Esperanza will also help to improve your profile. When you have done some, all or similar things on this brief list, you can come back in six months' time with a stack of experience and edits under your belt. A lot of people will know just how good you are so there will be no need for apprehension when you participate in this process for a second time. (aeropagitica) 05:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   In fairness, this user did try an editor review, as he mentions above, and nobody commented. :( (It's an easily overlooked page, and there are always a bunch of reviews pending, but we should all try and get over there more often.) Newyorkbrad 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

5. I really appreciate your honesty, sincerity and openness in your nom (really!) I just think that if you got a little more active, a little less controversial, and if you waited a few more months, you could get overwhelming support. At this point it's hard to judge how you would handle admin tools. Grandmasterka 07:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Perhaps if you spend more time on Wikipedia, and as aeropagitica, go for an editor review again (I'm pretty sure more people will comment this time). I'm pretty sure you'll gain more experience as you go along, and become more active in the encyclopedia. I appreciate your honesty and condor in your nomination statement, however. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 08:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral I am pleased by your honesty, but you still need more time and experience to learn all the ropes of Wikipedia, and become a great contributor. Best wishes-- danntm ^T _C 15:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral - I like the honesty - but he needs more experience Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral per most of the reasons above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 18:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral leaning oppose. I'm sorry, but you need more time and experience. Promises of good behavior aren't adequate without enough evidence of good behavior without exception. The Family Guy episode AfDs actually pushed my from oppose to neutral because it shows that you are willing to take and defend a position that may not be popular, which is something admins must be prepared to do. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral - I think you need more experience. FireSpike Editor Review! 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral Good work with AfD's and such, but I believe you need more experience editing the encyclopedia, and contributing to the mainspace. Nishkid64 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Neutral I feel that you need more experience editing the encyclopedia. However, your good work on AfD pages must be acknowledged here. In the meantime, do not give up hope and re-apply after three to six months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Neutral Another month or two of good edits without losing your rag, and I'll be the first to support you. Good luck! yandman 08:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Neutral Needs more experience. I'm not opposing out of respect for your dedication to Wikipedia.Sharkface217 22:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Neutral, toward Support. I hate to do this, and I know I'm not helping you along, but no matter how I feel about Cyde, the comment on his page was a little too risky. In all other ways I would strongly support. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Neutral. You might want some more experience. You have good AFD work, but you'll be even stronger with experience. bibliomaniac15 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Too early. Come back in three months and I'll reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.