Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cookiecaper 3

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.

[edit] cookiecaper

Final (15/30/10) ended 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cookiecaper (talk • contribs) – I should be an admin. It's so true. I've been at Wikipedia since 8/04 and am a decidely good editor; a founding member of WP:LDS and related categories, participant in WP:CVG, other things. This is my third RfA and my third self-nomination. See [1] and [2]. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 10:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yeah. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 10:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. I'll be brave and be the first support here. Every little bit helps, and nobody could give a reason to oppose other than "too little edits", so I'm supporting. In the first RfA, the only reason for opposing was lack of procedure and experience, and I'm almost sure he has it right this time. Fetofs Hello! 13:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support as per Fetofs. DarthVader 13:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support I would have nominated him in a couple of weeks had he not self-nominated. He's shown a good initiative in getting involved in projects, works well with conflicts of other editors and has performed admin duties. The only objection in the last RfA for him was that it was too close to the last RfA. The objection now that he has not been more active in the past few months is ridiculous, as he had proactively removed himself from (and wisely so, as many other editors did) during a conflict with User:Bcatt. Following suggested Wikiholiday guidelines during a dispute can hardly be found as a negative for an editor or admin. Don't penalize him for following Wiki rules. Anyway, he's active again now the conflict seem to be over. I can't imagine any other objections. -Visorstuff 13:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support Has been here for nearly two years and I feel that he is very familiar on editing Wikipedia and its policies. Although his edit counts are relatively low, this user has a lot of experience. However, his lack of activity is a hinderance and should be taken into consideration. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Qualified. Prodigious rate of editing not needed. TacoDeposit 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. per Visorstuff. Additionally, we need admins with a broad range of experience who are committed to the project long term as cookiecaper has definately demonstrated. Trödel 15:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak support The opening of WP:HIRE without prior discussion is disturbing, but other than that I see no problems with the candidate. JoshuaZ 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    WP:HIRE had been discussed before and nothing came of it. I was being bold; a page that nobody wants is removed without too much trouble. However, significant interest has been expressed in WP:HIRE. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, yes cookie you'll do just fine. --User:FeedThePigeons
    Edit is user's third; the other two being to his user page and a vanity article marked for speedy delete. Tijuana Brass 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. I disagree entirely that "admins must be active at all times". Admins should be allowed, and even encouraged, to have a life outside of Wikipedia -- it helps to maintain perspective. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - My reservations concerning WP:HIRE are not pertinent to his abilities as an admin, which I have faith in. CC has shown greater maturity, responsibility and skill since past nominations; his brief period of lessened participation recently needs to be viewed as a pro rather than a con per Visorstuff's explanation above. Tijuana Brass 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Good common-sense editor. Lou franklin 03:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Currently, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1434 users. I.E., they number at just ~0.07% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - Adminship should not require constant activity. Here is a user who has spent his time on Wikipedia productively and has been contributing for over a year. I don't think he's going to misuse the tools to detriment Wikipedia, and any nomination which starts with such a ballsy opening statement such as "I should be an admin. It's so true." gets my vote. - Hahnchen 01:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Extremely Strong Support - Admin's don't have to be extremely active. People have a social life outside of Wikipedia. This user deserves to be an admin. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 21:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support; unfortunately, this RFA is doomed. Better luck next time. I feel really, really bad for you about this, since you are a very solid, helpful editor. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, very less active from February. An administrator should be more active. Shyam (T/C) 11:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, inactivity (only 3 edits per day) and answers to questions concern me. Royboycrashfan 11:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, inactive, admins must be active at all times. --Terence Ong 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, self promotion. Wikipedia has many "decidely good editors" who don't qualify. Netkinetic 12:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Once these decidely good editors have demonstrated a solid understanding of policy, they should be promoted. Adminship is no big deal, despite Babajobu's insistence (whose RfA I supported, by the way). cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose too much inactivity Sceptre (Talk) 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. I first became acquainted with this candidate's contributions a few hours ago, when he did this. Further inspection of his history disclosed that yesterday, he created a page called Wikipedia:Now Hiring. This is a proposal to enable the hiring of editors willing to write or edit articles on topics of the hirer's choice, in return for monetary payment. The controversial page promptly set off an animated discussion. There then ensued a revert war, with the candidate however stopping at the third revert, demonstrating awareness of the letter of the 3RR if not its spirit (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3). The page is currently listed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Now Hiring, wherein the candidate offers interesting views on the nature of Wikipedia. Reading his answers to the questions below, I cannot say that I am especially impressed with them; they have an oddly flippant quality that is not out of character with those activities of which I am aware. Taken together with concerns about his relatively casual involvement with Wikipedia (~35 user talk messages in nearly two years) and the nature of his remarks on his first RFA, I'm afraid I have to oppose this candidacy. —Encephalon 17:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    The edit's to Mark's userpage were invited in IRC and at least two other well-respected editors participated [3] [4] . Likewise, the 3RR exists for a reason, and admins Ambi (talk • contribs), Matt Crypto (talk • contribs), along with a couple of other respected editors (Creidieki (talk • contribs) and Christopher Parham (talk • contribs)), also exhausted their reverts of WP:HIRE. My reverts were in protection of due process, Parham and Ambi's were an attempt to censor an article they didn't believe had the right to exist. They refused to put it up for deletion because they believed that consensus for this censorship already existed (see WT:HIRE), a point which has been summarily disproved by the article's MfD page, and if they had their way, we would never have even gotten that far. My three reverts on this page were necessary. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the response. I strongly disagree. A revert war is an indication of two things:
    1. There is a strong difference of opinion over something on the page.
    2. The people with the differences of opinion are not engaging in a thoughtful, considerate discussion aimed at finding a fair solution.
    • Disputes are not resolved in a positive way by revert warring, whether you revert 10 times or 3 times. This ought to be obvious on its face: do you think that the third time you reverted Ambi, she went "Oh, I've been reverted three times. That's very convincing; I now agree with Cookiecaper."? She didn't—in fact she herself reverted the page later, a clear demonstration that the revert war had done nothing to change either of your minds. The issue was only brought to a temporary resolution when someone, instead of reverting, thought of a way to resolve the disagreement (by referring the question to MfD). That you actually believe that your "three reverts...were necessary" only suggests to me that your understanding of dispute resolution can probably be improved.
    • Finally, I am extremely disappointed by your characterization of your wikicolleagues. Claiming that Chris Parham and Ambi were intent on censoring your views is a regrettable assumption of bad faith and quite uncivil under the circumstances. Furthermore, your claim that Chris—who I've never known to be anything but an especially outstanding Wikipedian—"exhausted [his] reverts" of that page is entirely incorrect: he actually made only one edit, in contrast with you and others. That you make such ill-considered accusations, objectionable in themselves, on your own RfA only serves to further convince me that you are not suited to administratorship. Best wishes —Encephalon 20:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Now Hiring suggests candidate does not grasp the meaning of the wiki. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I completely support a community that anyone can contribute to and I completely support the free distribution of the work of that community. I also completely recognize that most of us live in capitalist societies and have to eat. There's no wrong with accepting or offering money for a task, a thing common in the world of free software, from which Wikipedia is not far descended. However, I hope this RfA doesn't become a rehash of WP:HIRE's MfD. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Streeeeetching it; if someone's trying to earn money needed for basic sustenance via WP:HIRE, it's time to sell the computer and get a real job. Is that really your take on it? Tijuana Brass 21:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Not sure he can maintain NPOV (per WP:HIRE and its MfD), and the edit summary on Mark's page looks like vandalism, even if it was invited on IRC. Prospective admins shouldn't have to worry about whether they might get blocked. --Elkman - (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    NPOV does not apply to a discussion on the POVs of editors concerning an article. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose -- responses here seem argumentative. I don't want to see an admin whose reaction to community concern is defensiveness instead of listening carefully to that feedback. Jkelly 20:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    I've read and considered all feedback and responded accordingly. No one has raised any topics that I ought not to be defensive about. If a complaint arises that highlights legitimate errors on my part, I'll definitely own up to them. My whole second RfA was me claiming responsibility for and acknowledging that my first RfA was a disaster. However, I'm not going to dumb my actions down just because this is about me and not somebody else; I believe if I were to do that I'd be exhibiting false modesty. And I don't feel that it's necessary for me to pepper compliments throughout my dialogue. This isn't kindergarten. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak oppose - 3 self nominations really scares me, it makes me think you're a little desperate -- Tawker 21:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. OpposeWeak Oppose Incivility concerns and conerns due to his edit warring at the now hiring page as well as above that he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're trying to achieve here at Wikipedia. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    This user was a participant in the mentioned edit warring ([5] [6]), the "incivility" he refers to was unintended and apologized for [7]. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed I was and I do not hold any ill will against you for it and will gladly support you in the future (assuming this doesn's succeed) however I think that you should wait some time though. BTW, changed from oppose to weak oppose since even though I don't feel comfortable voting support or neutral at the moment I am not strongly opposed either. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I have nothing against self-nomination, but this one is too glib for me. Nothing in the candidate's answers to the questions below or to the concerns raised above decrease my concern about this. Bucketsofg 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Weak oppose. I disagree with his stance on open proxies (see JoshuaZ's question 6). Kimchi.sg | talk 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. An experienced an long standing Wikipedian, and shows great improvement from the last RfA. Boost up your involvement, and you will definitely be ready in few months. (^'-')^ Covington 02:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. The user's actions at WP:HIRE indicate he may not be in tune with Wikiculture. Also, while he did not technically violate the letter of 3RR, I feel he ignored its spirit by showing a tendency to revert rather than discuss, sometimes with unhelpful edit summaries. 3RR is not intended to sanction three reverts. Pagrashtak 04:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. --Freestyle.king 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per all of the above. --Danaman5 06:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Per above. Masssiveego 07:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Admins should work towards consensus. In creating WP:HIRE, Cookiecaper made it clear that he was aware that it was a hugely controversial proposal. Regardless of the specific merits of that proposal, given the controversy he should not have unilaterally have set it up without inviting discussion first. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    It had already been discussed in several places. No consensus was reached and the page was created to help that process along. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong Oppose. To my mind, even proposing something like WP:HIRE displays extremely poor judgement. I don't want to say never, but I would have a very, very hard time trusting the judgment of someone who thinks a proposal like that is a good idea. -Colin Kimbrell 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose - Hasn't really got his/her feet wet in things such as WP:AFD, WP:RFA which admins are usually very active in. Also, does not really like to discuss things with fellow editors sometimes, and seems too eager to be an admin. --Knucmo2 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    I have done things a lot on both AfD and RfA in the past. Not very much recently, but I have before and I understand the process. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Not very active since February 2005. joturner 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. OpposeIn too many disputes, and I'm not really a fan of self nominations —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T-rex (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 April 2006.
  24. Adminship is not a trophy. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strong Oppose A self nomination following the hire page looks like an agenda, and one wikipedia can definitely do without. Complainer 12:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose To many disputes to allow adminship right now. Moe ε 20:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. The inactivity and disputes are definately a concern, but the comments about his RfAs failing due to "technicalities" are disturbing enough that I have to strongly oppose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jareth (talk • contribs) 07:10, 21 April 2006.
  28. Oppose Has been in a lot of disputes. An admin should be the one to mediate disputes. Also, WP:HIRE, and finally contributions as of late have been decreasing.--Adam (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per WP:HIRE. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. The 3RR incident leaves a sour taste in my mouth, as well as the edits brought up by Encephalon and Pagrashtak. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, for the time being. I've appreciated your presence in the LDS Wikiproject and your level-headedness during debates; your edits are always welcome as far as I'm concerned. Two things I'd like to ask, which I tagged on below. Tijuana Brass 10:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for your answers. Still on the fence, though, after your authorship of Now Hiring, which is against my understanding of Wiki ethic. Tijuana Brass 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Switched to support. Tijuana Brass 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Seems like a good editor... but has been less active recently. I realise the toolserver's frozen out but less than 50 edits in February and less than 100 in April? I realise this would probably increase were you to get the mop, but it seems pretty pointless giving you something you're not going to use... no reason to oppose though. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral tending to oppose due to low recent edit count. Waiting for answers to Tijuana's questions. Kimchi.sg | talk 11:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Switched to oppose. Kimchi.sg | talk 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Concerning my activity: I'm committed to Wikipedia and I want to help improve. As Kate's Tool shows, my edit rate fluctuates month to month, but I spend a lot of time reading and I could do a lot more to help out with administrator privileges. I log in every day, as I have for at least the last year, whether I make an edit or not, so I'd notice any messages left for me. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per User:Deskana. JIP | Talk 12:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral A bit iffy on activity level and question answers. _-M o P-_ 13:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. I will support later with more experience.--Jusjih 15:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I don't think inactivity is enough to oppose. Computerjoe's talk 17:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral As stated previously by others, 3 self nominations is scary and overtly self-promoting. If someone else nominated him and he calmed down a bit I would steadfastly support him because he has the experience and determination if anything else. Patman2648 | Good Night and Good Luck 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. Has had a bad past from triple reverting, 2,000 edits is a lot but I believe a delay should be made to ensure the person can do well. I also didn't like some of the answers to the questions.--Andeee 17:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    What bad past from triple reverting? I was banned once for the 3RR, and the ban log shows that that was an error. Blocked for for violating 3RR, unblock summary says "Did not actually violate 3 revert rule" [8] cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral -- Not much point in debating this doomed nom. I would like to say that I don't find the creation of WP:HIRE to be damming as many opposers seem to think. I'm much more concerned about flirting with 3RR. John Reid 23:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral -- This nomination is going to get yanked, but regardless, I'd like to say that the user seems to be a little too pushy. He arbitrarily reverts other people's edits to Mormon articles, then creates controversial edits of his own. - Richardcavell 07:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • See cookiecaper's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Contributions breakdown (as the tool server is down this should prevent multiple large contributions queries):
Username Cookiecaper
Total edits 2145
Distinct pages edited 984
Average edits/page 2.180
First edit 2004-08-14 11:21:13
(main) 1178
Talk 271
User 35
User talk 36
Image 140
Image talk 1
MediaWiki talk 5
Template 73
Template talk 11
Category 16
Wikipedia 273
Wikipedia talk 106

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: Closing AfDs, helping with speedies.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've made significant contributions to Joseph Smith, Jr. and Category:LDS stubs. I joined WP:LDS immediately after it was created and helped develop structure with that. I've contributed to several things in WP:CVG. I'm most proud of the stubs I've written.
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:Yeah, I've been in editing conflicts. I was banned for making two reverts to Clitoris a while back. I was adding a warning and someone else was taking it away. This was the first I'd heard of the 3RR and it encouraged me to read more about Wikipedia policies. I tried to get those not in favor of this warning to reach a compromise but they refused.
I was briefly banned from #wikipedia for giving somebody a link to something using GiganticURL.
Some amount of stress was caused to me by User:bcatt's edits on Joseph Smith. Nothing too bad though. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 10:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
4. How would you resolve the following conflict: A new user edits an article which leads to a revert war with a member of the arbitration committee. You think that the new user's edit improves the article. Neither party will yield, compromise or give you any additional information. Do you side with the new user or with the member of the arbitration committee?


Questions from Tijuana Brass: (As always, additional questions are optional, but answers are appreciated).

1. What has changed between now and your last self-nom in December that better qualifies you for adminship?
A: Time and whatever experience I've gained in the intermittent period. I was qualified in December as well; my RfA then was primarily opposed on the grounds of "too close to your last RfA". cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
2. What interests you about the deletion process (you mentioned AfDs and speedies)?
A: What interests me is cleaning out the backlog. I'd help with other tasks as well as needed (moves, etc.), but deletions seems to be one of the most congested parts of Wikipedia and I've spent considerable time on AfD, so I'm already fairly familiar with that process. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Questions from JoshuaZ As always additional questions are optional, but answers will be appreciated.
1. After two previous failed self-nominations, why not wait until someone else nominated you or why not ask a user you knew well to nominate you?
A: Because I waited for some time, and I consulted with users that knew me well before I nominated myself. I believe I'm qualified and believe that the rejection of this RfA, which would happen on technicalities for the third time, will hurt Wikipedia. I care about this project, I can help, and I ought to be allowed to. It probably would look better if another had nominated me, but I don't accept attributing prevelance to appearances over efficieny as a desirable quality in a sysop. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Why has your activity level dropped in the last two months and how would you respond to concerns related to your drop in edits and your RfA?
A: My activity level has dropped in association with the disputes had between WP:LDS and User:bcatt, as well as searching for employment and other personal issues.
I would respond to concerns about my RfA and activity level as nothing to be concerned about. I check Wikipedia every day and would see any available messages. I'd be able to contribue in different ways that are more compatible with my lifestyle at the moment if I had admin powers. My edit rate fluctuates but I'm still very interested in helping where I can. I really see this as a non-issue, given that I'll be around to account for any administrative actions I take. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
3. What do you think of WP:SCHOOL?
A: I think it's good. I was under the mistaken impression that primary and secondary schools without notable alumni or some other special claim to fame were universally considered non-notable. That was about at least a year ago, I think. I've had it watchlisted since then. If people want to work on it, that's fine with me, although I think a clearer policy on school notability should be established. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?
A: No, but I do believe that many of the common voters use excessively strict criteria. Giving admin powers to newly registered users is dangerous and shouldn't be done, but adminship is no big deal, and I believe that these powers were intended to be granted to all serious editors that act with the interest of Wikipedia in mind and have some knowledge about how to do that. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
5. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A: Hmm...I'm not sure. I'd probably want to tear down the red tape that exists where it does; editing one's own article isn't necessarily bad and when Jimbo doesn't unilaterally exercise his powers (i.e., only contributes to a discussion), his opinion should not be considered law; if it were so, he would have (or should have) made it so; he has the authority. I haven't really given this a lot of thought, though. I have a lot of ideas on how to change Wikipedia, but I don't know which one I would implement if I could choose only one and have it put in place. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A: Few. Maybe against Open Proxies, but I don't agree that those should be blocked so I probably won't participate in that project too much. Possibly in cases of severe vandalism where there is a consensus of other users that it is the necessary action, although of course I would almost always want to use limited blocks for this instead. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Cookiecaper_3_d12e.html"