Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cometstyles

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] Cometstyles

Final: (3/7/2) ended 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cometstyles (talk · contribs) - Cometstyles is a very experienced and valued editor to our community. He has made over 5400 edits well balanced in all areas, whilst having a knowledge of dispute and I believe he deserves to use the sysop tools to help our encyclopedia progress further, and I personally believe he would use them for the right causes and never abuse them. Retiono Virginian 11:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Cometstyles 12:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Well my main area of concern has always been regarding vandalism and the creation of fictious and dubious articles. I have been doing a lot in regards to WP:AIV as well as tagging images and articles which failed to comply with the Wikipedia Guidelines and I enjoy my work at WP:RFCN, for which I have contributed a lot to and there is something which I always wanted to improve regarding username policy violation because there are some names which are tagged as such and I believe we need to change that so we dont make any mistakes by deleting usernames which might not be violating username policy but which should go through the normal process of being allowed to be changed. I have taken part in a couple of XfD's and I believe there should be a new criteria set in place to stop articles which might not adhere to WP:BIO from being deleted without going through the the right process because I have seen articles which are quite good being tagged for speed deletionand that has to be changed and I do assume good faith and would do so in the future.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well I havent created as much articles as I would have loved to but Iam proud of any articles I have created regarding my beloved country Fiji. Most of my contributions has been regarding fijian rugby players, fijian politicians and fijian sporting organisations and teams of which I have quite an acute knowledge of and I have also contributed to creating articles on New Zealand and Australian rugby players as well. Most of my Contributions in the last few months has been reverting and reporting vandalism. I usually only edit articles on which I have knowledge of and most of my Contributions have been mainly on Rugby Union, my Country(Fiji)and some on Bollywood and Hollywood actors and I'am pleased with all of my work.
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: Since I joined wikipedia, I had differences and conflicts with a few of the editors regarding the uploading of images for which I take full blame for because I didnt know at that time which images were allowed and which weren't but know my knowledge has widen and even though I have been on Wikipedia for only about 6 months, I believe I have matured enough in the last couple of months and Iam more then willing to face challenges as they come and hope to deal with all or any problems that I would face in years to come.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support- As nominator. Retiono Virginian 12:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per no big deal. Kntrabssi 13:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Experienced and friendly civil user, particularly active in RfA's - good luck! Tellyaddict 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_84#Minimum_Edits, that was too recent. Still inexperienced imo. – Chacor 12:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am also highly concerned that he accepted a nomination from a nominator who would strike out my oppose vote. Poor judgement? – Chacor 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I accepted Retiono Virginian nomination because I Trust him and trust is something you earn and regarding your opposition, I believe you are taking it out of context and as I have mentioned above, I have matured quite a bit since that edit and anywayz that edit was guided at the Admins because during that time there were a lot of RfA's by very new users and users with very low edit count so I wanted to make sure if there was any minimum edit requirement.--Cometstyles 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, I shouldn't have struck it out. I just didn't like it when she used the term "recently" to something that happened a month ago, please list my mistakes. I am not perfect, I like to improve from them. Retiono Virginian 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    You use of "anywayz" puts doubts into my mind of whether you have indeed "matured quite a bit". Also now opposing per below - putting words into others mouths? "you should be ashamed of yourself for picking on him and branding him as UNCIVIL" is not the behaviour expected of an admin. – Chacor 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to very strong oppose per User_talk:Cometstyles#Nominated and especially User_talk:Retiono_Virginian#My RfA: "You are on the right path and those who blame me for being UNCIVIL should look at their own edits because they themselves are the 'UNCIVIL' ones and these are some of the reasons I have decided to wait out on this RfA and after which I might leave Wikipedia for good". We do not need admins like these. – Chacor 14:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Another gem from below: "I can be rude like you but Iam as usual assuming good faith and to answer your question above I would have made a better Admin then you" Hmm... – Chacor 14:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose per this comment made yesterday, the ensuing argument, and his refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong. The whole thing raised doubts about civility and assuming good faith. Kafziel Talk 12:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I thought that issue was solved and I would apologise to the Editor in question when she comes online cause believe it or not, I dont think she knows what had happened..--Cometstyles 13:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    What do you mean, "believe it or not"? I'm the one who pointed out to you that Nlu was offline and unaware of the comments you were making. The fact that you didn't notice that yourself either means you don't know how to look at contribs (which I doubt) or that you just assumed bad faith without even thinking of checking. Either way, not good.
    I'm also now opposing per Chacor. The fact that you would accept a nomination from an editor who sees no problem with crossing out votes he doesn't like does not reflect well on you. Kafziel Talk 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Looking at my edits I just found out that you were wrong and that User:Nlu wasnt actually offline so Pliz try to improve your mistakes instead of trying to improve others mistakes and I saw what you wrote on Retiono Virginian talk page and you should be ashamed of yourself for picking on him and branding him as UNCIVIL..--Cometstyles 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't say he was uncivil. I said he was tampering with votes, which he absolutely was. And the fact that you're still trying to turn this around (what happened to "I would apologize to the Editor in question when she comes online"?) only tells me I'm making the right decision here. Also, this statement, where you threaten to leave Wikipedia if you don't get your way here, is yet another example of an editor who isn't ready to be an admin. Kafziel Talk 13:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I can be rude like you but Iam as usual assuming good faith and to answer your question above I would have made a better Admin then you because In my whole life, I have never picked on anybody and I have always been civil and what happened regarding this comment, I believe it is my mistake and but in no way was I rude because as I had mentioned before if was to be rude i would have use Bold letters, Italics or All Capital Letter(indicates a person is shouting) and I havent actually decided or 'threatened' to leave as you so kindly put it because all I said was that I "might" leave. I just returned form a 3 week break caused by unforseen circumstances happy to get back into what I love doing best and someone comes along and calls me UNCIVIL is not right and if you want to talk more on these, Pliz use my Talk Page because these comments are taking too much space...--Cometstyles 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Look, you have a point. I shouldn't have done this, it was a mistake. I'll make sure this doesn't happen again. Retiono Virginian 13:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per "so Pliz try to improve your mistakes instead of trying to improve others mistakes" - you're running for a position of trust on Wikipedia and you talk like that? No thanks.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  14:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, I can't believe that we have stooped so low as to oppose people not for WHAT they are saying but for how they are typing it. Kntrabssi 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose due to maturity and judgement concerns as elucidated by Kaf and Chacor. And to respond to Kntrabssi's comment above, administrators (being the tools of policy enforcement on Wikipedia) have a responsibility to communicate in clear, comprehensible vernacular. Imagine if an administrator left a warning to a US House of Representatives IP address with Cometstyles' English. A Traintalk 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Seems to not understand WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. See !votes at here, here, (especially [1]), and here. These !votes show a complete lack of common sense and partisanship in dealing with national issues (he argues that the American football teams of the same name are less important than the rugby teams; let alone the common sense idea that Chiefs should probably redirect to Chief, not a sports franchise). This comment is also troubling, though it is two months old. I would not want this type of partisan making critical decisions about article names and deletion debates in the future. Part Deux 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose the diffs provided above, and Cometstyles' responses on this RfA clearly demonstrate that he doesn't yet have the maturity to handle the role of administrator. Gwernol 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for this surprising misrepresentation of Wikipedia editors in general and participants in this RfA in particular. It seems that you have a long way to go in order to reach an objective viewpoint towards contributing to this project. (aeropagitica) 15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I think some of the opposers fail to account for the fact that the candidate's first language is probably not English. There are several grammatical mistakes (such as I'am instead of I am, or fictious instead of fictitious) that are simply the result of inexperience with the language. Perhaps the incidents where he made harsh comments such as "do your job" were also unintentional given a lack of experiences, where "please block him now" would have been sufficient. That being said, the concerns are too strong for me to support at this time. YechielMan 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    The candidate's userpage says English is his native language. – Chacor 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    My native Language isnt English. I dont have a native language because Iam from Fiji and people here speak in two languages..Fijian andHindi and my mother tongue is actually Hindi but not those real Hindi we have in India, but more of a mixture of Fijian english and Hindi..--Cometstyles 14:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I didn't see anything that made me want to outright oppose when looking back through the candidate's contributions, but the handling of the dispute related to this RfA serves to shed some light on Cometstyles' demeanor when handling admin issues that will be far more frustrating. I don't necessarily trust him to handle conflicts with other editors the way admins are expected to. This is not to say that the work he does is unsatisfactory, but rather that he has not displayed the admin conduct that I look for. Also, the spelling mistakes don't bother me, but the use of Internet abbreviations like "pliz" is not how I wish for admins to interact with other editors. Leebo T/C 14:47, 11 April 2007 (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.