Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cookiecaper

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 (0/7/4) ending 20:25 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to withdraw this nomination. I made a few mistakes and botched this up in the rush I was in to complete it and move on to other things. Maybe even this isn't proper form to withdraw, but I couldn't find something that says what proper form is so you know. ^_^ I'll try again soon. In the meantime, I'll try to do nice things and be a good boy. Thank you everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cookiecaper 20:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Cookiecaper (talk · contribs) – I am requesting adminship for myself because I'm bored a lot and can think of several situations where performing sysop duties could help alleviate this boredom. I'm a big believer in the concepts behind Wikipedia, as well as open-source and other things. I don't believe that I am likely to abuse admin privileges and would truly consider actions carefully before executing them. Please support my nomination! Thank you deeply. Cookiecaper 05:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As nominator, I accept my nomination. :)

Support

  1. Cookiecaper 05:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Oppose. SEVEN DAYS AFTER, bored a lot, please support my nomination, don't believe that I am likely to abuse admin privileges, voting for yourself. That's left me with a bad taste in my mouth.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I'm uneasy about self-noms who vote for themselves, especially when the vote is deleted rather than struck out. The non-voting instruction was only recently bolded to make it obvious and admins need to be aware of policies like this. Dlyons493 Talk 09:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Was neutral until vote got removed instead of struck out. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose user is still too green for adminship.  ALKIVAR™ 11:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose as per Shreshth and Alkivar. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 11:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. I've had good experiences with this user. However, I think he/she needs to follow our RfA policies and procedures more closely, and respect the process. Andre (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    You're right, I didn't show this sufficient respect. I did the whole thing on rather short time restraints. That clearly was not wise. I've struck through votes before, I don't know why I didn't this time. I'll correct that immediately. Despite my errors and flippancy with this process, I still believe I'd make a good admin, although I certainly understand any opposition. I'm very sorry, everyone. Cookiecaper 15:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, I'm pretty sure this is just a joke RfA. Private Butcher 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. You voted on your own RfA for yourself. I'd normally oppose, but your contribs look good. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought this was standard for self-nominations, the same way nominators for articles for WP:GCOTW vote for their own nomination and the same way candidates for public office vote for themselves. User:Cognition did the same thing, but that's probably not a good example because he's losing really bad and because there is mention that he didn't follow convention. However, if it isn't standard to vote for one's self and I posted this without knowing, I guess I deserve a neutral. Cookiecaper 05:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I see that bold part at the top of the page now :P . Vote remove, please forgive this oversight. Cookiecaper 06:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Vote "remove"? Big no-no. Sorry, but I feel that I have to change my vote. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Seriously? If it were that big of a "no-no", I would think it would be written on this page somewhere and in bold as well. --Holderca1 18:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Neutral til Q 4 below is answered. Proto t c 09:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Was going to oppose, but I'd rather assume good faith. SEVEN DAYS AFTER and bored a lot are certainly a poor omen. We need sysops that are able to make the effort to go the extra mile. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I believe that you are a good editor, but try to obtain a litle more experience. Branch out a little, and continue on the good work. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 15:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I consider voting for oneself a minor faux pas, and removing instead of striking the vote even more minor. Nevertheless, I think the candidte should pull a Harriet an withdraw, trying again in a month or so. -R. fiend 17:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Mostly protecting and deleting pages, particularly Candidates for Speedy Deletion. Cookiecaper 05:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I believe I've made a lot of good contributions to Joseph Smith, Jr. and I'm probably most proud of some of the LDS stubs I've written. I joined WP:LDS immediately after it was created and helped with that. I've done a few significant things for WP:CVG, but not a whole lot! Cookiecaper 05:27, 28 October 2005 (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. 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. Now I'm careful only to make one revert in 24 hours.
I don't believe other Wikipedians have caused me stress. Wikipedia is cool and I spend a lot of time on it, and I'd be sad if I couldn't spend time on it anymore, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Cookiecaper
4. What's with the 'As of Oct. 28, 2005, I am no longer multi-licensing my contributions into the public domain. I don't think I'm allowed to take my previously public domain contributions back under the GFDL, but if I can, I do that too!' on your user page?
A. I was multi-licensing my contribution into the public domain but I decided I didn't want to do that anymore. From my understanding, when something is released into the public domain, it cannot be reclaimed, but I wasn't sure about that. I searched for a couple of minutes and then just put that up. Cookiecaper
You may not retract previously released content from the public domain. Mind clarifying why you made the choice to switch from PD release back to GDFL? Xoloz 19:21, 28 October 2005 (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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.