Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/cookiecaper 2

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 count: (6/12/1) ending 00:03 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

cookiecaper (talk · contribs) – I am re-nominating myself for adminship. This is my second nomination. My first nomination failed due to incorrect form and immature wording. The cursory inspection I allotted the RfA process before submitting my nomination is clearly an unfortunate black mark on my Wikipedia record, but I feel that I've learned from it and I've tried to improve and clarify the RfA templates and instructions based on my experience.

I've been around since August 2004 and have made significant contributions to several WikiProjects, namely WP:LDS and WP:CVG. I'm requesting admin powers mainly to help with WP:CSD, although of course I'll do other things as I see them. :) Cookiecaper 00:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept :) Cookiecaper 00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support
#I sort of behaved like a dick on your first RfA, so, to make it up, plus looking through what you've done, support. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC) - see below

  1. Support. I think the humility and maturity in the nomination statement alone would be enough to convince me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Shows more humility than I will in my entire life, if I know myself. ;) And seems very qualified. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:05
  5. Support. Has been involved in a number of administrative tasks already. Has shown himself as trusted when it comes to treating newbies, and others. His work is very focused, and another active admin in his areas of interest is justified. -Visorstuff 18:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Reasons presented for opposition are unconvincing, and in some cases quite absurd. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose sorry but I still feel you are unqualified. Anyone who gets themselves banned from WP and #wikipedia is definately unfit for adminship in my opinion.  ALKIVAR™ 10:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Just to provide a little more detail on the bans: the ban from WP was overturned shortly after it was imposed because I had only reverted two times, not three, as the 3RR dictates. It's good that I was banned, however, because I probably wouldn't have stopped at two; I was unaware of the 3RR at this point. The ban from #wikipedia was overturned with the comment that the banning operator was "overreacting". Cookiecaper 20:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, 3RR states that you cannot perform more than three reverts, so no-one should technically be banned until the fourth time. In that sense the policy could do with a new title. Raven4x4x 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Reluctant Oppose Sorry, but it has been just over a month since the last one, and I'm with Alkivar on the bannings. I do join in commending your humility in the nom., however. Xoloz 11:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose An RfA shouldn't be re-considered for 2-3 months. --Rogerd 18:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Ditto on Alkivar on the bans(to an extent) and Xoloz on the humility, but per per my beliefs on self noms clinched it. Come back in, say, July 2006. karmafist 21:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Not quite yet. --Merovingian 22:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, not yet, sorry. Quentin Pierce 02:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Proto t c 12:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Self-nominations, to me, are things that can't be taken lightly. If you're going to nominate yourself, you need to a) have a good reason for doing it and b) should be able to convince us that you merit the tools. In my humble and honest opinion, your track record does not speak highly enough of you to merit my voting in support. Given what has happened, I recommend that you continue to edit and work on articles and try another RfA well down the line. Sorry! --Martin Osterman 16:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Too soon for self-nomination. Silensor 00:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per editors involvement in the Clitoris (censored) debacle. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    Question Chairboy - is this opposition bases solely on his ideology? Seems odd to put down a nomination based on differences in opinions. Please expand your objection in more detail for other users to understand -Visorstuff 18:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Please wait a little longer. -JCarriker 00:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Nope, not yet! Probert 09:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, could you explain this from your user page? "As of Oct. 28, 2005, I am no longer multi-licensing my contributions into the public domain." NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 00:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I've decided to no longer release my contribution into the public domain, and keep them exclusively under GFDL. I didn't really think of this as a weighty decision, I just decided I was more comfortable with my stuff being under a copyleft license (GFDL). I feel that this helps Wikipedia out more and encourages free standards, something I really want to do. Cookiecaper 01:11, 5 December 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Primarily speedy deletions and AfD.
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. Now I'm careful only to make one revert in 24 hours.
I was briefly banned from #wikipedia for giving somebody a link to something using GiganticURL.
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.
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.