Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cognition


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

Cognition
Final (0/21/1) ending 13:10 28 October 2005 (UTC)

-- I am a longtime Wikipedia editor. I am well known for my goal to keep Wikipedia free from propaganda so that it can achieve its commendable policy of Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and I have had some successes. As administrator, I will actually follow the rules, unlike the many sysops who abuse their power in order to push a POV. I will not be making threats that violate the rules, like the one I just got one administor telling me threatening me with being blocked without warning everytime I contribute sourced, factual content that that contracdicts her radical POV. 

Support
 * 1) Cognition 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Nominees may not vote for themselves. --Durin 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) I've added Oppose here, because this seems to have been set up without the use of the normal template. I oppose creating admins who are on a POV mission, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. And I have little doubt about which category this user falls into. The Land 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * PS. I am not now and have never been a paid operative of any Australian neoconservatives, nor an associate thereof. Hope that clears things up in advance. The Land 18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The inclusion of gross incivility bordering on personal attacks in this candidate's own self-nomination does not bode well. Stated intent to be trigger happy with blocking is of concern. Likely to violate LaRouche ArbCom decision, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, an administrator's function is not to go out to block other administrators, or to have an agenda against them, and the personal attacks written above leave me with quite a bad impression of the user. Tito xd (?!?) 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Per all of the above, plus you voted for yourself. Fir  e  Fo  x  18:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, per above, and from past exposure to Cognition's POV pushing and bizarrely unhelpful edits. Friday (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I'm not sure if this RfA will get off the ground, but it's not even necessary to look outside this page for evidence of unsuitability as an admin. The personal attacks and accusations against other editors in the nomination leave me baffled. Carbonite | Talk 18:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per reasons mentioned above. Relatively low edit count as well. --Holderca1 18:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is not a missile silo for personal attacks. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Wikipedia propaganda free? What about List of drug-free Wikipedians? SqueakBox 18:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) I could swing either way on this one. Let's see ... joined Wikipedia to promote Lyndon LaRouche, has no understanding of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or WP:V, has been blocked seven times in two months, has caused multiple pages to be protected, is abusive to other editors, engages in WP:POINT, believes the Beatles worked for British intelligence, and that the Queen is a dope-pusher. Yikes, I can't decide. Oppose for now. SlimVirgin (talk)  20:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) My sources tell me the temperature in hell is still unseasonably warm. Ambi 01:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi - while "oppose" is clearly warranted here, your comment about "hell" is not, I feel. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 04:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Ambi meant that this nominaiton had 'a snowball's chance in hell'. Not that Cognition was going to it. The Land 09:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think he actually meant the nomination would pass when 'hell freezes over' Proto t c 12:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - not admin material. Guettarda 04:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above, and, what the hell, you voted for yourself!? -- NS LE  ( Commu nicate! ) < Contribs > 04:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) This is the most ill-conceived RFA I could have imagined. One thing I will never understand: Pete Camejo? I mean, Pete Camejo! Really, PETE CAMEJO is a fascist?! Dmcdevit·t 05:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose What's so bad about H.G. Wells, anyway?--Sean Black | Talk 05:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Description includes inflammatory statements and answer to question 1 makes me concerned about impulsive reactions. Motivation for nomination seems to be retaliation at current admins. I do not trust this user to administer fairly on Wikipedia. Cookiecaper 06:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose In my personal dealings with him, I have found Cognition to be reasonable and open to argument, so I truly like him. However, he has an undeniable record of questionable and troublesome edits, so I must oppose. Also, voting for oneself is bad form. Xoloz 07:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per TenOfAllTrades and Xoloz. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose based on the above... looks like this entry deserves an early removal to stop the pile-on.  ALKIVAR ™Radioactivity symbol.png 11:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Comeuppance? --Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 11:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, but I'd be all about blocking Cognition. Snowspinner 17:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) May I invoke WP:RPA and remove this nomination? No? In that case, will somebody please invoke the snowball clause on it? It's a needless pileup by now. Thanks. Radiant_ >|< 13:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) I don't see that his nomination comments are quite personal attacks. See talk for explanation. Friday (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Per Cognition's comment to Friday here:
 * I'm not betting on my self-nomination making it. But I am betting on someone seeing it and uncovering the extensive absuses of power of a clique of administrators and take action. So I can take the heat and keep up the nomination.
 * This RFA should be closed; by Cognition's own admission it is not about a request for adminship any more (if it ever was)&mdash;this is now just a vehicle for Cognition to publicly bash administrators with whom Cognition has had disputes in the past. If Cognition would like to seek public review of the actions of any Wikipedia admin, there are other more appropriate forums (WP:RFC, WP:AN/I, WP:RFArb, etc.). Requests for Adminship is not part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed; bad faith self(!)-nomination. El_C 05:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can we just close this? It's just becoming a stick to hit Cognition with, which is unnecessary and unhelpful. Proto t c 12:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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. All of them, blocking policies. I will review the block and protection logs, seeking to make sure that my fellow administrators actually followed the rules. Cognition 18:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My contributions have been extensive. I am particularly please with my work on Martin Luther King, where I succeded in keeping material motivated by racial hatred out of the article. I also added content on the New School for Social Research New School, which was not to be found before my edits. I also started the article on Cheneygate. Cognition 18:48, 27 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.I am in conflict right now with the abusive administrators I cited in my self-nominating statement. As they are going before the Arbitration Committee right now for revert warring and abusing admin powers, I am hoping to see that they get their comeuppance, like the soon-do-be indicted Rove, Libby, et al. Cognition 18:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 4. If you are appointed an administrator will you refrain from any further contributions to Lyndon LaRouche and related articles?


 * 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.