Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cooksey


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

Cooksey
final (5/21/9) ending 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

– I've been editing on wikipedia since December 2005, and I have near 2500 contributions. I have been involved in Wikiproject Buffy, but I have done a lot of work in sorting stubs, especially film stubs, tagging images, and a few other miscellaneous fixup projects. Cooksey 23:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination accepted --Cooksey 23:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  04:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: because adminship should be no big deal right? &rArr;   SWAT  Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  22:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support We are building an encyclopedia, not a community, this is the type of admin we need, one who is an editor who wants to be a janator. His edit summaries are 100%, great # of edit counts, the fact that he has so many so fast is because of two things (I think): excitement about the project, lack of anything else to do (don't take offence to that, I am the same way). The fact that he has little/no namespace edits is not important IMO. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 06:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support WP:ADMIN says "Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." From what I can see, Cooksey meets these criteria with no problems. Waggers 14:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support This user is not at all likely to abuse his tools as admin, and I thnk would perform important tasks at wiki. Bobby1011 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose very little community interaction despite high edit count. Only 98 user talk edits and most of his edits were in December. Since then, edits per month have steadily decreased, with less than 100 edits this month. KI 00:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Not enough Wikipedia namespace interaction, but I'm also concerned that you were able to manage over 2000 edits in less then a month around December, but have been rather inactive since. —  The KMan  talk  00:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, per TheKMan. Nacon kantari   e |t||c|m 01:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose User doesn't have much edits in the area of communication with other users. Would like to see this user more active as he has only been here since December. Edit count is considerably low but thats not a major issue. M o e   ε  03:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per TheKMan. It's just too soon, Cooksey. I've had my account since 2002 and I'm not an admin yet. (Of course, I only really started getting active three months ago...) --Aaron 03:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, quite new, and fails criteria #1 for constant activity. NSL E (T+C) at 05:10 UTC (2006-02-22)
 * 7) Oppose, lack of interaction with the community. However, keep up with your article work. --Ter e nce Ong 07:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Standards. Sorry, but I feel you needs more interaction before re-applying. Essexmutant 11:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose due to lack of experience - although your tendency towards 'janitorial' tasks such as image tagging etc. may make you a credible adminship candidate once you gain more experience. Cynical 12:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose... it was difficult... but all your edits are all tied up in that one month. You've had too little activity outside of that. There's no proof that having got your admin powers you would continue to suffer from the same inactivity. I wish I didn't feel I had to vote oppose. Deskana (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose not very much interaction with WP community. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) oppose, weak. Two things bug me. First, you're still very new. Second, I don't feel that "buffy" is encyclopedic. I would be a lot happier if you said you were trying to solve problems with buffy articles (eg merges, list compiling/maintaining). ... aa:talk 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, still very green. Not enough experience in the Wiki community.  Given a few more months and a little diversification in participation this user will be more than qualified.--Looper5920 10:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Needs to be more consistantly active.  D a Gizza Chat  &#169; 11:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Recent signifigant decrease in editing, low Project and usertalk edits. xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  04:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose, great work with images and buffy, etc., but too little involvement in the project namespace. Only 100 edits to Wikipedia: pages, and participated in deletion process only eight times. — Feb. 24, '06 [10:18] 
 * 17) Oppose, with same comment as Zjins' RfA - too new. Maybe if a user was incomprehensibly stellar, I would vote to support - but in that case it wouldn't have to be a self-nomination. Sorry. Ifnord 02:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose, low wikispace edits and user talks--Ugur Basak 16:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. Need more interaction. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose, nowhere near enough edits outside main namespace. Please try again in a couple months. Stifle 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose, sorry, but too soon. Please keep building the encyclopedia and try again in a few months. Jonathunder 04:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Not a lot of interaction with others.  psch  e  mp  |  talk  05:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I'm tempted to vote support, but more interaction would be better. Kusonaga 09:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - I have a feeling this will not go through - perhaps you might consider withdrawing, and reapplying in a few months after trying to increase your participation outside of articles.  Proto  ||   type   13:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I will not support anyone with negative political or polemic userboxes on their page. Remove it, and, damnit, I probably still wouldn't, cos of the lack of interaction on the Wikipedia: namespace, but if you worked on that and reapplied in a month or two, I would definitely support.   Proto  ||   <font color="#007700">type   10:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Proto, I think you already went neutral (at the #3 position).&#160;—  The KMan <sup style="color:#000000;"> talk  22:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merged two votes -- xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  / <sub style="color:#666666;">CVU  03:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - you do good work, but I'd prefer more community interaction. Not being consistantly active isn't a factor for me at all; I know you have school and other commitments. Raven4x4x 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - While I believe Proto is not assuming good faith with regards to the userboxes and his comments really rise to the level of being a dick, I must agree that you need a little more time. --Dragon695 07:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, seems OK, but I would prefer a little more experience. <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P | Talk 15:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Thanks Proto, what you pointed out moved me from Oppose to Neutral. Cooksey, get someone to nominate you next time, and never be afraid to say what you want to as long as you're civil. Karm  a  fist  19:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral while I am impressed and I think that you would make good use of admin powers, I think you should "get involved more", as per other votes. I would echo the preceding vote from Karmafist. <font facefolor="#FF0000">haz  (user talk)<font color="#00FF00">e 20:59, 26 February 2006
 * 6) Neutral. Adminship should be no big deal; a bit early in this case.  Come back soon (and ask someone else to nominate you).

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See Cooksey's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.


 * I don't have many edits in the last month or so because I have had exams at school, which have taken up a lot of time in revision and then actually taking the exams. Now that they are over I expect to increase my edit rate up near to where it was before. --Cooksey 00:04, 23 February 2006 (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 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. I can see my self helping with AfD and CSD, as well as deleting copyrighted images. I would also try to help out in problems and disputes, such as the ones at WP:ANI, as well as moving/mergin pages and generally helping out where needed. I enjoy doing administrative tasks over writing articles, as I'm not a particularly good writer. I would also revert the odd bit of vandalism and block persistant vandals if neccessary.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I have vastly improved a series of articles; most of the series 1 and 2 Angel episode from the List of Angel (series) episodes were horribly formatted and needed wikifying/spell checking, I tidied them up a lot. They're what I'm most pleased with, and I'm still involved with the Buffyverse Wikiproject. But really I'm not a very good writer, and prefer to do administrative and cleanup tasks over writing or making large edits to articles.


 * 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 was involved in one minor dispute over the spelling of the name of a character from a TV programme (silly I know), but we resolved that issue and got back to improving the articles. I think that I would be good at dealing with stress or resolving such issues, as I am a prefect at school and I often have to resolve problems and am insulted or placed in stressful situations. In such situations I try to resolve the dispute, by getting both parties to calm down and talk to each other, if all else fails though I resort to meting out punishments, which I don't like to do, but needs must.


 * 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.