Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 3


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

Nomination
'''Final (4/10/1); Ended at 00:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC) per withdraw.  Syn  ergy 00:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)'''

– I've been a Wikipedia user since October 2005, and in May 2006, I had an unsuccessful RfA (please note that I also previously declined a nomination). Beginning in October 2006, I took a fairly long Wikibreak, making only 127 edits from then until January 2009. In February of this year, I stormed back onto the scene, and I have been very active since that time with about 2400 edits since my return. My contributions have covered a wide spectrum from fighting vandalism to writing featured content, and I think that I can be trusted with the tools. I also hope that with the tools, I could continue helping the project. I have been coached by KnightLago for adminship, and I think that the process so far has helped me further develop my policy knowledge (in the interest of full disclosure, KnightLago advised me that it might be best to wait before trying an RfA, but I hope that the community will find me ready). Cool3 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this self-nomination. Cool3 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC) After speaking with KnightLago, I hereby withdraw. Cool3 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I'm hoping to continue my work in the Global Struggle Against Radical Unconstructive Editing (War on Vandalism), and the tools would be very helpful there. I'm also fairly active at AfD, and I imagine I'd close a fair number of those.  As someone who's fairly knowledgeable about the process at WP:DYK, I'd also help with updating that page as it can get fairly backlogged.  I'd also help out with making edits to protected pages (I've made a handful of requests for relatively non-controversial changes in the past).  Finally, I think it's important for people involved in dealing with vandalism to also be willing to help out at Requests for Unblock, so I'd stop by there from time to time.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I'm perhaps most proud of Operation Deny Flight, which is currently over at FAC (please join in that discussion here). Some of the feedback there suggests that I need to pull in an outside copyeditor to actually get the article up to the standards, but I've been doing my best to work on the grammar and style issues, and I'm confident that I can get it through before too much longer.  I'm also quite proud of Michael Woodruff, which I took from a redlink all the way to FA status.  I'm also quite fond of many of DYK articles, a number of which can be found on my user page.  Finally, I'm proud to have been involved in several policy and AfD debates, and I think that some of my best work has been in reverting vandalism.


 * 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: Sure, everyone's been in a conflict or two, but I've never been in any particularly serious ones. One conflict is discussed in my previous RfA.  In general, I don't see conflict itself as a problem.  I prefer a heated AfD debate to one that just includes a few half-hearted "Delete. Non-notable" remarks and one "Keep. WP:NOT Paper".  I think I tend to keep a pretty cool head in conflicts, and I try to keep things civil and about the real issue at hand.  If I ever get particularly steamed by something, I typically just go take the dog for a walk (or if I'm work I go back to what I get paid for doing), then after twenty minutes or an hour, I come back to the problem with a clear head.


 * 4. Could you please explain your long absence (question from myself as it deserves an answer and I think people will want to know)?
 * A. Well, most of my absence is explained by a period of great activity in my real life. I never really left Wikipedia, I just got busy with other things.  Even while I was gone, I still checked my watchlist about one a week, just to make sure nothing terrible happened to any of the articles I've worked on, etc., and from time to time, I'd drop in to make some edits.  I didn't lose touch with the project, and I even followed most of the policy debates that happened while I was gone (I just find them interesting).  I have to say that really the only thing I seem to have missed while I was gone was the change in attitude towards wikilinking dates, but it was pretty easy to adapt to that.   My life is now less busy than it was during my period of absence, and I have some time again to devote to Wikipedia.  I won't deny that I might possibly be gone for a while in the future if my life gets to hectic, but at least for the next several months, I foresee having plenty of time to spend here, and I think I could do a lot of good with the tools during that time.


 * Optional Question from Townlake
 * 5. I have already commented in the Oppose section, but I hope you will provide some clarification on this issue. One of the terms of your admin coaching agreement was: "do not go for your RfA or accept an RfA nomination except from me - I will nominate you when I believe you are ready."  Your response was "I agree."  Three weeks later, here you are with a self-nom against the advice of your coach.  Your admin coaching seems to be going well; what changed?
 * A. That's a fair question, and it seems that the whole RfA hinges on this issue, so I'll do my best to provide an answer. First of all, with all due respect to KnightLago, I didn't really feel like the admin coaching was going anywhere; we were really just covering things that I already know for the most part.  So, this morning I woke up and started to have a look at recent RfAs.  From what I could see, I seemed to meet the standards that the community currently requires (enough edits, high quality content contributions, participation in AfD, etc.).  I also looked over a number of other admin coaching pages, and I came to realize: this just really isn't the thing for me.  I'd already made a statement to that effect on KnightLago's talk page previously, and he had responded the community would probably want a few more months of activity from me, but I've been around for a long time, and done a lot here.  So, I went to leave a message on his talk page, telling him about my conclusions but discovered that he didn't have much activity in the last few days.


 * So, I said to myself, why not just go for it? After all, a core principle is be bold.  So, I was bold; I started an RfA.  This whole admin coaching issue may well sink the RfA, but I don't think it's terribly relevant.  I'm a good contributor; I've made more than enough edits for you to judge my trustworthiness and whether I can be trusted with the tools.  If you look at my contributions, and you don't like what you see there, then by all means oppose me.  If, however, you look through my edits and you see a user you can trust, then why shouldn't you support?  I've done what I can to help this project over the last several years, and I can help more if I'm given the tools.  In retrospect, I'm sorry that I decided to come here alone, without discussing matters more with KnightLago, but I still think I have demonstrated the knowledge and commitment needed for adminship.

General comments

 * Links for Cool3:
 * Edit summary usage for Cool3 can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cool3 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * It's probably not appropriate for me to !vote "support" since Cool3 is one of the (few) uses who have supported my currently open RfA. However, if I could, I would; his/her answers to questions seem sound, as does the contribution history, short as it may have been for recent times. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 21:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issue with you !voting support, TT. Seems fine. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support— No issues, good content contribution and AfD work. I'm not concerned about your wikibreak - it will be a net+ even if you use the tools rarely. –Capricorn42Talk 18:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) The RFA is evidently not likely to pass, but a few comments. L@@K - article work! - nice to see someone who is not another mindless huggler (although I'm not sure about the NFC image on that article, but that's not a debate for here). A good well referenced well written article is worth many thousand vandalism reverts. Excellent responses below, calm, mature, not throwing your toys around because the RFA is failing. My misgiving is the jusgement in running when you were advised not to - but I think you'll learn from that. I feel confident in thinking an admin for the future but there are (albiet uncodified) standards at RFA on en.wikipedia and a great big editing gap is one that fits the criteria for many to oppose, as we see below. Happy editing - see you back here July time? Pedro : Chat  21:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to participate. As per the non-free image, it's not an area of expertise for me, but I basically just followed the precedent established in other 30 Rock articles, does anyone else know if that's an acceptable/unacceptable use?  Cool3 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is not the place to discuss that -- this should be discussed over at the talk, at WP:MCQ, or at WT:NFCC. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 21:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support - Look, everyone, he's a user who writes featured content, and does more than revert vandalism. He even updates portals. Has a good temperament, and apparently, a good head on his shoulders. Adminship is no big deal, and I personally think he would make a tremendous administrator. Opposes below aren't very convincing. There really are no problems here. Much luck,  Jd 027  (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Knows what he's talking about, produces excellent contributions to the encyclopedia, and answers to questions and a review of his admin coaching page demonstrate he's got a clue about policies too. Considering RfA is a process that has, in the past, penalised candidates for using an admin coach in the first place I find it distinctly strange for somebody to get pile-on opposes for deciding the coaching process wasn't really getting him anywhere. Yes, KnightLago had an excellent point that Cool3 may not pass an RfA yet but I really feel that might be a problem with arbitrary RfA standards rather than the candidate. I can't see any evidence to suggest Cool3 would misuse admin tools at this point, whether by incompetence, inexperience or malice - and as such I am happy to support. ~ mazca  t 00:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Only two months of recent activity, an admin coach who doesn't think you're ready, and eagerness to apply the tools in at least one deletion area. I think your intentions are good but I think you need to establish a stronger reputation as a collaborator before requesting the tools.  Thanks for volunteering all the same. Townlake (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * follow up per candidate's request I did take a longer look at the contribution record, and what I've looked at is quite good. Consistently provides well-reasoned rationales in AFD (even where I disagree with the opinion, I respect the thought behind it).  Valuable contributions to Wikiprojects.  Good general use of edit summaries and general observations of community standards.  I think your coach was right - in the future, you could be an excellent RFA candidate. Townlake (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Your admin coach told you to wait, and yet you ran anyway. I'm sorry, but I just can't support. Not really looked at contribs in depth, but this shows a judgment problem in my opinion. As an aside, what happened to Requests for adminship/Cool3? &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 18:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a nomination for adminship that I declined. According to the deletion log, MBisanz deleted it in May 2008. Cool3 (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) * 9 million users, too many users currently. Lets close account registration Lets  drink  Tea  21:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose at this time - Your failure to follow through with your commitment to User:KnightLago troubles me. If you disregard his advice and your promise so easily, I'm concerned that you'll not take the admin. position with the type of commitment that is required.  Over-eager candidates concern me in that they may have an agenda, and lack the patience that is often required with the bit.  I'm open to review of my !vote once I've heard KnightLago's response to this RfA, if there are communications and agreements that I'm unaware of - I would consider a change in my position. — Ched ~  (yes?)/© 19:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per Neuro. Never go against your admin coach, it doesn't work.-- Giants27 T/  C  19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per everybody above except for DougsTech. Recommend WP:SNOW closure/withdrawal. &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  20:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that this is starting to look unlikely to succeed, but I would like to ask the bureaucrats to leave it open a little longer. I'd also like to ask the !voters, particularly here in the oppose section, if they'd be willing to provide some feedback about my contributions themselves.  I'd find it very helpful if people would take a look at my edits and say what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong.  Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ER is probably the place you're looking for, but I did leave a note on your talk page. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per almost everybody. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not yet ready and bad commitment to admin coach.  -  down  load  |   sign!  21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose I think your admin coach is bang on. I think as you entered into an agreement with him you should follow it. I do however commend your recent edits to the last two months, your on 'fire' great job ;) Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Two things. First your admin coach has said your not ready. Second, per most of the other comments above, but the comment by DougsTech is not one of them.America69 (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Don't wish to pile on. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2009 (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.