Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cosmic Latte


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

Cosmic Latte
Final (3/15/3); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by Mizu onna sango15 at 20:52, 13 June 2008

- Self-nomination. 3,000+ edits so far, WikiProject Time member, has a reflective approach to editing. As this is a self-nom., I'll elaborate much more in the question section. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would like to work with WP:AFD and WP:AIV in particular. Also, because WikiProject Time covers so many articles, many of which are often vandalized, I would like to use administrative privileges to maintain and improve the integrity of these articles by taking appropriate administrative action when such articles are maliciously vandalized.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: As a member of WikiProject Time, I've contributed to many year- and date-related articles. My work here has often been a bit gnomish, but it has nonetheless been extensive. I so far patrol all years in the 20th century and several in the 21st, as well as articles for all months and days (e.g., the January 1 article) of the year. These articles are vandalized with some frequency, mostly with vanity edits mentioning non-notable birthdays, anniversaries, etc., and I have taken time to revert such edits whenever I've come across them. I've also worked to fix other issues in time-related articles, such as inconsistent formatting across various year articles. I have done a fair amount of copy-editing to 20th century (for which I was awarded a Barnstar) and even to non-time-related articles, such as psychology. I'd say that my contributions in these areas are aided by my strong personal interest in them, as well as by my formal study in the social sciences. Overall, I'd describe myself as a bold but self-conscious editor, grounding my work in a careful and unique mixture of Wikipedia policy and MetaWiki philosophy (see the "philosophy" section of my user page); I'd say that I edit with a reasonable blend of wit, reflectiveness, and respect. I also sometimes patrol recent changes, and I've warned and reported a fair amount of vandals.


 * 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: I have indeed been involved in some editorial conflicts, although I don't hesitate to take such conflicts to the talk pages (rather than engaging in edit wars), as in this instance. Of course, even some of my talk-page responses have been flawed. I admit in my currently-final entry in this talk page section that I responded a bit too hastily, although I continue by explaining my initial motivation to respond, so that the editor whom I criticized doesn't think that I'm failing to WP:AGF. As I respond in such cases, I read and re-read WP policy and MetaWiki reflection, so that I can articulate my responses in terms of language that the editorial community can appreciate. In so doing, I revise and refine my own views, so that I can be a better-informed and more constructive editor. When dealing with future conflicts, my responses will reflect my increasing, and increasingly sophisticated, knowledge and integration of policy and reflection. My responses will continue to be grounded in WP:AGF, and will include apologies or afterthoughts from me if they initially fail to meet this standard.

'Additional questions from Dusti'


 * 4. What's the difference between a block and a ban, and when should they be used?
 * A.


 * 5. What is a cool down block, and when should it be used?
 * A.


 * 6. An IP vandalizes your page after a final warning concerning vandalism. Do you block the IP and if so, for how long?
 * A.


 * 7. Suppose you disagree with an admin's block over an editor, do you undo the block? Why or why not?
 * A.

General comments

 * See Cosmic Latte's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Cosmic Latte:

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

Discussion

 * My biggest concern is the lack of interactions and experience. He/She only has 14 AIV edits and 5 Deletion discussion edits. In addition, only 2 RfPPs. In a while, with more experience, sure. However, now isn't the time. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Tikiwont (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Not this time, but keep it up and wait ~3 months and it will be a smooth sail for you next time. dorftrottel (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportActually, it is a good idea to use admin tools in areas of familiarity. The problem would be if you used them to bludgeon someone in an edit dispute or to act against consensus. Being familiar with an area means you are more likely to catch subtle vandalism. It is also helpful when performing housekeeping tasks that require the tools, like deletion/redirects. Sometimes the requirement for a "wide range of experience" is counter-productive when it prevents an editor from being useful in their particular niche.  Dloh  cierekim  13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - I'm afraid that you just don't have enough experience in administrator related areas. Also, you mention in your answer to question 1 that you wish to participate at WP:AIV and use your "administrator privileges" on the Wikiproject you are a member of. It's not a good idea to block, protect, etc..etc.. on any article/s you work on. Sorry, this likely indicates lack of experience as well.  Wisdom89  ( T|undefined /  C ) 04:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is consenus against using administrative functions within one's own WikiProjects, then I will certainly abide by that. I have things to learn, but I am eager to learn them and will continue to respect consensus. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, which areas in particular would you advise that I seek more experience in? Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, keep up your work at WP:AIV, that's definitely noble and very helpful. You may want to visit the following noticeboards to get an idea of how they operate and which kind of requests are denied or accepted: WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, and WP:AN. Also, the help desk is a great way to both show and learn policy. Deletion discussions are great areas to absorb policy and communicate with other editors. Try WP:AFD. I hope that helps mate.  Wisdom89  ( T|undefined /  C ) 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too few edits to the Wikipedia space.-- Koji †  Dude  (C)  04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose with moral support - Not ready yet, you have only just started to get into editing. You are doing well though. You have a cool name, Im kind of jealous actually. If you try again in the future I would definately consider supporting. Best wishes in your RfA. Regards. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After looking more closely at the editors history Im moving to Neutral. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 08:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. You're off to a great start. Very active in the mainspace, I like that. But not enough experience yet in admin-like areas. You'll want to get some more experience in the Wikipedia namespace, then I think you'll be ready. Useight (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reasonable advice--duly noted. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I'm afraid that you don't have enough experience in administrator related areas. --Kaaveh (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which areas in particular would you advise that I seek more experience in? Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose You look like a potentially great editor, but I'm going to have to oppose. Like some other people, I don't think you've demonstrated a commitment to admin areas. I would contribute to XFD's, RFA's, RFC's etc and demonstrate an admin 'mindset'. Especially if you say you want the tools to contribute to AFD's I'd be looking for some evidence of contributions to the debates. Your response to the 3rd Q really impressed me though; I wouldn't hold that against you in the future. People make mistakes, we just learn from them. So, oppose for now, but would probably support in the future, when you've demonstrated some involvement in the above. Theone00 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, I was going to support against the flow of things, because you look eager, enthusiastic to help the project, contribute to articles, and seem to have good intentions, but this report to AIV was a bit worrying to me. Neither of the IPs had been adequately warned before being added to that page.  I feel that an admin, especially one who wants to work in that space, needs to demonstrate a bit better knowledge of things than that.  Give it a few more months and some more experience, and I see no reason why I couldn't support in the future.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the explanation. Although one of the IPs I reported in that AIV entry was blocked as a result, the other one was not. I was a little baffled about that, considering that their contributions in the past few days have all been unconstructive, and considering that their talk page is full of warnings, including a V3 from me on June 10th. Granted, though, the person made only one malicious edit on the day (i.e., today) that I reported them. So, would it be best for me to construe only vandalism that recurs within a given day as "repeated vandalism"? If so, I will keep that in mind in my future dealings with AIV. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest a quick read of BLOCK. Basically, IPs should usually only be blocked for short durations at a time, and if the vandalism is only coming at the rate of one edit a day a block doesn't really have any point.  The standards would be different if it were a named account, because then the possibility of collateral damage is greatly reduced.  But this is the sort of thing you should be aware of as an admin candidate intending to work in AIV.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
 * I'd also like to second the person below me who said you have a very cool username. Gave me a little chuckle when I saw it come up on my userpage =)  Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
 * 1) Not yet My biggest concern is the lack of interactions and experience. You only have 14 AIV edits and 5 Deletion discussion edits. In addition, only 2 RfPPs. In a while, with more experience, sure. However, now isn't the time. You should get away from article building a bit and try to get more involved in vandal fighting. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:NOTNOW - but your enthusiasm and commitment to the project so far is appreciated. Hopefully this RfA will be positive in terms of feedback and information for you. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat  12:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose But Moral support. You are a useful editor who does good work, but more experience in admin-related areas is needed. I'm afraid WP:NOTNOW comes into play here. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose as all AfD participation was for deletion. We need to see more balance from admins, i.e. clear evidence of what kinds of discussions candidates would likely see as a delete and what ones as keep.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, I find myself in this discussion. I have no issues with this, as the number of AfDs this user has been in is 3, if I counted correctly. This is not enough to get a statistically representative result, so while you roll the dice 3 times and get 3 sixes, it doesn't mean that you'll always get a six. About the AfDs and the articles discussed: 2 were speedied, but I like how the candidate didn't take the chance of getting it wrong, and started a discussion on the matter. The other article probably could have been speedied, as A7 (not notable), although I haven't looked at the deleted articles to make sure. :-)  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  16:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above. Can I also recommend aiming for some recognised content? I realise that may be a little difficult in the areas you work in, but I know I prefer admin candidates who have some experience working with decent articles (or, if they aren't a great writer, at least have the dedication to get a few DYKs). J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I would have to agree with Wisdom89. Try to get some more experience with the areas. Schfifty  Three  17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Wisdom89. Shapiros10 Wuz Here    19:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Wisdom89, and WP:NOTNOW. Now's just not the time. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Less than fifty project space edits. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral with moral support - Not ready yet, you have only just started to get into editing. You are doing well though. You have a cool name, Im kind of jealous actually. If you try again in the future I would definately consider supporting. Upon further research I can't oppose outright. Best wishes in your RfA. Regards. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 08:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral May be a fine admin down the road, but it seems to be a bit too early to provide full support. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support You are a good editor, not too many problems, but even I'd like to see more in the way of admin-related stuff: AIV, CSD, AFD, RFPP, ANI, AN, AN3, and UAA are just some areas where you can be of assistance. Get some more experience in these areas, and you'll have my support if I spot you at RfA again. :-)  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  16:33, 13 June 2008 (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.''