Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/White Cat 3

Add links
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.

White Cat[edit]

Final (19/27/10) ending 17:08 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat (talk · contribs) Self nom, not to be removed by burocrats or anyone else... I am not going to comment about myself, however I will say this RFA for me is not a matter of ego as I am to hit my full year here. I need admin powers to RC patrol properly. – Cool CatTalk|@ 15:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, any "blame" goes to User:Durin for convincing me. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong Support - Despite some early issues (stemming in part from his being stalked), Cool Cat has developed into a committed and dedicated Wikipedia. I see no evidence to suggest that he would abuse admin tools. As a committed vandal fighter, he would certainly make use of the tools. Give him a mop! Guettarda 16:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. In my opinion he deserves it. — FireFox • T • 17:14, 25 January 2006
  3. Support. Me too. Banez 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support- I was a tad worried if you were still alright after you submitted your last rfa, but it seems you truly are trying to be an asset to wikipedia. Just forget about MARMOT, okay..? -17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. My experiences with CC have been positive, but I don't believe that his nomination will succeed this time. Under the current system, RfA of anyone who has edited *really* controversial subjects is doomed to fail. --Ghirla | talk 17:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Agree with Banes and FireFox.--ViolinGirl♪ 17:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Expressing dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the process is not a bar to actually being approved through it (or rather, shouldn't be). Cool Cat obviously has the experience and seems to me unlikely to misuse admin tools. Ergo, he should be an admin. --CBD ☎ ✉ 17:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Extreme "Oh My Goodness!" support. Oh my goodness in the sense that this fantastic vandalwhacker should have been made an Admin months and months and months ago. --Celestianpower háblame 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Extreme "I can finaly vote because there is an RFA again" support. Cool Cat removes vandalism a lot, and cool cat would not misuse admins tools as I think he has already realised that if be becomes an admin he would want it to stay that way. Also cool cat will do a great job as he wants to show how an admin should act within wikipedia's policy. --Adam1213 Talk + 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak support - Cool Cat deserves it, for what he's done, but recently his temper has flared up. He needs to learn how to keep his temper in check, but I trust he will be able to do so. NSLE (T+C) 01:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak support. Agree with NSLE.-gadfium 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. King of All the Franks 02:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 03:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. supportBenon 03:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Although Cool Cat has shown some problems with controlling his temper at times, overall his positive contributions vastly outweigh any negative ones. User has an intricate knowledge of process. I feel he'll step up to the plate and will take more responsibility as an admin. Jacoplane 05:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, good vandal fighter, but he must control his temper. He can be a good admin if he knows how to control his temper. --Terence Ong 14:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I'm new, but I have read the policies and Cool Cat's user page and contributions. Cool Cat embodies the spirit of what I believe Wikipedia to be greater than anyone I've met here so far: someone who assertively states their individual position, but fights for the consensus of all. I strongly support giving Cool Cat the access necessary to do the best job possible. He has proven good faith in his edits. Based on Cool Cat's consistent style of contributions, I have every reason to trust that administrative access will be used exclusively in the pursuit of article verifiability, consensus, and neutral point of view. --Legal Tender 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am flatered, user has 10 edits though. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, what I say is true, as anyone can see for themselves by reviewing your contributions. --Legal Tender 16:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Cool Cat has made some very valuable contributions to Wikpedia and i believe he will continue to do so.--Ali K 16:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. First of all, I notice a lack of edit summaries. The answer to Q1 is also too brief. See also block log, which makes me very uncomfortable, as well as [1], [2]. [3] seems too brusque and unfriendly for my tastes. In total, I am not confident that this user would use admin tools wisely, I am sad to say. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am generally a nice person when treated nicely. If I had admin privilages I would have blocked myself hence wouldn't have to seek such attention. The only examples of me vandalising is those two diffs. I would not edit article namespace unless reverting vandalism if I were adminised. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read block policy; blocking oneself to enforce a wikibreak is not allowed. That's what made me nervous, plus you disrupted an article in the article namespace to do so. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like that will not ever occure since I wont ever be on #wikipedia. And yes I have disrupted article namespace with two edits getting myself blocked so I don't disrupt wikipedia anymore. If people blocked me with request that wouldnt happen. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as any wikipedia rule is concerned. I am more than willing to bend them if the end is a better encyclopedia. I do not intend to obey the book word by word. I would bend the rules when necesary. I am more than qualified to make that determination. Also autoblock is not an issue since I am not on a static IP. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, also. As an admin, you won't always be treated nicely. You still need to keep cool in the face of that and remain civil and polite at all times. It's great that you're a nice person when treated nicely, and from what I've seen, that's a true statement. You need to be a nice person when treated badly is the problem. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a cool guy when not banned from #wikipedia for requesting a ban on MARMOT. If anyone is going to complain about me blocking MARMOT sockpuppets clearly defending MARMOT (sockpuppets havent done anything wrong yet) on wikipedia I will likely loose my cool. However I would not loose my cool when simply mistreated. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool Cat why not get forced edit summaries in your monobook steal it from my one. This should be a good enough solution --Adam1213 Talk + 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. He says in answer below he has "no idea what NPOV is" and I have observed he has a hard time understanding other policies, too, though I think he means well. I hope he stays as an editor, but I must oppose this nomination. Jonathunder 17:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not suggesting I am clueless of what NPOV is. I am only explaining I not understand it enough to enforce it. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look at cool cat's edits and notice you cant find much pov. --Adam1213 Talk + 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. About the only thing I know about this user is the crazy RfA yesterday. That didn't seem like the sort of thing an admin-headed person should do. Blackmailing us with the length of your stay here for your adminship? Nuh uh. -lethe talk 17:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I dont blackmail, thats what MARMOT does to me with IRC comments such as "shall I get you blocked" (and he does get me blocked). I simply have nothing to do on wikipedia if I cant RC patrol properly. My article writing experience recieved little sympathy and lots of apathy. And I am not as much as a writer anyways, look how I spell. Crazy RFA was a result of a number of things. I posted how I felt about it to User talk:Sannse if you care to look. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot that I nominated cool cat, it was not a self nomination. There never was any blackmailing done by cool cat. --Adam1213 Talk + 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Too soon after a self-nomination he apparently only made to get oppose votes. JIP | Talk 17:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Too soon or not. It is still an RfA I hope you'll treat it independently. That RFA is what I am not. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot that I nominated cool cat, it was not a self nomination. --Adam1213 Talk + 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Administrator privileges are not an honorary title. User also seems to assume bad faith quite a bit, see question 7. User has shown little impetus to learn policy or follow instructions. -- goatasaur 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misinterpreting my words and I dont like it. It is a matter of honor. I am giving the comunity the option of voting based on who I am and what I have done. Actions taken against me by a number of users whom on one ocasion objected me recieving barn starts. Yes to that extent I was stalked. And because of my last RfAr which was my only RfAr people opposed my past rfas. What are you objecting? Show me one instance of bad faith asumption? Do you know how normal it is to assume bad faith when you are stalked as much as I was? Never the less I am kind to even the most hostile newbie.
    1. How many impersonators do you have?
    2. How many times were you blocked because of a wikipedia exploit?
    3. How many times were there attemts to frame you of sockpuppetary and vandalism?
    4. How many times was your userpage attacked by vandalbots?
    • All above is a result of me RC patroling. If I am going to continue suffer that "torture" from vandals. I should at least be given the "honors" to block them. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Response. You ask me to give one instance of bad faith in action, which I've given, and then you immediately rationalize assuming bad faith because your account was stalked/vandalized in the past. You accuse me of mis-interpreting your words, and take offense, without stating what it is you think I've mis-interpreted. You rationalize ignorance of NPOV because you believe people yelled at you, although if you read the tutorial and maybe asked some questions you would better understand this extremely important policy. Your understanding of AfD is deeply flawed. In addition, you are using this RfA as an ultimatum, which strikes me as particularly unbecoming. Your obsessive responses to every oppose vote do not reflect well on your motivation. You are a fine editor but you are not yet cut out for administration. - goatasaur 19:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me you lost me. I have been pounded by people and it is very difficult for me to "assume good faith". This does not mean I dont assume good faith. You are misinerpreting my words again. I do not understand NPOV because I asked questions and tried hard to learn from it. When I opposed people commiting my ex behaviour I was threatened with blocks. hence I abandoned understanding NPOV until people begin to assume good faith regarding me. I cannot assume good faith when someone is vandalising wikipedia. RC patrol does not invole "assuming good faith" although people still have to be treated with the courtasy. At least two test warnings. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose — the mop is for cleaning, not hitting, and I'm not so sure this user can keep cool under pressure. --Gareth Hughes 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Define how is blocking cleaning? This user is responding to your comment under presure. I am more pissed off than ever due to reasons not directly related to this RfA. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a reason why half of my nick is striked out. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In your answers to questions you used the word hit, and your tone is generally pugnacious. This approach includes bantering with any voter who might oppose your nomination. Your response above is really an invitation to oppose. --Gareth Hughes 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not here look sweet. I, unlike some candidates am not extra carefull with my RfA. People looking "sweet" are not as sweet after the RfA passes hence my belief is that "special carefullness" on RfA's is bad practice. Also If people are going to treat every word I use here as an excuse to oppose they already have a predetermined vote. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Personally, I like this editor, and I certainly want him here. His answers to questions, especially question 6, are quite terse. If you think AfD is broken (which is a controversial thing to think for an admin) you should explain fully. I must conclude he isn't yet sufficiently circumspect for the job. Xoloz 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do that. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per marked civility/hotheadedness issues at Adam1213's RFA. "length of my wikipedia editorship will be determined by this RfA" is also troublesome. — Lomn Talk 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Length of my wikipedia editorship is determined by this rfa, I am tired of being pointed at and laughed at by MARMOT on my userpage. I was blocked because of my IP vandalising my own userpage. I do not like people using Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit as an excuse to oppose RfAs. This is like saying "oppose user has barnstars!". If people are finding illogical reasons (reasons that have nothing to do with adminship) to oppose RfAs they need to be told they are being m:dicks any oppose vote without the intention of improving the candidate is someone being a m:dick. For example your vote here has somewhat valid reasons. Votes thretening to leave wikipedia (see my rfa1) are however extremely inaproporate for RfAs. I am threatening to leave wikipedia before anyone else does basicaly. Also Adams rfa is as hotheaded I got on wikipedia. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. In my experience, Cool Cat shows a tendency for impulsive rather than patient action, some paranoia regarding the opinions and motivations of others, and (as shown below) a very personally-invested desire for adminship tools--all red flags for me. This starts from my first exposure to issues involving him (anti-Kurd POV-pushing), through actions like his failed attempt to assign ranks to Wikipedians based on number of edits, and continues with his conduct surrounding his request for adminship. Additionally, I am entirely unsympathetic with the sentiment behind "op me or I go home," and would probably oppose purely based on this reason if there weren't others. There's no question that Cool Cat is a hard worker who has done a lot of work to make Wikipedia better, but in my best guess he would be likely to block people and delete or protect pages out of pique, to enforce a point of view or just to make things as he wants them over the objections of others (as he has for example by serially reverting his "assume good faith" logo into the WP:AGF page [4] [5] [6] [7]). I'm very sorry to sound harsh, and I hope Cool Cat will reconsider his desire to leave the project or not request the rollback button, when it's available. Demi T/C 18:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a troll and his sockpuppets trying to frame me for sockpuppetary on that page. See Hexagonal (talk · contribs). That aside, no one gave me an excuse why the image was inaproporate. People commented based on their taste. "I dont like it" is not a valid reason. Hence why I some-what revert wared. I am not proud of what I did. I no longer inted to edit any wikipedia policy page anytime soon. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also sounds like you are the paranoid one. When was the last time I even blacked a page based on my POV. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing compels me to contribute to a comunity that can't trust me. If my year-long-work is not enough to win adequate trust it is a "op me or I go home" situation. I am demanding adminship so I can RC patrol better. Your "harsh" comments have no basis. And yes regarding kurd related articles no one is enforcing NPOV. I am a bad candidate to do it myslef thats why I have been trying to get attention to those articles but people are simply ignoring me. See how many edits I have on kurd articles, then comment on my anti-Kurd POV-pushing. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Net loss to the project. —Cryptic (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose "Bending rules" won't make a better encyclopedia for everyone...this is also known as vigilantism Bugturd 21:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true that I have only recently started editing in Wiki, but as a registered user, and given the fact that I took the time to review the facts involved, my vote is perfectly valid. The number of edits I have at this time no more invalidates my vote than your age invalidates yours. And, no...not a "sockppupet". Bugturd 14:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. A thinly veiled threat to quit if not promoted is not a sign of maturity. Based on the comments in this RfA, I would not want to see him granted access to the block button. Carbonite | Talk 21:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont see adminship being a test of maturity. If you are determining my worthiness of adminship based on my comments here you oght to look at my actual contributions. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - I'm sorry, but all this RfA nonsense is borderline WP:POINT. Too temperamental right now. No prejudice towards a future renomination in a few months. Rob Church (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are forgetting, you are among the people causing me stress. At least thats what you told me on that PM. It is very hard for me to be irritated by my role model on one day for no apperant reason. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. Coolcat is way too immature to be an admin. Wasn't the true 3rd nomination deleted yesterday? AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are a self proclaimed troll on IRC (anybody loging the channel can verify). Go start an RfA for SPUI just like you mentioned on my last rfa (rfa #2). Just dont lecture others about maturity when you dont have any understanding about the concept. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Anyone who considers becoming an admin a matter of honor is unfit for the job. Also, the extremely brief answers to the questions aren't helping any, nor is not understanding our NPOV policy, nor is seeming to want a block button mainly to deal with vandalism of his own page. I'd be happy to protect his user page for him. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm... Thats against policy. You see the person vandalising my userpgae is primarily MARMOT and when I requested his removal from #wikipedia, I got removed. Tell me how would you react if an arbitrator/ex arbitrator banned you off a channel like that. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, too much controversy and too much of a record against this user. Six blocks? I might be lax if the user only had one, but six is way too many. --155.31.230.67 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, anons don't get a vote. howcheng {chat} 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe everyone is allowed to contribute to the discussion. The bureaucrats are well able to take into account that this was only that IP's second edit when considering the indicativeness of 'community consensus' represented by their comments. Turns out we do limit this to logged in users only... not my preference, but that's the way the policy reads. --CBD ☎ ✉ 23:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocks are listed on my history page, I dont hide them and I'd like to note people to observe who requested all of the blocks. That user was stalking me as far as arbcom is concerned. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, nn, d. Lack of civility, general contrariness. But the main issue is too soon after the last one. Sorry. Proto t c 22:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cant fix my character. My worst is better than some of existing admins best. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Hotheaded, too many recent blocks for POV pushing and violation of 3RR, uncivil. — Ian Moody (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All requested by my stalker. and your "recent pov block" is from months ago.--Cool CatTalk|@ 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Sorry, no. There was the strange RfA yesterday, where he nominated himself then voted oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - I do not believe from various sources already posted by other users that this user is ready to take on this new role. -- Francs2000 01:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I want to trust the guy, but he seems angry, and talks too much about how admin powers will allow him better to defend himself right when I expect him to exaplain how these powers will enable him to improve WP. Very glad to see improving trend, and hope to vote in support sometime in the future. Pete.Hurd 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose: thorough lack of civility.--cj | talk 07:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I dare you to be in my shoes and be civil. I recieve daily annoyance and trolling unlike anyone else. I am constantly irritated by people some being admins such as snowpinner, kelly martin, and even Tony Sideaway (weather intentional or not). --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A momentary lapse of incivility could be forgiven. You appear to be continually impolite. If you are under such presure that you can't keep yourself in check, then take a break/vacation.--cj | talk 11:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am not always uncivil now am I? Ignore the past 7 days and judge how civil/uncivil I have been. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Has done good work, but intentionally vandalizing a prominent article twice [8] [9] as recently as a few days ago is a dealbreaker. Perhaps you did this intentionally to sabotage your chances because you're experiencing burnout and wish to quit Wikipedia but want to be able to blame others. -- Curps 07:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sweet. You RC patrol for ages and people just complain about you vandalising two articles. I told people to block me and they did not oh well. Do you have any idea how much I assist the RC patrol? --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Some good contributions, but I have a feeling that there will be way too much ignoring of rules if Cool Cat is given adminship. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm... I do not ignore rules. I obey them more than existing admins such as snowspinner making edits on protected pages and templates breaking tens of userpages. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Vehemently Oppose. I can't believe you're trying to make a serious effort at RfA right after completely taking a dump on the process yesterday. Mo0[talk] 07:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Better believe it. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose -- see his user page: "This user is no longer a dedicated wikipedian and hence does not care much about wikipedia and edits for his own entertainment rather than for "great encyclopedia" as no one appriciates [sic] that." User seems to get into far too much trouble to be trusted with Admin Powers. Seems appropriate that he's struck-out the "Cool" in his UserID. Also, shouldn't this be moved? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool Cat 3 --> Wikipedia:Demands for adminship/Cool Cat 3.   --Moby Dick 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Make the move yourself, I demand adminship or else I cant properly RC patrol. Since you have no idea of the difficulties of hardcore RC patroling. You are voting oppose based on one userbox on my userpage. This user gets into farr too much trobble for even the slightest thing. Ths user is constantly harrased by a number of users. If this user is not to be trusted with admin powers he doesnt want to contribute to this community. I cant see the worst thing I can do, lets say I go crazy and delete random articles any admin can undelete those. Lets say I block random people, any admin can unblock those. Abuse will only get me to loose powers. Just like any admin. See User:Ed Poor who deleted AFD as a burocrat. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have been the impetus of this: Wikipedia:What adminship is not -- you should probably read it. --Moby Dick 11:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User only has 86 edits with grat gaps if that means anything. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Does need meet my required standards. Dmn 14:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which are? --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For a start, you're far too aggressive. Next time you run for admin, consider not replying at all - let your supporters argue for you. Dmn € Դմն 17:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and how is that not an agressive post? --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose: User-Cool Cat is an Turkish Nationalism ---Muhamed 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are a sockpuppet. And Nationalistic is not a real word. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You türkish nationalism I see as ---Muhamed 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    nationalis is still not a word. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, 'nationalistic' is a perfectly cromulent word [10], just not a noun. Secondly, I highly recommend you don't be so aggressive in your response to comments. This alone is reason enough to oppose you. Dmn € Դմն 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I do not talk politely to sockpuppets. You should not protect sockpuppets. Sockpuppets are to be banned. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking politely to users is exactly what is expected of users who who wish to become admins. Dmn € Դմն 23:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral -ZeroTalk 15:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC) switched vote to support.[reply]
  2. Neutral per JIP and few of the oppose votes, excellent vandal fighter but that RFA insedent happened yesterday, might support if this RFA is close later on. --Jaranda wat's sup 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterdays RFA was the opposite of me. Some people needed a bad example while voting on RfAs. This will gain me some oppose votes but I hope will fix that aspect of RFA. It was perhaps a minor breach of WP:POINT... --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Jaranda. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 19:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Cool Cat is a great contributor and enforcer to Wikipedia. But his rash approches may offend some and scare others. He is still needed on Wikipedia, we all still need him. But he must learn a golden rule of liberty, great power = great responablity. -Dynamo_ace Talk
    I know that rule. I am never given any power either on IRC or here. While people who use my bot already promoted into adminship as all they did was RC patrol. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, adminship is no big deal, but you've made it into one. :( —Locke Cole • t • c 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a big deal when RC patroling. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per Locke Cole above, user seems too obsessed with becoming an admin. Some concerns, lack of edit summaries, and time taken to answer questions below being some of them. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, leaning to oppose. Is this a breach of WP:POINT? Why run for adminship if in your own user page you explicitly say you "wish not to even attempt being one"? This behavior seems erratic to those not familiar with the background of this nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, apparent recent violation of WP:POINT. Is a good vandal fighter, not very likely to abuse tools. Not becomming an admin != being a bad editor. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - I think the project itself would benefit from having Cool Cat as an admin, and I admire Cool Cat for contributions, particularly to vandal fighting. However, as recent history shows some tendancies that might lead to heavyhandedness, edit wars, and the like. I think that right now we'd be better off returning to this nomination in about 6 more months, after CC has leveled off the temper a bit. I think the mop and bucket are probably overdue, just that current circumstances don't completely support giving them at the present time. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral, per Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) exactly. I'm having difficulty reconciling Cool Cat's long history of useful contributions with recent actions, but would be happy to vote support in the future. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I removed an earlier self-nomination by this candidate because it did not appear to be a genuine self-nomination. This one clarifies that the candidate is serious about wanting administrator powers and so I will not remove it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state "The length of my wikipedia editorship will be determined by this RfA". Are you implying that your fate as contributor to Wikipedia will be determined by this RfA? --Durin 15:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you can say that. If after a year people cannot trust me to hand me admin privilages would imply I obviously am doing something very wrong... --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about remaining as an editor? Some people contribute many edits and have been around for a long time but aren't admins (either because they weren't nominated or have refused nomination). (I decided to ask an additional question, please see below) --Deathphoenix 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need WP:ANOT (what adminship is not). It is not an honor. It is not a reward for a job well done. It is not a blessing of your contributions. It is not a sheriff's badge. It is not a reason to think you are different than any other editor. There are plenty of editors who would not make good admins. Simply because a person might not make a good admin is NOT a comment on your value as an editor, which could be thoroughly exemplary. I think you need to rethink why you want to be an admin. If the main reason you are doing it is to ascertain community consensus on whether you're a good guy or not, I would strongly encourage you to withdraw this nomination. --Durin 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If people are going to vote oppose because I got stalked for ages. Thats a matter of honor. If people are going to vote because I POV pushed on my earlier days on wikipedia, thats a matter of honor. It is very unlikely for me to celebrate by second year on wikipedia if I don't recieve adminship since I no longer want to write articles hence there is nothing else left for me to do here. RC patroling without admin privilages is plain silly. It's like digging a trench with a spatula. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ed Poor was an ex burocrat. Obviously exiting burocrats power can degrade into user power. Its a simple try me then judge me deal. Try me for a month then strip me from adminship if I "abuse power". If "power abuse" happens strip me from my admin privilages that instant. If it doesnt happen... what are your afraid of? --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something that you have repeatedly said above is that you are frequently pushed into being uncivil towards other users because of the amount of incivility aimed at you as a user. I disagree with this point of view. As an admin the amount of incivility you experience will increase by nature of the job you are doing, and if you are uncivil back it makes you uneffective as an admin: in order to stay assertive and get the message across that things like vandalism and personal attacks are not what Wikipedia is about, you have to remain above reproach and not "lose it" every time someone insults you or attacks you. It is possible to do this and in the two years that I have been an admin, the times when I have felt like lashing out are the times when I go to the administrators' noticeboard and ask for someone else to step in and take over. I think the lesson you have to learn from this is that you have to learn to step back in order to keep control of the situation: being uncivil back makes you no better than the people attacking you in the first place. -- Francs2000 12:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. Hence I am bargining here am worth. With all that above is it worth keeping me with risking admin powers in my hands or should I be disposed. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      My point is that I need to see proof that you're able to use self assertiveness techniques before I can support your nomination for adminship. Your current attitude certainly doesn't meet what I would consider to be an admin standard, and the statement that you have made (I paraphrase) "give me admin status or I'm leaving the project" speaks volumes to me of an immature attitude to the project in general. You're a really good editor where it matters, I believe you need to learn how to cope with personal attacks and incivility without the use of admin tools before we entrust you with them. -- Francs2000 13:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      You do realise this has nothing to do with how I use admin tools. You cannot find me yelling at vandals. I only yell on "Wikipedia" namespace as the most irritating convos take place in this namespace. You will se me apologising for such behaviour. I am not easy to anger, however when angered I am hard to cool down. On article talk pages you see a diferent picture. I am not proud of being uncivil whevener that happens but its often unavoidable on wikipedia namespace as debates are generaly heated. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: in this edit, CoolCat says he has left the community. Is this RfA moot? Jonathunder 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
File:CVU2.PNG
A.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
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.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A.
  1. I prefer test1 test4 or bv (depends on persistance) and test5.
  2. I may also give 5-15 minute warning blocks to take the attention of thr individual.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. I would warn them once regardless.
  1. If I feel they are tricking the system they will get a block fo 3 - 12 hours perhaps.
  2. If they dont show any sign of improvement they will recieve a 24 hour block.
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. AFD is in my view broken.
  1. If an articles topic has google hits it has room for improvement hence no reason to be deleted.
  2. That is assuming the article is "approporate" (aka its not a dictionary entry etc.)
  • As per request Ill reexplain what I ment here:
  1. Above all admin chores AfD requires most experience. Also votes on spesificaly contraversial topics are generaly flawed. I was accused of being anti-sematic for requesting the delete of Category:Anti-sematic people. The person in question blanked my AfD reasoning and in the end the category for deletion ended with a no concensius. In my POV categories like Category:Anti-sematic people are bad framing a person based on ones POV is a breach of NPOV as far as I comprihend from NPOV. First I will have to master NPOV to veture in this field and I am not ready for that. I do not want to delete a single article based on my POV. So I do not want to rush deleting articles.
  2. I would however cleanup my own mess. (renaming images etc)
  3. I am basicaly not sure how to handle this chore and I will only learn hot to master it by growing as a user with admin rpivilages. No newbie should go on a delete spree.
  4. I would delete articles with no meaningful content without hesitation however. THose are freebies.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A. I would stay away from any pov dispute as I am confused what this policy is about.
  1. When I made POV edits on my early days on wikipedia, I was screamed at, I interprete that as "POV edits" are bad.
  2. However when I revert pov edits I am screemed at anyways.
  3. When I request citation for statistics I was still "pov pushing" and my behavior was not appriciated...
So I have no idea what NPOV is.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A. My wikipedia experience has been rather disturbing.
  1. User:Davenbelle was by far the greatest frustration I had on wikipedia dedicating his entier edit experience to make my life miserable.
  2. User:MARMOT getting me blocked for vandalism by spoofing my IP... See: User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report.
  3. Also another frustration is RC patroling with out a mop to hit the persistant vandals with.
  4. Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit only got people to annoy me by making ridiculous statements about the CVU (such as it being a military organisation). However it did increase efficency in dealing with vandalism. When was the last time you saw a page was vandalised?
9. How do you view adminship? Is it a reward for all your hard work as an editor? --Deathphoenix 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A.
  1. No. I see it as a tool to RC patrol properly. No one objects me RC patroling. People dont like me doing anything else.
  2. My editor experience was not aprriciated aside from me editing articles displayed here and its subcategories: Category:Oh My Goddess!
10. Since you note RC patrol as the only administrator activity you are interested in, should your request for adminship not be ratified, would you consider requesting rollback separately? Demi T/C 17:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A.
  1. I already coded myself a rollback button via my bot. I need block power to end vandal apathy.
  2. I need to be able to block marmot sockpuppets vandalising my userpage for example. So far my userpage has suffered about 500 edits which were intended to vandalise. Which includes over 5 vandal bot attacks.
    A good way for non-admin RC patrollers to get a vandal blocked is reporting the vandal to WP:AIV once they've defied the test3, test4, or bv messages. A lot of admins have this on their watchlist and respond very quickly to vandal reports. --Deathphoenix 17:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I know that, I am responsible of the blocking of hundereds of vandals (via #wikipedia-en-vandalism). I am tired of "requesting" as it lengthens the process.
  3. I was also impostered at least 51 times (attack accounts) and also suffered imeprsonation due to User:MARMOT exploiting a wikipedia vunrability. He could basicaly trick wikimedia servers to appear like the IP of any user he felt like. It is luckly fixed. I want to be able to "combat" the vandals with mop power. It is necesary to block inaproporate usernames. See User:Cool Cat/Impersonators


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/White_Cat_3&oldid=1142572307"