Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/White Cat 4

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 (5/41/6); Ended 12:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat (talk · contribs) - Cool Cat is not the most uncontroversial user. His contributions however are significant: over 30,000 edits and 3 current featured articles. He is also an admin on Commons, and has shown that he can be trusted with the admin tools. In the past he has been somewhat heated during debates, but has shown that he can keep his head cool during a debate about things he cares about. Also about his temper: on a RFA a user tried to test this asking him rather incivil about previous problem. He answered the questions politely however.

Summarizing, as it is his second birthday here on Wikipedia, he has deserved, and can be trusted with the admin tools.

Bryan 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Delighted to accept. --Cat out 20:20, 4 February 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: For one I intend to bust copyvios. My commons experience will be handy with those. I also intend to help with counter-vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I used to be proud with the three featured lists I help create. I now feel such pride leads to overconfidence which is rather disastrous in the fragile environment of wikipedia.
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: This is a relatively complicated question for me. In the past several users have caused me a great amount of stress and one may say they dedicated their time on causing stress. While this may make me look like the victim, I am actually the primary benefactor. My very negative experience taught me to better deal with such behaviour and keep a cooler attitude on things.

Addtional questions from JoshuaZ. As always, all additional questions are completely optional

4 You have a block log that many would consider extensive for a potential administrator. Example blocks include a block for 6 hours for "Violating 3RR, see WP:AN/3RR", a block of 24 hours for "POV-pushing and violation of 3RR", another 3RR block with the summary "This idiotic pov pusher (that's in his own words!) has violated 3RR on Kurdistani. Short block since he turned himself in", an indef block by your own request, and most recently a 1 week block on December 10th. How do you explain all these blocks and how would you respond to concerns that they reflect negatively on your potential to function as an admin?
A: There is of course no excuse for unacceptable behaviour. I am not the kind that tries to cover up mistakes by making excuses so I will not bother. I try to learn from my past mistakes and grow from them. If you do not make mistakes how can you learn from them? I would prefer to be judged based on the 30,000+ edits as well as the logs in question however.
5 Adminning on commons is very different from adminning on Wikipedia especially in so far as there are many fewer POV issues on commons. Therefore, how would you respond to objections that your being an admin on commons does little to reassure editors here about how you would use the admin tools? JoshuaZ 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A1: Being an administrator on any wiki will of course have it's differences and challenges. In commons for instance language barrier is an important problem for any administrator. On commons there actually is quite a lot of POV issues. Any action taken on commons can affect every single wiki out there. An unintentional mistake can cause a disaster. If I hadn't had the restraint to put my beliefs and opinions aside when preforming my duties, I wouldn't stay as a commons administrator for 20 seconds. There may be fewer number of POV issues on commons but their implications are often far greater than any single case here on En.wikipedia
A2: I would also like to point out that deletion debates on commons can get quite heated.

Addtional questions from Elaragirl. As always, all additional questions are totally optional

6 Many users here seem to have issues with your interactions with various members of the project, including a wide variety of clashes, claims that you violated WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, etc, etc, etc. Your block logs seem to support this. Why should the community ignore your conflicts with others, especially in light of the fact that admins who have gotten into heated conflicts (MONGO, Zoe, etc) usually result in wider schisms in Wikipedia? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I do not expect the community to ignore anything... People are welcome to base desicions based on my edits from last summer... As for my block log, 5 of the items there are me testing IRC bot that checks the RC feed, a good number are just unblocks. I already made my comments regarding the block log prior and I do not exactly understand the question, care to elaborate? --Cat out 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support — Qapla'! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom Bryan 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom and Bryan Kamope · talk · contributions 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support my kind of admin †he Bread 3000 02:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support--Does more on behalf of the projects than many other editors. Has been around for a long time. He deserves it. Danny 03:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But adminship is not something one "deserves", it is something one receives if the community feels that you need its tools, and can be trusted to use them responsibly. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 05:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment(after edit conflict with Chairman, who appears to make the same point as I, only more succinctly) It should be observed, I think, that, inasmuch as adminship is not a trophy or reward, he deserves it is not a particularly compelling justification for support (the sentences precedent thereto may well be). The general question we ought to consider at RfA is whether the net effect on the project of our sysopping an individual should be likely to be positive, such that, of course, those who have contributed well to the project and who would merit sysopping were adminship solely a reward for past good works are not properly reflexively supported at RfA; I do imagine that I am correct in concluding that Danny didn't particularly mean to suggest otherwise. Joe 05:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Sorry, I do not find the user fit for this responsibility. As I had several disaccords with the user I have noticed how they still are very ill-tempered and seems to push own agenda. After listing Category:Kurdistan for deletion (Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_3#Category:Kurdistan, and it seemed clear that there was a vast majority for keeping the category, the user stated : This vote means little to me. It is inflated to begin with. No other category vote has this many votes. Also there is a pov infestation. I am not accusing anyone of anything but I find it odd that the majority of the keep votes came from Kurds and Greeks. So no I dont care about this vote at all. I have no reason to keep nonsense like this on wikipedia, I will eventualy get it deleted, watch me. --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC). Only a few days ago, they started unilaterally to remove the category from relevant articles. Such a behaviour constitutes explicit attempts to obstruct a decision taken after debates, and borders vandalism. Bertilvidet 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning the user's experience as an administrator at Commons, it should be noted that their authorities have been used to label a user they were in conflict with as a sockpuppet at his userpage and then protect it [1]! Even though Cool Cat reverted them selves, this is not a good sign of a cool headed administrator who not will abuse their powers. Bertilvidet 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion Cool Cat was deliberately stalked by some persons he had been in conflict with him. He indeed realized the conflict of interest, and reverted himself only 2 minutes later. This case caused some long discussion on our notice board, which eventually led to the community ban of the users who only went to Commons to stalk Cool Cat. About the Kurdistan case, yes the comment he made almost a year ago was inappropriate. His recent comments on the talk page however showed that he is now willing to seek consensus. Bryan 20:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do expect an admin to keep cool - even if stalked! Bertilvidet 20:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility, recent example. For more examples see past RfAs. Commons RfA seems to have been a fluke due to not many people checking their commons watch lists. -- Ned Scott 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    25 votes for adminships is much in Commons. Generally this is about 10-15 votes. Cool Cat passed this vote almost with full support. Bryan 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the commons watchlist? --Cat out 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose yikes, hmm...a lot of blocks, and some recent ones. Right now that is a little to much for me to see past, your answers also don't exactly leave me inspired. Also per others. ~ Arjun 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Why are your answers so incredibly short? I'm sorry I cannot support; this amongst other things, including immaturity, quitting and coming back, and the fact this is your 4TH RfA. I mean, I don't usually give much thought over numbers, but you could have put a bit of effort into it. Also, you're running for admin on Meta right now; one at a time please. --Majorly (o rly?) 21:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: Weirdness about the listing of this RfA suggest inexperience with policy and guidelines, block log is worrying, especially where it pertains to disruption. RfA'ing on Meta at the moment is quite bizarre, and the candidate's answers to the questions show little or no need for the tools, either here or on Meta. -- Heligoland 21:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per the comments above. Particularly worrying is the number of blocks. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I don't see how I can support a candidate who asked to be indef blocked only 2 months ago. I don't trust that this candidate can stay in self-control. --After Midnight 0001 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose The block record is bothersome, and may indicate a potential lack of self control. I also see a slight weakness in grammar in some of the responses and on the user page. --Kevin Murray 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Despite his answer to #4, he doesn't seem to be learning from his mistakes. Looking at his block logs [2] [3] and failed RfAs, I would have expected much more improvement if he was truly learning from mistakes. ChazBeckett 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. The nomination doesn't portray version of CoolCat I've seen. I'll be happy to support some future request when the editor's problems (POV-pushing, incivility, block-soliciting, disruption, a love of drama, and perhaps others) are resolved. What seals the matter for me is CoolCat's apparently unshakable belief that he's the very model of a modern Wikipedian, which makes any change in behaviour very, very unlikely. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per the block log, poor answers and problems with civility with other editors. I recommend withdrawal of this RfA at this time. (aeropagitica) 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Crystal clear fail. Appalling record. --Mais oui! 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose for all the good reasons given by others. — Gareth Hughes 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per above. Especially of concern, block log shows frequent request by user to be blocked as too angry to edit, a worrying trait for an admin to have. The WP:POINT violations and incivility concerns only compound this. Sorry, but it'll take some time to overcome these difficulties. WJBscribe 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose for creating this to get back at Elaragirl, and for this, this, and this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Dev920. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong oppose, to be blunt, this a bad candidate. Frequent problems with incivility and WP:POINT, as well as the aformentioned blocks for being too angry to edit, topped off by poor answers to questions and just far too much controversy in general leave me with no other option but to oppose - I would almost be afraid to contribute if this user had the admin tools here. --Coredesat 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Hasn't learned from previous RfA's, oppose per all. Being supported by only the nom and fenton doesn't excatly help you either. Better to withdraw.--Wizardman 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong oppose per serious civility issues, per Dev920, and per hugely excessive block log - last block was only 1.5 months ago. Far to much of a risk for me to support. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - His soliciting stewards and then arbcom to block someone on Wikipedia for their actions on Commons was inappropriate. pschemp | talk 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong oppose. In December 2006, Cool Cat created this Request for comment against Elaragirl, a user that he had disagreed with. He later chose to withdraw the RfC, with the statement "I am bailing out of this request. Too many trolls and/or members of the deletionism cabal. If Elaragirl's conduct is acceptable, please delete WP:CIVIL. --Cat out 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)". I confronted Cool Cat on the Request for comment|RfC's talk page about this apparent desire to lump together everybody who disagreed with him. Cool Cat answered that he was not targeting anyone in particular, but did not choose to elaborate further. Cool Cat later nominated Wikipedia's Civility policy for deletion. In the interest of full disclosure, I do consider Elaragirl a friend. That doesn't mean that I agree with her on everything or approve of everything that she does. This incident, combined with his long record of blocks, his apparent history of incivility towards other users and violations of WP:POINT, and the numerous times he has claimed that he is leaving Wikipedia, all convince me that Cool Cat lacks the judgement and ability to handle stress that an administrator needs. I'm very sorry, Cool Cat, but I feel compelled to vote in the interest of Wikipedia as a whole, not solely in regards for your feelings. I truly am sorry. --Kyoko 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Oppose • There are far far too many instances of extremely poor judgment for me to at any time feel comfortable with this user being an admin. The instances of soliciting Stewards against users on Commons were in extremely poor ethics, let alone policy judgment, and the POINT campaign against Elara is a personal vandetta that is unacceptable. If I had my way, they'd be blocked, not sysopped. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Unfortunately, this user simply has too many blocks (some quite recent), and his temper is questionable. And though his edit count is high, that is not a qualification for adminship. Sorry. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per above and short answers. Cbrown1023 talk 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No. Sarah 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose unless and until I get an answer to my optional question. My concern is not to do with this users interactions with me or even the conflicts in Kurdistan, where no one seems to be operating with a cool head, but rather the ongoing inability of Cool Cat to show he has the control over his temper and emotional stability to act in a calm neutral manner. I'm not saying he's a bad contributor, but I don't like this user's rationals in deletion, I don't think his answers are complete enough, and I need some reason to set aside my concerns. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Admins need to be completely trustworthy. They should also set an example for new editors to look up to. There are too many instances of this candidate loosing his cool. Thank you for all your edits, but I cannot support adminship. Nemilar 03:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Kyoko. The heat-of-the-moment RfC against Elaragirl would have been enough for an oppose, but the POINTy MfD nomination of WP:CIVIL truly makes me doubt this user's judgement. riana_dzasta 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm, I don't know. If the only thing he did wrong was go after me I'd be inclined to let it slide, even if was totally wrong, because everyone makes mistakes. I'm more concerned that it seems to be systemic. The WP:CIVIL deletion was wrong and pointy, but at least from his viewpoint, ironic. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 04:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was using the RfC against you as an example of what appears to be a continuing pattern of overly hasty judgements and overreactions, two traits that I feel should not possessed by someone who is entrusted with the ability to block users or delete pages. It's really too bad, because his edit count shows that he is a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia. --Kyoko 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too only cited the RfC as an example; since that has been my only real interaction with Cool Cat, that was the only issue I felt I was in a position to discuss. My statement had more to do with Cool Cat than to do with Elaragirl. riana_dzasta 05:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose: In the course of my Wikipedia-ing, I've found that not all incivility claims are valid; after all, people interpret things different ways. However, the MfD of WP:CIVILITY is really over the line, and is a direct violation of WP:POINT. Such blatant transgressions are worrying to say the least, and would be especially disturbing in an administrative role. Having just a high edit count isn't enough. In fact, I don't care much for edit counts. I'm concerned mostly about the user's ability to handle the tools, and the prior incivility makes me think that I should vote oppose. .V. [Talk|Email] 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Absolutely no way strong oppose. I can dig up the diffs later, but this user has major civility issues, suffers from emotional instability and would make a terrible admin. No freakin' way. —Doug Bell talk 05:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. What? Are we really doing this for a user who decided to MfD WP:CIVIL? -Amark moo! 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong oppose Big concerns about his civility and ability to keep a cool head. Also, the MfD of CIVIL and his recent contributions to XfD debates make me doubt his judgement. See for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey (Second nomination) or the CfD nominations [4] [5] [6]. Pascal.Tesson 05:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Jaranda wat's sup 06:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose a bit too volatile for my liking and while 30k+ edits, only over a narrow range of pages (5.2 edits per article). The Rambling Man 08:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no math wizard but your figures would indicate he's edited something like 6000 different pages. I don't really see how this could be described as a narrow range. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose - a benefit to Wikipedia as an ordinary user, but not everyone is temperamentally suited to have the tools. Moreschi Deletion! 08:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Too much of a pointillist.--Folantin 09:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose -- not at this time. - Longhair\talk 09:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose no.--cj | talk 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose, advise withdrawal. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, unfortunately. Not really an encouraging history, but I do hope you can work on your downsides and become an admin in the future, because you are obviously a dedicated Wikipedian. Good luck. :) -- Anas Talk? 12:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose leopards can change spots and I firmly believe in second chances, but incivility and point pushing seems sadly ingrained. Would be happy to support in a future RfA if this changed. --Dweller 12:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Dedicated, excellent contributor and has been here long enough. However, numerous blocks and some "colourful" behavior work against him. Perhaps a few months of civil editing and a really excellent example of good faith would win me over. Dfrg.msc 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I am very loose on supporting RFA candidates (This is the first time I have not supported one) but Cool Cat has just too many blocks (some very recent). I wish we could test RFA candidates by granting them sysop privalages for a week or two to test them out. (this would be very appropriate here). On the bright side, Cool Cat has made some fine contributions to Wikipedia in his/her 30,000 edits.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning towards oppose I'd like to encourage this user to continue to improve, but it will take much more improvement in order to reach the goal of adminship, and I hope the journey will continue because Cool Cat appears to be a dedicated Wikipedian. Just H 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral to avoid pile on far too many valid concerns have been raised, and you're going to have to spend some time working on them, and showing you can be a civil editor, before you are ready to become an admin.-- danntm T C 01:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral to stop the onslaught - You should withdraw from this. You've soiled your reputation too much to be voted into anything. I'm sorry, but it's true. PTO 01:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral leaning oppose After a cool down, might reconsider. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/White_Cat_4&oldid=1088715246"