Meta:Requests for adminship/White Cat (02)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Cool Cat edit

I'd like to nominate Cool Cat for adminship on the meta wiki. He is a longtime contributor to many various Wikimedia projects, and is an admin on Commons, so he can be trusted. He can be found on IRC all the time, so he can be helpful. He likes Japanese Anime, so he can be funny! I don't think I need to write anything else - my number one rule for an admin (any admin) is to be trusted, helpful, and social. He's all that, so I think he deserves these extra rights. Datrio 18:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to accept. Just noticed this on pm on irc. --Cat out 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On IRC specially #wikimedia and #wikipedia.ja I have seem frequently his immaturity, specially bothering others with off-topic when people have been in charge of urgent need. I agree he brings fun and he could be trusted and helpful in some occasions. But I hardly think him social. --Aphaia 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he hasn't accepted the nomination yet... --.anaconda 19:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but my connectivity will not be sure in this week. Aphaia 19:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cool cat sometimes has his immature behaviour, but don't we all? I think he can be trusted. Bryan 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel like Aphaia, Cool Cat is sometimes helpful, sometimes funny, sometimes irritating and sometimes unmanageable. guillom 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He just accepted a nomination on en-wiki (en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool Cat (04)). And although I have no experience of him, I think this was the wrong decision. One RfA at a time I think... --Majorly 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Judging from the RfA at en.wiki, I'm not so sure about this. Nishkid64 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong Oppose actually. Two nominations on separate projects started within an day of each other sets off alarm bells. I wouldn't support the candidate due to their history on en.wiki anyway and I must question the judgment of the candidate accepting the nominations here and en.wiki, as much as I try to assume good faith here, two RfAs within a day and 20 minutes of each other is bloody strange, most users don't get a nomination and are overlooked anyway, the more ambitious need to bug someone to nom them. Heligoland 00:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong Oppose per my reasoning on the EN RFA also underway:

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 ) 00:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as both a steward and an active bureaucrat on Commons, I'd like Wizardy_Dragon to specify exactly what he is speaking of when he says "instances of soliciting Stewards against users on Commons." I have no idea what you are talking about. Noting that at least one user below opposed specifically because of this, it really deserves an explanation. Bastique 14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique, don't be oblique. :) I'm quite sure he is referring to Cool Cat's attempts to get a user on en.Wikipedia blocked due to his actions on commons. He solicited at least two stewards to do this, who turned him down, as blocking people on other projects where they haven't misbehaved is not acceptable. He then asked the arbcom on en.wiki to block this person too, a request also denied. The fact that he even thought that cross-project blocking is acceptable is very, very troubling. Pschemp 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I don't mean to seem oblique, I haven't actually weighed in on a vote here. I am honestly unaware of the steward request--and given that I believe I have a very good guess of which Commons user we're speaking of, I'd like to know more about the nature and manner of the steward solicitation. This is the first time I'm reading about this. Bastique 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm pretty sure I discussed this with you when he posted the request to en.wiki arbcom, but if you honestly don't remember that, I understand. I can dig up the diff on the arbcom page if you need to see that. Honestly, that's just as bad as asking stewards. Possibly worse. Pschemp 18:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I curious about one thing... How is me requesting an unofficial opinion of arbcom regarding a user they are familiar with in any way relevant to admin actions in any way relevant to this RfA? I am really puzzled how this ties with the RfA if at all there is a logical connection that is.
I also want to know which stewards have I "solicited". If I am accused of solicition, I should at least know who I have allegedly solicited...
--Cat out 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose :( per above. Cbrown1023 01:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral : He can be trusted with admin access, although I dunno if we NEED any more. --Thunderhead 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here I intend to help with the spamlist among other things. It would be very convenient for me to add entries to the spamlist. My userpace on en used to get enough of those. --Cat out 07:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Immaturity. Sarah Ewart 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Meta is a different environment than WP. Like Thunderhead, I'm not sure meta needs many more admins, but he seems to have no conflicts on meta, and IRC interactions are on IRC. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support come on, I stopped whining about the number of administrators myself! obviously you are against him because of something other than the number of administrators. write a real reason for the opposition.--Alnokta 08:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per concerns above and raised in the en.wp RFA. --Coredesat (en.wp) 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would you please provide a web link to prove his immaturity?--Jusjih 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Cool Cat's attempts to get a user on en.Wikipedia blocked due to his actions on commons were ill thought out. He solicited at least two stewards to do this, who turned him down, as blocking people on other projects where they haven't misbehaved is not acceptable. He then asked the arbcom on en.wiki to block this person too, a request also denied. The fact that he even thought that cross-project blocking is acceptable is very, very troubling. Pschemp 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. --Marbot 19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn at candidate request