Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cometstyles 2

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

Cometstyles

edit

Final: (64/32/1) - closed unsuccesful. Raul654 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cometstyles (talk · contribs) - Cometstyles has been editing since November 2006, and I think it's time he was made an admin. He's done lots of work on Rugby related articles, as well as lots of vandal reports, and also the requests for accounts page - admins aren't as limited as normal users when creating new accounts, so he could be a big help there. He's also friendly and helpful (I think traits from his last request have gone now), a regular on IRC, and active Wikipedian. I think he'll make a great admin. Majorly (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept..--Cometstyles 14:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the

following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Well like I mentioned in my first RfA, my main area of concern will be WP:AIV and WP:UAA which are two of the main areas I would intend to take part in. Recently I have shown interest in taking part in Request an account whereby we create account for those users who don't know how to or aren't really sure about how to go about creating an account. WP:ACC has been a new project for me since I started helping out in lateapril after I saw users creating account which were highly dubious or those failing to comply with the username policy and most of it ended up in WP:RFCN. I have also taken part in many XfD's and I will continue to do so in the near future.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well most of my contributions have been to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union cause when I joined Wikipedia, my main aim was to create articles related to Rugby union or Fiji since I'm from Fiji. I started off by creating articles on Fijian rugby players and later on when I joined the WP:RU. I helped in creating articles on rugby players and coaches from other countries as well . I also started a Project on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Fiji to better improve articles related to Fiji rugby as a whole and also since then I have also created articles of Fijian politicians and academics as part of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fiji. I have also helped out with most Bollywood and Hollywood articles since I'am a big fan of movies and sports and to sum it up, I would say I'am proud of all the 80+ or so articles I created since each one of them has been created with the sole purpose of providing information to people who would like to know more about Rugby union and Fiji
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: When I joined Wikipedia last November, I did come in conflict with some editors regarding image policies and licenses issues which I later came to realize was my fault and I take the full responsibility for because when I joined and like most newcomers wasn't sure about image copyright issues and what sort of images were allowed on Wikipedia in terms of licenses but since then I have learned about all image policies and licenses and in the future I would deal with it amicably under the Wikipedia:Guidelines and Policies.
Sorry..I'm on Dial-up and every time I try to check my histories, my browser crashes. I went through some of my discussions with Eric Swanson regarding a image I uploaded but tagged wrongly and replied to. Since it was my fourth day on Wikipedia, I wasn't really used to talking much and I was adviced by another user to not download any more images till I had read WP:IUP and WP:FU, which I did and during the following months, I also asked advice from one of the user who helped me during the first few days on Wikipedia regarding image policy issues. Since then I have made sure about not uploading images which might fail the WP:FU and WP:IUP criteria.--Cometstyles 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Black Harry:
4 Why do you think your first RFA was failed? Did you learn anything from that experience? Do you think you addressed the concerns brought up in that RFA?
A My first Rfa failed but to me it was an eye-opener. I didn't realize that I had made those mistakes in the past and only found out during the RfA. I just returned from a 3 week wikibreak (something which I'm not fond of taking) and I was nominated by a Retiono Virginian (who later on was identified as a sock of a banned user) and I accepted it because I knew him for sometime but during the RfA, I learned about some of the mistakes I had made which I had overlooked before because I didn't think it made much of a difference such as: 1. English is not my native language but Hindi is but and during the Rfa it was brought up that I used short sentences such as "pliz"and "thanx" and also made spelling mistakes which isn't allowed and so since then I avoided using "slangs" on user talk pages and articles and 2. I also realized that during my RfA, I sort of 'lost it' and you can say it was pressure or bad timing and I stooped really low for which I'm still very sorry. I somehow didn't assume good faith which is what I should have been doing all along and since then I haven't been involved in any edit wars or conflicts and if I ever did or would in the near future, I will always maintain civility and assume good faith and finally I believe thats I have really improved since my first Rfa and I know people may judge me on that and I respect their decision.
Optional Question from Miranda:
5 If a disruptive or new user asks you many types of questions about being unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, what would you do? Also, what is your interpretation of WP:IAR?
A Well I haven't had any bickering's with any disruptive or new user up till now even though I do help a lot with the {{helpme}} requests. I have helped many new users but if it ever did happen, I'll try to solve it amicably under the two most important guidelines i.e to assume good faith and try to solve it without being uncivil and if it is a new user then I will assume both of the above as well as Not biting them since at a point in time I was also a newcomer and it is really difficult to know and learn about what is happening and how to use some of the tools as well. Ignore all rules is one of the questions that surely needs to be asked to one and all who go through this process because its one of those questions to which there are always contrasting answers. I haven't encountered any situation yet where this policy might be appropriate for but if I ever had to ignored all rules, it would purely be of my obligation to protect or improve a project or an article.

General comments

edit
RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cometstyles before commenting.

Discussion

edit

Support

  1. As nom. Majorly (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongest possible support Deinitely a user who I trust, I trusted him at his first RfA and I do even more now, a great editor and always extremely polite. Lets give this guy the tools. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support This user has helped me a great deal. He's always positive and infinitely helpful. There is no doubt in my mind that he would make an ideal administrator.  hmwith  talk 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support Exactly as stated above, great guy. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    apologies I rushed in opposing with a silly reason, I think he deserves the tools since he has explained himself. Francisco Tevez 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Another Strong Support - I've seen only great and good things from this user. Good luck. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Seen him around; I see no reason not to. —Anas talk? 16:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Cometstyles is a great vandal fighter and would make a great administrator. Good Luck. QuasyBoy 12:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support I agree with FayssalF. My interactions with Cometstyles have been positive as well. Acalamari 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yay! Amazing user. --trey 17:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it wasn't for cometstyles amazingness, I would oppose, per majorly's canvassing on IRC.—treyjay–jay 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem, TREYWiki, I was there. This "IRC canvassing" of which you refer to was taken far, far out of context. (The channel in question was #wikimedia-ops). Sean William @ 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support One of the easiest decisions I've ever had to make on WP. Shalom Hello 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support- per Trey. Eddie 17:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support Good user who is very friendly.--†Sir James Paul† 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, looking good to me. Can't find evidence to suggest he'd abuse the tools, good contributions, and the like. Seems to have improved since the last RfA, too. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support per answer to my question and lack of reasons to oppose. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support. He is a great editor. I am confident that giving him the tools will benefit Wikipedia. --Mschel 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support. Great editor who I have known well for a long time now. I am absolutely sure he will make a great and trustworthy administrator. And yes, Cometstyles does have a sense of humour, and that's a good thing in my books. He is more than ready to be given the tools. Will (aka Wimt) 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No concerns.--Húsönd 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: Everything checks out here except the wasting of ":P" on IRC. :-) —« ANIMUM » 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per Animum, the only problem is that this user may cause freenode to run out of :p's :-) GDonato (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I feel this user would never abuse of the tools; plus, seems trustworthy and civil. ♠TomasBat 21:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Very Strong Support. Solid editor, good natured, always puts a smile on my face, what more could you ask for? Smokizzy (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Uber plus plus, good luck! The Rambling Man 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Very strong support - I was planning to nominate this user myself, but I guess someone beat me to it... Tim{speak}
  24. Strong Support I have found CometStyles to be a fine user and one who will never abuse the tools. He works hard against vandals which is and excellent characteristic of an admin, although not the only one. I sense no problem here and wish him the very best. JodyB talk 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. wikipedia-en-help cabal Support - a helpful user. Would definitely not abuse the tools and is smart enough to seek help himself if he needs it. --After Midnight 0001 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, I think this user can be trusted with the tools now. He seems to have come a long way since the last RfA, and his administrative work with account requests is already very good. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support. This is the worst case yet of "He ISNT an admin?!?!". Fantastic user! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Lift him up and hand him the mop- Having reviewed this user a while back at Editor Review, I think he'd make a great admin. David Fuchs 23:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I have known Cometstyles for quite a while. We have worked together on many Rugby union related things and I now believe he has the experience to make a great admin. - Shudda talk 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I'm for it--he seems to have improved since the last request from what it looks like and will do a great job helping Wikipedia. Maturity was noted, I see, though I feel he'll be able to maintain it if he tries, as he's already shown he's well capable of. C. Foultz 00:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I've seen Cometstyles around and he has always presented himself well to others. He has learned from his RfA#1 and used it to better himself to the point where he has long been trustworthy. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I've seen Cometstyles around for several months, since before his first RFA, and had good interaction with him. He has shown himself to be a valuable part of the community, and I trust him to use Admin tools responsibly. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support Obvious...great editor, and will do great work as an admin. Jmlk17 06:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Srong Support Based mainly on personal interaction and that Majorly nominiated. Pedro |  Chat  07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support It is time to give this user the added tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - good candidate, plenty of experience. Concerns raised in Oppose and Neutral sections don't especially worry me. Waltontalk 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - All the best. Khukri 13:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support -- seen him around, seems to be a good user. Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I have seen you a lot around Wikipedia and I have always thought of you as a good contributer. I am glad you have learnt the lessons of your previous RFA, the maturity issues raised do not concern me. Camaron1 | Chris 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Edit-Conflict Support - Helpful user, see no problem whatsoever being an admin. - Tangotango (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, no problems with this user. Wizardman 16:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Jaranda wat's sup 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Delightful person, and passes my requirements with ease. Best of luck! :) Phaedriel - 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - I have no concerns with this user, he is very dedicated and it would be great to have him on board. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I thought he was an admin already. Mop wisely. Blueboy96 02:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I think this makes sense. Modernist 12:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC) sorry, it just doesn't feel right to me. Change to strong oppose. Modernist 16:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Peacent 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support I've looked at some of his edits, and he is a fine editor!! Politics rule 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Why the hell not? Well within my standards. Vassyana 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. I've seen Comestyles around the wiki for some time, now, and I haven't seen anything that suggests to me personally that he can't be trusted with the tools. To be honest, I'm actually a bit reminded of Ryulong's promotion, which was quite controversial, at the time, but has proven to work out for the best, I think -- where we have generally productive, generally trustworthy users who demonstrate knowledge, ability, and dedication, is there a reason we shouldn't make them into admins? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since some of us don't think Ryulong has been a good promotion overall, your argument is a bit flawed... -- nae'blis 14:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but surely you are aware that somewhere on this wiki, there are people who don't think exactly the same way you do? "Different" is not necessarily "flawed." Disagreement is healthy. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thing I didn't say that disagreement was unhealthy, then. All I said was that, based on the number of complaints on Ryulong's talk page and WP:ANI, he probably wasn't the best example of a controversial candidate that turned out "for the best". But my standards for wikibehavior are out of the norm apparently, you're right. -- nae'blis 13:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weakish support; I like the guy, and he probably won't do anything crazy, but I don't think he's the most mature of people. I hope that, until he gains more experience, Cometstyles will lean on the knowledge of more experienced administrators, including his nominator, for support. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing support. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Terence 05:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support The reasons raised by the opposers seem to be honest mistakes, one of which was almost five months ago. Am confident he will not abuse the tools. Davewild 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. G1ggy (t|c|p) 07:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I am very confident in this user. I have often seen him around, and hope that he continues to involve himself and ask for support if needed. ck lostsword•T•C 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Always a pleasure to work with.GordyB 23:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Why not? Yeah. What I said. J-stan Talk 03:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, no indication he'd abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 07:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Reedy Boy 14:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong support - great and friendly user who would make a great admin. --Roosa 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong spport Pinky 21:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support - Cometstyles could use the administrator tools to help deal with vandalism. He seems very helpful and I'm sure he'll make a great admin! --Leon Byford 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support (edit conflict) I knew this was coming sometime... One of the not-so-many users that I really trust! :) -- Stwalkerster talk 21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I think that the pile-on opposes relsting to immaturity are poorly thought out.This user is a University student (unless he has qualified since posting his Userpage) who I am quite certaib will not abuse the tools. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Although based on this user's overall record, including satisfactory answers to the questions. Some of the concerns raised by the opposers have some merit, but on the whole I believe this candidate would use admin tools within his areas of expertise and for the benefit of the project. If this RfA is successful, as I hope it will be, then I trust that the candidate will start off slowly in performing administrator tasks and never be hesitant to consult before acting in doubtful cases. If the RfA is not successful, I very much hope the candidate will continue editing and return to RfA in due course. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per Newyorkbrad - nothing much to add to that really... WjBscribe 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose- user appears to be immature in reacting to the comments on this RFA which goes towards him not getting the tools, as such as the reaction to Miranda's comments below. Doesn't seem like he's learnt much from the last RFA he had. Francisco Tevez 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)User is currently banned Sean William @ 01:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything brought up was nearly 3 months ago. Is there nothing recent? Majorly (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, per the reason below. Francisco Tevez 16:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cometstyles. This was only a few months ago, people. Immaturity isn't going to magically vanish in a couple of months. Friday (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Three months is the time after which another RFA is suggested to be made. Also, Cometstyles is not immature, he has a sense of humor. —« ANIMUM » 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, immaturity and a sense of humor are not mutually exclusive. The oppose from Birgitte below definitely tells me I'm correct in my assessment here. That's just.. appalling. I really have to wonder what on earth the supporters are basing their opinions on. If people are supporting their chat room buddies despite poor behavior on-wiki, we have a very serious problem here. Friday (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, Cometstyles's reply seems to have more substantiated claims than the oppose itself. —« ANIMUM » 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean. Diffs don't lie. The ones below reflect quite poorly on this editor. Friday (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that if the edit summary is all caps and unsubstantiated claims such as cometstyles says, any RC patrol frequenter would have deemed it vandalism. —« ANIMUM » 05:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. this would be one of the judgement issues I have trouble with, and apparently they still happen. -Amarkov moo! 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I reported that name because it had the words "arbitrary" to it which might confuse some thinkinq it might be a reference too an arbitrator on wikipedia such as the ones from the Arbcom committee. I reported it to WP:UAA cause it seemed like the right thing to do and when I see the users contributions I realise his contributions were to Rugby union related articles..I'm not sure what "judgement" you were referring too and if you think I had made the wrong decision, you could have warned me about it on my talk page....--Cometstyles 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You made the judgement that the name should be reported to WP:UAA. That was very bad judgement. As an admin, you won't have to report names like that. If someone had made that account and you were an admin, they'd end up blocked unless they knew how to complain. -Amarkov moo! 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose In my personal experience with this editor he has showed a lack of responsibility for his actions and his answer to why his previous RfA failed does not convince me that he changed greatly since then. My experience was regarding an anon who blanked their child's user page with an edit summary (I recall) stating they were removing it because of the personally identifiable information revealed on the page by their young child. (I am not an admin so I can't quote a deleted edit summary) Cometstyles reverted this blanking as vandalism. When I approached about being the revert he replied So what does that got to do with me??? and I used popups..Thats what Popups do they revert stuff . When I disagreed and stated that he is responsible for any edits made under his account, he did not respond except to remove the note from his talk page with the summary rm nonsense. If I had not been worried about that young editor and been watching his page closely Cometstyles mistaken revert may not have caught by anyone. Everyone has days when they are sloppy and the mistake is understandable, claiming Popups is responsible for the revert and that is has nothing to do with him is not. I have serious concerns about the suitability of this editor for adminship; and have seen nothing in his edits since February or since his first RfA to convince me they are misplaced. His answer that his previous RfA failed due to poor spelling and use of slang as well his losing his behaivor during the RfA does not convince me he understands all the previous concerns raised about him.--BirgitteSB 19:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember this happening in February when I reverted what I thought was 100% vandalism which was when the userpage in question was deleted by someone(an anon..not logged in as the user) and in the edit summary they wrote in "Caps Letters" something like if I remember correctly " THIS USER IS 8 YEARS OLD AND I'M REMOVING" which I reverted to an older version because the information was removed by an IP and saying that this user is an 8 year old in the edit summary in caps letters would look like 'Pure Vandalism' to any would be vandal-fighters. I did what I believed was right at that time since I thought it was a vandal removing information from the userpage and replacing it with vandalism ( I was assuming good faith and following "remove personal attacks") and after fighting vandalism for sometime you will understand what I mean. I don't remember which admin deleted the page and its history and so I didn't go with the accusation any further since I had no proof to point otherwise so I removed it from my user talk page and can I ask one thing "If I had not been worried about that young editor and been watching his page closely Cometstyles mistaken revert may not have caught by anyone" ..If you knew about it containing personal information about a young user then why didn't you report it to an admin at that point or before I reverted it since you knew about it beforehand instead of blaming me for what I clearly thought was vandalism. All this happened in February which was 2 months before my first RfA and I wish you had opposed me that time on my first RfA with this so that I could have better explained to you what happened..I have moved on from that and if you still believe that I made a big mistake then I'm really very very sorry...--Cometstyles 19:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim that you actually read the summary and decided the blanking was still vandalism concerns me greatly. I went through my contribs and found the AN/I report where I reported the summary as being: My son is only 8 and I don't want him putting personal info on the website. Please help me delete this ASAP. I am certain that my copy-paste of the summary at the time it happened is more accurate than either of our memories and also the page was blanked not replaced with vandalism. But perhaps you are just confusing this with another similar incident where someone used a Caps Letters summary that I am unaware of. As to why I did not reports my concerns earlier to an admin; well I actually did. However nothing came of it, so I decided to keep a close eye on the editor myself. I do not blame you for making a mistake but for your dismissal of responsibility of that mistake. As to you first RfA; I only comment on RfA's for people I have personal experience with so I do not check this page daily. Your first RfA was quickly closed, before I had a chance to comment. I did notice it at WP:WATCH and planned on commenting the next day; when it disappeared I investigated what happened, considered placing my concerns on the talk page so they would be "on the record" and decided not to. Perhaps I should have, but I figured no one else could benefit from hearing my concerns besides you, and you already knew about my thoughts from my note on your talk page. I am honestly quite stunned at the explanation you give above for your actions and that it so different from your initial reaction on my talk page. I do not know what to think except that you must be confusing two seperate incidents.--BirgitteSB 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I remember the incident quite well (not to the detail) and I don't think I'm confusing the incidence since it only ever happened to me once. It was just my 3rd Month on Wikipedia when the incident happened and since I was a newbie (with the tools and wikipedia policies at that time), I might not have explained myself well enough. Since the user in question's page was deleted by the anon.. (see it from a vandal-fighters point of view), I reverted it seeing the edit summary being a bit too "vandal-like". My initial reaction was' bad' because I had no idea at that point in time on what you were talking about since I mixed up revert with vandalism. I know I should have been careful..but it was an unlikely scenario..I didn't expect someone to blank the page (I can't remember what happened in terms of 'blanking the page' or 'replaced' because the page was deleted before I could even see the history) without a valid explanation and I believe the edit summaries were in "Caps", but thus I can't clearly remember that far back..--Cometstyles 23:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you claiming I misrepresented the edit summary here?--BirgitteSB 12:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually not that but this edit and summary..because I thought 'at that time' that you were accusing me of reverting an edit as vandalism which to me clearly was one since I didn't actually read what was removed but I blindly reverted it. I still believe that I made a mistake by not reading what I reverted but like most vandal edits, there was no way of telling what is vandalism and what is removal. If an anon blanks any userpage..any editor at that point in time will revert it back to its original citing vandalism, I just did the same...--Cometstyles 12:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your revert was an understandable mistake, if you didn't read the edit summary. As I said before, everyone gets sloppy now and again. What am taking issue with is not that but your reaction to my concerns and deleting them as "nonsense". Obviously you didn't understand the situation when you made the revert. However even if you didn't understand my explanation of the incident you could of asked questions of the admins who responded to my report at AN/I. The fact that they took action on my report should have been a clue that my concerns were valid. The bottom line is I thought you made a mistake and (at the time) you thought I was wrong. Rather than looking into my concerns any further you just dismissed them as nonsense. That kind of reaction to criticism is not what I can support in an admin.--BirgitteSB 13:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to say that I am not trying to sink your RfA; I am only telling my experience. If others that know you better think my experience was a fluke they will support you and speak up to that. My advice to you is to find some diffs of yourself responding well to criticism and reply with those below to show that my experience with you was unusual. Showing this incident to be unusual will help you more than debating the merits of the incident itself.--BirgitteSB 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If this RfA is unsuccessful - Regarding the February 2007 reaction to Birgitte's concerns and deleting them as "nonsense"[1], you may wish to review what nonsense is, Civil re Judgmental tone in edit summaries, and Editing other's talk page comments re removing comments without any reason is generally regarded uncivil. Had your first response above to Birgitte started with "I'm sorry" instead of "I remember", there might have been more support for this RfA. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per maturity concerns, spectacularly unimpressed with the reaction to previous RFA. Moreschi Talk 12:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. oppose per questions raised above, do not trust to not be abusive of tools and/or users. User:Argyriou (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Friday. Sean William @ 01:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I too query if this editor's maturity is sufficient for admin responsibility at this time. Espresso Addict 02:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. If you think that Something arbitrary (talk · contribs) should be blocked for having an inappropriate username then I don't trust you with admin tools. A username block for that would be an embarassment to Wikipedia. Picaroon (Talk) 04:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Absolutely not, per Birgitte and Friday's maturity concerns. Sometimes things can be fixed in three months, this does not appear to be one of those times. -- nae'blis 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I share the concerns of the above. I am not terribly confident of your ability to make good decisions as an administrator, and hence I cannot support you. Daniel 08:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, I see no reason to support. --Agamemnon2 11:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose per Amarkov. That decision of the candidate, from two days ago, and his defense of it, clearly demonstrate that he does not possess suitable judgment at this time. Xoloz 15:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. With respects to the nominator whose judgment I almost always trust, I am also strongly opposed to Cometstyle's request. The username issue as first shown by Amarkov illustrates that he is certainly not ready to employ the block function, and this, coupled with other examples brought up during this discussion lead me to believe that he needs to work on both his maturity and the basic social graces that everyone should be utilising gaillimhConas tá tú? 01:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose yeah everybody messes up. Any vandal-fighter has reversed some good faith edits. But why would you ever remove a good faith concern on your talk page as nonsense? There's the diff. Okay, and everybody screws up and acts like a royal jerk some time. But now 5 months later you still can't admit you did anything wrong, you've blatantly misrepresented the incident above, and what's worse you're still reacting rudely to BirgitteSB. Apologize to Birgitte now and maybe I'll consider supporting you in 3 or 4 months. --JayHenry 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad to watch this fail. All Comet had to do was say "Birgitte, I am sorry for my behavior. I should never have labeled the good faith concerns of another wikipedian as nonsense." Instead, I feel as if he keeps avoiding the issue and acting as if it's about a Vandal Fighting error. It's not about vandal fighting. --JayHenry 01:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong oppose, per Birgitte, frankly this doesn't sit well with me. Modernist 16:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose changed from Neutral. Q3 was not expanded upon, and Cometstyles' discussion with BirgitteSB above did not relieve my concerns. Leebo T/C 22:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose changed from neutral due to Birgitte's rationale. Miranda 02:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose; sorry, just can't support this one at present time. It was the "rm nonsense" diff that did it (quoted above). When you're an admin, it's going to be ten times as stressful as it is now, as trolls and vandals come after you deliberately trying to provoke you, and you have to be unflappable, and both capable of seeing and admitting when you're wrong. Staying cool under fire isn't always so easy. Please try again some time down the road; best wishes. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oy vey!. This user is too immature for this position of responsibility. -- Y not? 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Although I am not at all sure that this user is possessed of the deliberative disposition, good judgment (toward which concerns, one may see, e.g., the diff adduced by Amarkov and, as Xoloz well notes, the unfulfilling reply of Comet thereto), and demeanor the presence of which might lead me to conclude with some confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive, such that I'd oppose even absent other concerns, I am moved to oppose firmly because I fear that Comet's command of the English language, generally impressive though it is, is not sufficient to permit him properly to communicate fully with those intractable users whom he should surely, qua admin, encounter; whilst editors acting calmly, reservedly, and in good faith are likely to take care well to understand him before replying, those who are (rightly or not) abrupt and angry are unlikely to be so careful, and so I cannot imagine that we can be sure that the candidate's communication problems might not, his best intentions to the contrary notwithstanding, impair his functioning as an admin and thus prove (unintentionally) unnecessarily disruptive. I mean not to be overly exacting here, and I hope that I do not overstate that which may seem to most a truly insignificant issue (to be sure, I also readily recognize that my own rather idiosyncratic writing style does not always lend itself to clear communication; witness, for instance, my lengthy RfA comments); I truly encountered in reviewing Comet's contributions several comments by the locutions of which I was initially befuddled (although I must observe that most of those were rather old and that, in the absence of my more substantive concerns, the language issues would likely not of themselves lead me to oppose). Joe 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per gaillimh, xoloz et al. · jersyko talk 14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per username and childuser judgement issues. Still, I see improvement and would support in future notwithstanding further judgement issues. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 14:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per submitting "Something arbitrary" as a bad user name just a few days ago. At this time I would not trust the user's judgement with the block button. Neil ╦ 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that strong oppose now I notice he didn't even bother to inform said user of this. Neil ╦ 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Oppose - pre BirgitteSB. Also I thought his answer to question no.3 was very weak. --Bryson 16:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the child user judgment issue..I reiterate..anyone one of you could have reverted that as vandalism and unfortunately it was me. Since it happened nearly 5 months ago..I can not actually remember what caused it or why it is being made a big deal out of..I had it checked with an admin's help and I found out all it contained was the name of his school and I don't know how many times I had apologized for that and informed other users why I had removed the comment from my talk page. I don't know why Birgitte remembers everything that happened word for word but I don't..maybe she has a better memory than me..All I can say was that I was doing my job as a vandal fighter and I was reverting vandalism and if by chance I made a mistake..I'am truly really sorry and regarding the UAA Report, I was just following the Wikipedia:username policy as per Usernames that confusingly refer to a Wikipedia process, namespace, or toolbar item and Usernames that imply the user is an admin or other official figure on Wikipedia, or of the Wikimedia foundation since to me it felt like it referred to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee since its a Wikipedia Process..I have reported over 880 names and IP's to the WP:UAA and WP:AIV and most if not all were blocked or banned. If I made a judgmental error, its maybe because I have encountered names (which I might not have reported) very similar to this which have been blocked before and I have answered Q3 below in the neutral section since it seems like editors don't read the whole RfA's before 'voting', I'll copy it to Q3 --Cometstyles 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I already read that it still does not address anything specific you only talk about issues with uploading images.--Bryson 17:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that was the issue.. I had problems when I joined like many others when my images were deleted and the response in Q3 discusses that and I'm sorry I added the response on your 'vote' since I had an edit conflict and my last reply was directed to the ones that 'voted' before you..--Cometstyles 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you understand. I get your conflict over images as a new user. But your answer to no.3, I feel is weak since it does not fully address the question or state what you would do if dealing with a POV pusher or someone objecting to you reverting an edit.--Bryson 21:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per lack of encyclopaedic contributions.[2] Matthew 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah Matthew..see this..Thank you....--Cometstyles 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your recent mainspace activity didn't impress me. Matthew 14:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Psh, actual facts don't matter, Cometstyles. --Rory096 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I find myself agreeing with Xoloz. – Steel 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose for issues of civility, communication skills and maturity. The user name report was a bad mistake, such as we can all make at times, but the lack of willingness to discuss mistakes with a view to improving gives me no confidence that this user is ready for the tools yet. Sorry. --John 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Birgitte and gaillimh. --Quiddity 00:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Sorry, per many opposes above. Please try again after a few months of editing that addresses the concerns raised on this page. Andre (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. No - oppose Editor seems fine but maturity appears to be lacking.Bec-Thorn-Berry 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Not at this time - I see no improvement from your last RFA as per Amarkov and Brigitte above. Regarding the username: it's not difficult to look up arbitrary in a dictionary - you'd have realised it has nothing to do with the ArbCom. Your weakness in English probably failed you here, but it is a major concern given that this is the English wikipedia, so if you can't fully understand/express things it will be a problem as an admin. – Chacor 09:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose a little more time would not be a bad thing. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral for now. Changed to Oppose. Cometstyles' reaction to the failed first RfA didn't bolster my impression of his ability to handle conflict smoothly. I noticed this in his subsequent edit to his user page. His user page today still says "I used to assume good faith." I'm not sure if he meant to change it back and never did, or if he still feels a bit bitter about it, but I am not going to support as of right now. The short response to question 3 doesn't provide me with an opposing view of his conflict resolution outlook. Leebo T/C 16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the part "I used to assume good faith", I meant to change that but since that section of my page is too dark and hard to read and I might have missed it and I do appreciate your concern regarding Q3 but as I noted, it was my mistake since I was didn't know much about image policies then because if you see my upload logs during the first week as an editor, all the images I uploaded were deleted and that did make me sad but when I read through the image policies, I realized I made a big mistake and I made an effort to understand the policy better since then if that is what you are asking me..--Cometstyles 16:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing up the AGF issue. My concern with question 3 is that it's not very specific, and I would have liked to see references to specific resolved disputes and the editors with which you had them. It would relieve my concern about your response to conflict. Leebo T/C 16:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry..I'm on Dial-up and every time I try to check my histories, my browser crashes. I went through some of my discussions with Eric Swanson regarding a image I uploaded but tagged wrongly and replied to. Since it was my fourth day on Wikipedia, I wasn't really used to talking much and I was adviced by another user to not download any more images till I had read WP:IUP and WP:FU, which I did and during the following months, I also asked advice from one of the user who helped me during the first few days on Wikipedia regarding image policy issues. Since then I have made sure about not uploading images which might fail the WP:FU and WP:IUP criteria.--Cometstyles 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning to weak oppose due to maturity issues. Switched to oppose. I am just very worried about this candidate, especially with edit summaries like this, this, and this. All I see on the candidate's recent contributions are twinkle revisions, voting for administrators, and no mainspace article contributions. I am also worried that he may be unfamiliar with some policies such as how to tell a difference if a user is banned or blocked, WP:AGF, WP:BLP, WP:COI, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and the list goes on. Miranda 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with a good sense of humor.--trey 18:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship is nothing to laugh at. Miranda 18:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the person mentioned in this diff, I can't for the life of me work out how it shows a lack of maturity. Nor the other two diffs either. Maturity and a sense of humour are very different things. Will (aka Wimt) 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miranda, I understand what you mean and yes adminship is not a joke but 2 of the diffs you added were during discussions on IRC such as monobook edit summary which was during a chat when I asked him how his edit summaries were working and mine didn't and so he told me he was using a new twinkle so I copied his config from his monobook and tried to user it but it somehow 'collided' with the other scripts and well it didn't work (I have one of the biggest monobook) and making one small change can be disastrous and the other one regarding Riana's birthday since I was early and was following Fiji Time, I tried to wish her early and I hid the edit summary with naughty to avoid Special:Recentchanges patrollers from picking that up and regarding the edit summary on Shyamal's RfA talk page it was an error by a previous user which i tried to improve and if I said anything wrong during that..I apologise..--Cometstyles 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that I make the note that adminship is nothing to laugh at is because if wrongly accused users are blocked, this will hamper them in contributing constructively to the project. Or if sensitive IP users are blocked, such as in the U.S. Congress, this can send negative shockwaves to bloggers as well as the mainstream media. Miranda 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summaries are perfectly fine, no reason to oppose here, I cannot see how this is "immature", a lot of your contribs are vandalism reverts Miranda. Qst 19:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miranda, with all due respect, you have no right to tell Cometstyles to read the policies you mentioned. If anything, you should take a look at a few of them, namely WP:NPA for calling everybody who's anybody and even users asking for help on #wikipedia-en-help a troll on IRC. He has asked you to stop doing so, I have asked you to stop doing so, After Midnight has asked you to stop doing so, so please stop doing so.
I've also seen a connection that I've been waiting to point out on-wiki: There was an argument on the help channel between 3 users and you, with me being on of those users. You then opposed my RFA 3 minutes later with the rationale of "incivility" when I had not once been incivil. Cometstyles has done the same and now you are threatening to oppose him. Please act professional and do not use RFA as a place to get revenge for a vendetta. Thanks. —« ANIMUM » 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not turn this into a dispute, Miranda you can be a little uncivil sometimes and I agree with Animum about his RfA incident. Qst 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Qst, I am actually contributing on expanding articles and not reverting vandalism or have used Twinkle in the past week or so. Have you not seen my recent contributions? I am actually contributing to mainspace and not using Twinkle. Also, Animum, nowhere in my statement have I said for the candidate to read the policies aformentioned. Please, both of you, assume good faith. In addition, activity on IRC does not effect the activity on Wikipedia. And on my oppose on your RFA, Animum, I thought carefully on opposing you on the RFA. You are an administrator now and passed RFA, move on. So, I don't know why you are bringing that up on this RFA. Everyone can be uncivil at a point, because Wikipedia doesn't equate to real life. This is not Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Miranda, but Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cometstyles 2. Miranda 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you always begin citing policies on regulars, I cant see anything similar to WP:TEMPLAR about slapping policies on regulars, I am assuming good faith but your oppose is... well.... a little on the silly side. Qst 20:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the neutral section. Both of you please calm down. :-D And, this is an RFA, QST. Understanding wikipedia policies is generally required. Miranda 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to ask all users commenting here to stop flaming each other and tone it the hell down. People have their own experiences with other users and behaviour they tolerate may not be tolerated by other users, and vice versa. If one user has some concerns and another 99 users don't, it doesn't mean we've got 1 user with a vendetta, it means we've got one user who has had a different experience with the user compared with every other user. Sometimes it'll be completely the opposite way around and only a few users will have a good experience with a user. Miranda might find herself supporting a user many other people dislike, but because she's commenting based on her own experiences, it's still a valid comment. Nick 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm sorry, but your first RfA is too recent for me to just assume that the problems there have been resolved. And while I haven't seen any repeats of those problems recently, there's no evidence that you've improved either. So I have to stay neutral, because while you'll probably be fine, I'm not sure. -Amarkov moo! 03:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (Changed to oppose)[reply]
  1. Neutral: on one hand, your edit history shows improvement since the last RFA. On the other, you do seem a bit recalcitrant about the earlier problems, so I'm not 100% ready to support adminship. -- MisterHand 21:21, 8 July 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cometstyles_2&oldid=1145735573"