Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CookieMonster755

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

CookieMonster755

Final (0/11/2); ended 04:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC) per WP:SNOW —CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs) – (Now, I write my self-nomination in third person)–CookieMonster755, a meek and purposive editor and pending reviewer, has the eye for the culture and formality of the Wikipedia community. As an editor since 2014, CookieMonster has been dedicated to helping the Wikipedia community come together in peace to resolve issues, revert vandalism, build new projects and work patiently with new comers to transform the Wikipedia community into a new ideal of freshness and responsibility. CookieMonster755 has heavily worked for–and subsequently with–the growing Articles for Creation WikiProject, to help new editors create articles and become familiarity with the Wikipedia culture, guidelines and rules to create lasting content on the online encyclopedia. In addition, he is known for is patience with new editors and helpfulness in all corners of the site. As a former mischievous editor, CookieMonster755 has improved exponentially to become a featuring editor in the Wikipedia community, helping out with Articles for Creation as his main purpose, and helping out at Requested moves and Articles for deletion, and creating a Wikiproject, to grow the community into new projects to improve the reliability of content. With several different contributions to different aspects of the Wikipedia community, CookieMonster755 has what it takes to use the administrator title to further help many projects, cut vandalism, and promote ambiguity and a fresh outlook on the community. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: If elected as an administrator on English Wikipedia, I will do what it takes to create a new freshness to the Wikipedia community. What I will primarily do as administrator, is to take part in the Articles for Creation to further expand that project as a baseline for new editors, and to change policy to further prevent vandalism and test editing with this project as a base for expanding and teaching to create meaningful content that aligns with the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia. In addition, I will help with Requested moves, to help reform this busy traffic place to peacefully engage to improve how readers find content on Wikipedia. I will take part in reducing vandalism, again, by reforming our new editor policy to engage and expand Articles for Creation, and I will do side work to monitor vandalism, and take part on the vandalism noticeboard. I believe in a peaceful response, and swift blocks, to protect the content and the community from distribution. I will also help moderate the workplace between Wikipedia editors, to stop fights and silly vandalism from taking place, and to promote a peaceful way to work together to further improve content, and expand our standards of editing to a new high to provide a useful resource for those using Wikipedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia have been helping out in Articles for Creation, the articles I have created, as well as collaborating with editors to get this article to GA status. In addition, other work of mine included assessing articles for GA status, and creating a new Wikiproject to improve US Constitution-related articles. There is so much contributions, sometimes it's hard to choose just some out of many contributions that have helped many in the Wikipedia community. My proudest moments was getting my act together, and really making a difference for new editors in the community by doing work with Articles for Creation, and following up with these editors months later. I've also added some needed photos to articles, such as U.S. Bank Tower (Los Angeles), and doing other side projects such as helping with requested moves, deletion comments, and contributing to having peaceful resolutions to conflict between editors. It is essential to have a portfolio of good work as an administration nominee, to help paint a picture for the community about the background of your work and what you are doing to help the community and further help it if you become an administrator.
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: Yes, I have an extensive background of conflict, in part to the early history and unfamiliarity of the Wikipedia guidelines and rules when I first joined the site back in 2014. I've been blocked for legal threats, and block as a result of being convinced of sock puppetry back in 2015. You must be wondering, how could a former sock puppet and vandal become an administrator? This is simple to answer my friend, my extensive recovery from the investigation and block have led me to do some good work for the Wikipedia, helping add some flavor and humor to stressful situations, to expanding several projects on the site, doing some anti-vandalism work, and being a participant in good article assessment. This track record gives leverage for a past sealed away for good. My job now, whether I am elected as administrator or not, is to improve Wikipedia with insightful content, a bettered community, and a transformed encyclopedia with millions of visitors each day. I've dealt with conflicts, by keeping the peace, assessing the situation, and clearing communicating what needs to be done in order to solve conflict and chaos in noticeboards and talk pages. As administrator, I will deal with chaos in a peaceful but swift manner, to protect everyone involved in the situation and the Wikipedia community. As someone who has perpetrated chaos but has cleaned up the act to better the community, I have insight to how to solve conflicts using Wikipedia guidelines and rules, and some common sense as a Wikipedian. Upholding justice, tranquility and the general welfare of Wikipedia and editors is at the heart of my administrator campaign.

PLEASE NOTE – I voluntarily state that I will not be replying to !votes, in order to preserve the fairness and tranquility of the election process. However, I will be more than happy to address questions, and value all of your input in this important matter to the Wikipedia community. All my best, CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 02:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Lord Roem
4. You were blocked in late 2015 as a result of this sockpuppet investigation and later successfully unblocked about a year ago. Could you please address the circumstances surrounding this incident?
A: Hello, @Lord Roem:. I thank you for stopping by and asking your question. It is most important to me that the Wikipedia community known the heart of my campaign and my identity as both a fellow Wikipedian and nominee for adminship. Even questions that dig into past controversial events, it is most important to me to answer with integrity and honesty. I signed up for Wikipedia in 2014, to edit some and create some articles. Signing up under the username "Agentdunhamfbi" (in reference to the fictional character Olivia Dunham from the U.S. television series Fringe), I was unfamiliar to the rules, guidelines and the culture of Wikipedia and the purpose it was for. After making legal threats as a way to vent over my frustration about the deletion of my content, I was blocked. At this time, I thought it was preposterous, and did not known that threatening legal action would result in a block. After years of being a Wikipedian, swift blocks in relation to legal threats is nessesary to protect the Wikipedia community from harm and unnecessary drama. After editing, I felt like I was outcasted as a "bad" editor, and rightly so, I was a mischievous editor. I created a new account as a "fresh start" but was truly trying to get away from my bad editing past. This blew up later, and an investigation was launched. After being convicted of sock puppetry, I accepted that I broke the rules and was doing more harm to the community and website than good. I decided to request an unblock, because I truly felt that helping this website and improving the community was at the heart of my new persona on Wikipedia. After being unblocked, I started to do some good editing. Since than, I've worked extensively with new editors, worked for Articles for Creation, created the Wikiproject US Constitution, assessed articles for GA status, created new articles, and have helped out with requested moves. My mission was and still is, to further help other editors to become an essential part to the creation of content and remove vandalism and make sure that the community was on the right track by resolving conflict and reporting violations to the vandalism and main noticeboards. I hope that my answer has addressed your question, and if you have any more follow up questions or need clarification, please do let me know. I value your input, whether you are for or against my nomination. This is more than about me, but working together to create new dramatic change to further this project into the future. Thank you and best regards, CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Mz7
5. In your response to Q1, you wrote, "I believe in a peaceful response, and swift blocks, to protect the content and the community from [disruption]." In your view, what constitutes a "peaceful response" to disruptive editing, and under what circumstances would you feel that a "swift block" is necessary?
A:

Discussion

  • Links for CookieMonster755: CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for CookieMonster755 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support


Oppose
  1. I really don't want to cast the first stone here, but after reflection, legal threats, and sockpuppetry are two of the worst things you can do here. I will admit that it seems you have been doing pretty well for the last year, but these violations run against the very spirit of the project. I would like to see a lot more edits, and interactions to get to know you a little better after this rocky start. SQLQuery me! 02:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I'm open to the idea that someone who's blocked for misconduct can come back, work constructively, and build enough experience to be given the admin bit. There's just isn't enough over the past year to evaluate if you're trustworthy enough. Your activity levels in the last six months have been fairly low as well. I'm grateful for your answer to my question and glad you recognize what was wrong about your actions a few years ago, but they're still too fresh in my mind to be comfortable sitting in the support column. Maturity issues don't go well with admin tools. I hope this won't discourage you from continuing to edit here, but for now, I think it's too soon. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - 7K edits in about 2 1/2 years of editing, one block for making legal threats, another for socking [1], from which the candidate was unblocked as a "Last chance" just 1 year and 3 weeks ago after serving 6 months of the block. The answers to question look like the candidate telling us what we want to hear. There's no way this editor should be an admin anytime soon. In fact, if I didn't have pure unadulterated AGF flowing through my veins, I'd say that this self-nomination looks a lot like an exercise in trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose You spent most of the past six months blocked. Lepricavark (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lepricavark: The candidate was unblocked 07:27, April 14, 2016 and has not been blocked since. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected and apologize for the error. That being said, the serious block issue is still too recent for adminship to be granted and there are other concerns that my fellow Wikipedians have noted. Lepricavark (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. The talking in the third-person alone indicates that you lack the maturity to be an administrator. The blocks are obviously deal-breakers as well. ~ Rob13Talk 02:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Rob. Immaturity plus recentish socking blocks are enough for me to say that you shouldn't have the tools at this time. The immaturity part revealed by the third-person nom is actually a good part of why I'm opposing: I !vote at RfA's based on temperament, and someone who refers to themselves in the third-person during a self-nomination after a sock block likely doesn't have the temperament we want in an admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Legal threats block followed by sock puppetry all with in the last 3 years. I'm sorry, I can't support at this time...the two very serious violations are too recent. -- Dane talk 03:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I probably would have quickly voted oppose earlier based on the Sockpuppet situation alone, but I wanted to put more effort into it. The small number of edits is certainly not great either. After spending some time thinking about it, I think there are too many red flags in a small amount of time. Equineducklings (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose based on the sockpuppetry and legal threats being so recent. I would suggest a speedy close to this. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. The too-recent block history (for legal threats and sockpuppetry), the belief in "swift blocks" (definitely not what an admin should be in favor of), the paucity of edits and shortness of term length, the ad-speak third-person self-nom and PR-speak responses to questions. If you are doing good work now on Wikipedia, praise be and keep up the good work! But you should really have checked with someone in the know before filing this RfA. Might want to withdraw it before it demoralizes you. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Too much baggage after too little time. Recent activity is low. Overall activity is low. For such low activity there must be a strong case, and there just isn't. Glrx (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral Blocked for legal threats and sock puppetry, so technically active for only one year. Goodish during the last year, but can't overlook the recent immaturity.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Your amount of edits gives me pause. You've been here since 2014 but you've only got 8k or so edits, and you've only made ~200 this year. I don't think this is enough to oppose, but I'd like to wait before I support. I haven't had time to look into your other stuff yet. Good luck, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • Ohboy. Good luck! SQLQuery me! 01:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, @SQL:. I promised myself that I wouldn't comment on any votes made for or against my nomination, but since this is a general comment and not too controversial, I decided to give my thanks to you for stopping by. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 , "Surprise Party" candidate for administrator, 01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only time I've interacted with the candidate that I recall is during this requested move about a year ago. They proposed the move, self-struck a comment of theirs they deemed to be a personal attack also stating "Sorry, I am getting much to[o] personal with Wikipedia. Sorry If I sounded rude before. I need a Wikibreak. Goodnight.", and ultimately requested the proposal be withdrawn. I'll ask a question related to that if this is still open tomorrow. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:45, 8 May 2017 (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/CookieMonster755&oldid=1143719063"