Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Colds7ream

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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

Final (79/3/6); Closed 2009年6月09日 19:13:21 (UTC) by Avi

Colds7ream (talk · contribs) – I would like to put myself forward for consideration as an Administrator on the English Wikipedia, in order to allow me to contribute to the project in the extra ways the admin tools allow. I've been a member since December 2005, and I believe I've made contributions that have positively added to the project. For instance, I am involved in the operation of WikiProject Human spaceflight and help out regularly with WP:NPP, account creation and, more occasionally, WP:XfD. Most of my edits are in the article namespace, particularly in the area of spaceflight, where I participated in the upgrading of Shuttle-Mir Program to FA status, in addition to helping raise International Space Station (on which I'm actively participating in a push for FA), Salyut 6 and STS-74 to GA status. I'm also a member of Wikimedia UK, am in the process of assembling Portal:Human spaceflight, and participate in a lesser capacity on Commons. I've had access to the rollback tool and account creator status since February. Colds7ream (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'm intending to use the tools in support of my NPP and XfD work, deleting items meeting the CSD rather than just tagging them, and being able to deal more effectively with users abusing these areas of the project. I'd also like to make use of the tools in support of my main article subject area, solving issues with, say, persistent vandalism or users violating 3RR. I'd also like to help out in areas of dispute resolution.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I feel that the work I've done on Shuttle-Mir Program and International Space Station represents the best of my work, as it is an area, content addition, that I most enjoy and feel offers the most contribution to the project - I also take some pride with my other work in support of WP:HSF.

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: I have been involved in a few conflicts, for instance a discussion related to the accuracy of a graphic added to International Space Station, in which, having been unable to reach a consensus with the other editor involved, I requested a third opinion and the dispute was resolved as a result. Also on the International Space Station theme, there was recently a discussion with regards to English variations on the article, and, following a number of reversion battles between various editors, I opened a discussion on the talk page, and, when that failed to form a consensus, converted it to a RfC. The issue was solved as a result of that. As far as stress goes, the area of the project that causes the most anxiety is probably WP:FAC - I find that it can be a high pressure area, but invariably offers something constructive to either a user or an article, one way or another. On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that I edit Wikipedia because it's something I find enjoyable and rewarding, and, if I find myself growing stressed about anything, there's always the option to go and watch a few amusing clips on YouTube for a while. :-)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

4. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: I suppose the main right of any Wikipedian is to freely make constructive contributions to the project without receiving abuse from editors opposed to their changes, suffering unfairly from blocks or otherwise when making beneficial changes on a controversial topic, and generally being treated with respect and friendliness by the rest of the community unless they have proved themselves to be unworthy of it. As far as this is concerned, I would uphold these rights by ensuring that (1) any editor abusing another should be engaged in discussion, and, if continually abusive, have other sanctions made against them, (2) an editor making an edit in good faith should not be chastised for it, even if the change is ultimately reverted, and (3) by aiming to keep any conflicts between editors non-abusive. I am also a firm believer in WP:BOLD, and consider that every editor has a right to follow it, as I feel it is what drives this project forward. As a result, I would aim to support any editor being bold and making a change that improves the encyclopaedia.

Questions from Rootology

5a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?

A: The only account name I have ever used, with the exception of the odd IP edit or two back in the day before creating my account, is the one I am currently using.

5b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?

A: n/a

5c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?

A: n/a

6. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?

A: Personally, I feel the policy as it stands is a good one, for various reasons; firstly, and most importantly, the Siegenthaler incident represents what occurs, both inside and outside the project, when we don't get BLP articles correct - a negative press is something the project neither needs nor wants, and inaccuracies in BLP articles can really stir up a storm. Secondly, whilst it has not occurred yet, there is always the chance that someone subject to an inaccuracy in a BLP article may well call legal proceedings upon the project with regards to libel; this is a situation that has not been encountered yet and, as a result, no-one can know exactly how it would pan out, but I think it's important that we never find ourselves in this position in the first place. Finally, it is one of the central pillars of the project that we keep all our articles verifiable and accurate, and we should aim to maintain the exacting standards of the BLP policy elsewhere - nevertheless, I feel strongly that these are even more important with BLP given the repercussions that could be possible, and that the policy is a good one.

7. What are your views on Flagged Revisions, keeping in mind that the beta trials for WP:BLP subjects after the numerous polls and surveys this year are coming to English Wikipedia in mid/late 2009?

A: I personally voted in favour of the trials, largely because of the points I made in response to the previous question; whilst the whole point of the project is, of course, to allow anyone to make changes, in situations where such changes could land us in legal difficulty, etc, the boundaries, I feel, get somewhat fuzzier. As a result, I feel the flagged revisions could well represent a powerful tool, but that they should only be used in subject areas, such as BLP, where they are absolutely necessary. Such an arrangement would, I think, offer us the best balance of the free speech we all hold so dear here and protecting the existence and reputaion of the project in the future.

8. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?

A: I do, and I am. For instance, I am a serving member of the British Royal Air Force, am a medical student and hold fairly strong atheistic religious views. As a result, I have not and do not intend to engage myself in areas dealing with religions or other people's beliefs, nor in any articles regarding, say, criticism of the bombing of Dresden or Abortion, as my views would likely lead to a conflict of interest and bias when editing. Basically, I steer clear of any topics in which I could possibly get emotionally involved, and intend to continue in this manner in future.

9. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall? If so, why? If not, why?

A: I believe I would be - administrators are, after all, intended to help the project potter along smoothly, and, if the project members are unhappy with an administrator's actions, said admin should be held to account one way or another.

10. Do you feel that admins should be subject to blocks, as if they were any other user?

A: I do - any actions made which result in damage to the encyclopedia or its community are damaging whether they are made by an IP editor or a member of the Arbitration Committee, and as a result I strongly feel that all editors, including administrators, should be subject to the same guidelines with regards to blocks; administrators can hardly expect other users to follow the guidelines if they themselves disregard them with impunity.

11. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?

A: 'The next big thing', I guess - whether it be a gadget, technological advancement or political idea, I do sometimes find myself being dragged along in the bandwagon for a while before taking a step back and acting in a less obsessional manner, which probably, on occasion, means I'm not exactly the best conversationalist in the world. :-)

Optional questions from — Σ xplicit

12. If granted administrative tools, would you be willing to make difficult blocks? Why or why not?

A: I would - although I have revealed a lot about my life out there in the world on my userpage, I generally feel that if you're getting abuse from vandals, you're doing something right, and consider it more an encouragement to continue. :-) The main reason, though, would be simply the principle of the thing; we're all here to do a positive thing, and no-one should have to suffer abuse because of it; abusive editors need to be dealt with, end of story, and I'd be more than happy to do so, and deal with any fallout in a manner not dissimilar to WP:DGAF.

13. Is there an instance where you would speedy delete a page despite a {{hangon}} tag?

A: I suppose the only situations where I would ignore such a tag would be if the article blatantly constitutes CSD G1, G3, G5 or G10, and as a result is blatantly not going to be improved by subsequent editing, or if the tag has been present on the page for some time (say, a week, for example) without any argument being put forth on the talk page. In other cases, articles meeting CSD can generally be improved by efforts from an involved editor, particularly if other tags are added to the page to inform them, as to what work needs to be done. For instance, a page seemingly meeting A7 may have a reason as to why the subject is important added, or a page in the form of an advert could serve as a basic foundation for a full article about a company.

Optional questions from User:Oren0

14. In your answer to Q4 above, you state that "an editor making an edit in good faith should not be chastised for it." How far does the assumption of good faith carry? How would you deal with an editor who makes large and disruptive changes, apparently in good faith, and does not respond to messages on talk? Is there ever a circumstance where you might block an editor whom you believed to be acting in good faith?

A: I think that the good faith ideal generally persists until an editor proves themselves unworthy of it - for instance, if an editor makes an edit in good faith which is later undone for violating a policy, this action and its reasoning is explained to them on their talk page, but they engage in an edit war of repeatedly inserting their change and having it removed, then it can be presumed that some alternative action could be taken. Also, of course, if an editor signs up and immediately starts creating attack pages or vandalising BLP articles, then I think it can be taken as read that this editor is not acting in good faith. As for blocking en editor acting in good faith, I suppose this could occur if, for example, an editor begins to make sweeping changes to a well-established article (for instance an FA) without engaging in any dialogue on the talk page, and continuing to act in this manner after requests to not do so; for instance, in March of this year, an editor arrived on the ISS page and began to make large-scale changes in this manner (see Talk:International_Space_Station/Archive_6#FAC and the two following sections and User_talk:Colds7ream/Archive_1#ISS_grammar...). Had this editor continued making such changes, which they clearly believed to be improving things, yet were disruptive, I think some sort of blocking action would have had to be taken. As it was, the situation resolved itself, but had us worried for a little while.

15. Many administrative tasks require an "uninvolved" administrator. What does involvement mean to you and why is this important? Can you give an example where you might find yourself too involved to perform a given action?

A: As far as I'm concerned, ivolvement means having made major contributions to a certain article, holding strong beliefs regarding the subject of an article, or, most importantly, representing one of the opposing sides in, for instance, an RfC. It's important not to get dragged into discussions regarding outcomes in one of these situations due to the fact, simply, that a conflict of interest may cause you to act in an unfair manner or one whuch otherwise does not benefit the project - it's a similar arrangement to the rule in medicine which states that you may not give medical treatment to a relative, as you become too emotionally involved to do the job objectively. In that situation you can request another doctor, and here you can request the asistance of an uninvolved editor; one who does not have anything invested in the subject and who can make an objective decision on it, taking appropriate actions as a result.

Questions from Stifle

16. Regarding the policy section WP:IINFO, can there be an article which violates this principle without matching any of the entries there?

A. I suppose that the policy, given its relationship to WP:NOTE, means that an article about, say, a short-lived TV series, would not need umpteen sub articles detailing every aspect of filming, crewing, etc. about each of its episodes - such subarticles would be a collection of indescriminate information. Essentially, any topic, which, whilst meeting all the other pillars of the project, is not of any great importance or notability, would violate the spirit of the principle whilst not necessarily violating its letter.

17. As an administrator, you will have regular cause to interact with images and the non-free content criteria. Choose one of the following NFCC: 1, 2, 3, and 8, and explain what it means to you.

A. I'll try NFCC 1 - this, the one which stipulates that fair use pictures with a free alternative may not be used. This is implemented for various reasons, fo instance ensuring that any non-free images comply with the fair use law in the USA, giving the project some legal stability. In addition, the policy means that images used in the project can mostly be used by other projects freely, which is, of course, one of the founding principles here - that all the project's content be free as in free speech. Ensuring that images with free equivalents are not used helps to keep the majority of the files free for use, and encourages editors to go out and create an image of something which does not have a free equivalent available. This, of course, builds up the database in a beneficial manner, and keeps the use of non-free images to a minimum.

18. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. As far as I understand it, hardly ever, as an image of a living person by definition violates item one of the NFCC policy. The image would have to have some content of extreme historical importance to remain in the database.

Additional optional questions from decltype

19. (updated with new question decltype (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)) As an admin, you come across this new article (in article space). You take a minute to think about what to do with it. In the meantime, another NPP changes it into the current revision. Now what do you do?[reply ]

A: I think that what I'd do in this circumstance is recover the text from the original version (which is a constructive contribution) and place it on the talk page of the user who wrote it, alongside a welcome template (as it can be seen from their edit summary that they are a new user) and a message thanking them for their contribution, but that (a) information needs to be properly sourced, and (b) that very small articles like that don't generally survive on their own. I'd round off the message with an invitation for them to add it to a section in a the relevant parent issue once they can locate a good reference for the addition - after all, we don't want to be scaring off new editors who clearly want to make a positive contribution to the project. Finally, I'd execute the CSD deletion of the page.

Additional optional questions from FingersOnRoids

20 What is your opinion on the snowball clause? In what situations do you feel that it should be used? Should it be used at all?

A: I think that the clause itself can be a useful method of reducing the massive backload of work that the project currently has, which is, of course, a major drain on resources and editor's time. However, I do feel that it should be used only in cases where it is blatantly obvious that it need be called - for instance someone tagging an article under one CSD criterion when it is in fact dealt with by another one. In this case, removing the CSD tag and replacing it with another is a waste of the time of all involved, and so it could just be speedied. In cases where, for instance, an editor proposes a page change which is unlikely to gain overall support, though, I do feel it's important to go through the process of building a consensus, partly to ensure that the editor doesn;t feel as if they've been dismissed out of hand, but also because the result may turn out to be one that people didn;t expect. Basically, I like the clause in cases where acting otherwise would be overly pedantic or accepting of a totally ridiculous suggestion (say, changing the layout of the main page to solely show a picture of a teddy bear), but otherwise consensus should be allowed to run its course.

Additional optional questions from Lankiveil

21. What would you say should be done about a hypothetical user that had the following userbox on their user page:

Assume for the purpose of discussion here that the user has not made any edits supporting this point of view in the mainspace.

A: I suppose in a situation such as this, you'd have to take a pragmatic approach. Everyone's got a right to express their views, whether other people think such beliefs are unpleasant or not. Such values are the root of a democratic society, and, whilst Wikipedia is not a democracy, we do hold the ideal of free speech somewhat dear. As a result, I'd be inclined to not take much action, so long as the editor refrains from making controversial edits in the mainspace, as such mainspace actions would (a) possibly lead to a violation of WP:SOAP, (b) generate a conflict of interest and (c) likely lead to a number of editors being offended/upset and a massive flame war erupting on the talk pages. Other than that, I don't think an administrator can punish someone for expressing an opinion on their talk page, particularly when you bear in mind the fact that Wikipedia is not censored either. Of course, if said editor started spreading this opinion around other areas in violation of WP:SOAP, some action would likely need to be taken. If action were required, I'd likely start off with a few talkpage messages before even beginning to think about administrator-dependent action.

Additional optional questions from Wrad

22a: Do you agree with this proposed wording change to protection policy?

A: I don't. As far as I can see, the original wording change in this thread would be overly restrictive, preventing an admin from, say, protecting a page they've been working on when a set of vandals comes along and starts repeatedly blanking the page, or some other nefarious deed (see the edits that lead to this discussion, for instance). As far as I can tell, this particular scenario should have been plenty dealt with by the uninvolved administrator rule, and a restrictive clause such as this would just make everyone's life more difficult. Personally I like the wording change proposed in the thread by User:Nihonjoe, which merges the Protection policy nicely with the uninvolved administrator rule. As a side note, I do feel that you, as the user who originally suggested the change, shouldn't have had the difficulty you did in getting the issue dealt with in the first place.

22b: As a follow up, if you ran into an admin who was not using the tools appropriately, what would you do?

A: Well, first off I'd set up a thread on their talk page, reminding them of the policy with respect to involved administrators, and requesting that they refrain from making any admin-only actions until after a consensus is formed. If they didn't stop from their disruptive actions, I'd probably do as you did, and make a Request for Comment, i.e. an administrator recall. If you look at my answers to questions 9 & 10 above, you'll see further details on my opinions on the matter of disruptive admins.

Additional optional questions from Jeromeplacec

23. How old are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromeplacec (talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

A: I'm twenty.

• Links for Colds7ream: Colds7ream (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Colds7ream can be found here .

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Colds7ream before commenting.

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js Soxred93 edit counts posted on talk page. Frank | talk 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

1. Support; no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. A few borderline CSDs from several months ago don't bother me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
2. Support, I believe he would be a good administrator. As another editor active in his main area of interest, I run into him quite frequently, and I think I have only ever had one serious issue with his editing (which was a unilateral page move made over a year ago and which has now been resolved). His work on the ISS article demonstrates commitment and attention to detail, which I feel are important qualities for administrators. --G W ... 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
3. Support He has a couple iffy CSD's early, but those are long ago, and he has to have learned tons more by now... Until It Sleeps 21:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
4. Support per my comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/Colds7ream (my opinion is largely the same). Best, --A Nobody ^{My talk} 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
5. Support I'll assume the presence of a belly button. Renaissancee (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
6. Support as I see no evidence the tools would be abused or misused. I recommend taking it slowly at first, though, until you are sure of yourself in situations you may not completely understand. ···日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
7. Support. Looks good, just be careful on speedy deletions in the beginning. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
8. Support No reason to think he would misuse the tools. --t'shael ^mindmeld 23:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
9. Support - Per exchange below and Mal's diffs that I trust are fine. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
10. Support OK. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
11. Support Looks great! LITTLE MOUNTAIN 5 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
12. Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
13. Support, candidate looks fine. Wizardman 02:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
14. Support. I see no issues that will impede Colds7ream's ability or willingness to correctly use the tools. Tim meh ! _{(review me)} 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
15. Support. Colds7ream having use of admin tools will improve the flow of work on articles where we share an interest. (sdsds - talk ) 03:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
16. Support Needs to get a better grasp on some CSD issues (A7 for actor in notable show, A1 with context, G3 on non-obvious hoax (probably just non-notable), and of course as mentioned from 2 months ago, A7 with reliable sources and A7 on professor at notable university). Judging from the other contributions though, I trust the user to learn from those mistakes and to read some of the CSD related essays (like WP:FIELD, WP:WIHS, WP:10CSD or WP:A7M) before venturing in that area (and asking more experienced admins in that area for advice when needed). Regards So Why 06:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
17. Support Air force? Enemy air force? guess my topics will be on the receiving end. Anyway, go ahead. NVO (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
18. Support. excellent editor, I see no evidence the tools would be abused or misused by the user. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
19. Why the hell not? Pmlinediter ^Talk 08:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
20. Support No reason not to. America69 (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
21. SupportHas the experience. --Abce2|Access Denied 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
22. Passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
23. Support. Going from memory, CSD work has been very good. Agreed with SoWhy. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
24. Support No reason to believe the tools will be abused and what Stifle said. rootology (C)(T) 13:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
25. Support good editor, sound of mind. will not abuse the tools. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
26. Strong Support per above. Good answers. meets my standards. See no reason not to. Dloh cierekim 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
27. Sure. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
28. Support – Answers to the questions look good, and a spot check of recent contribs also look good. Break a leg! MuZemike 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
29. Support-Reliable, trustworthy contributor, good luck! Dotty•• |☎ 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
30. Support, good background and has enough experience with policy to get started, and is willing to learn from mistakes. Mango juice ^talk 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
31. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
32. Support--Giants27 (t |c |r |s ) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 23:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
34. Support. He's not perfect, but nobody is. My recommendation is that you don't dive in too fast, though. Useight (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
35. Support, excellent answer to my question. No indication that user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply ]
36. Support, lots of experience, calm and collected. Looks like they will learn the ropes quite well. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
37. Support per above, should make a great asset, no reason to think he would be a bad admin ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
38. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
39. Support, No reason to Oppose. Otis Jimmy One 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
40. I remember him clearly, very friendly and has a excellent temperament. ceran thor 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
41. Support – I haven't had any interactions with the user, but he appears to be trustworthy and I see no reason why s/he would misuse the tools. American Eagle (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
42. Support Definitely.--Res 2216 firestar 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
43. Support, People learn from their mistakes, I trust this user with the tools. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 19:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
44. Support I can support. MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
45. Support SoWhy has brought some legitimate concerns, but the candidate's contribution generally looks good to me.--Caspian blue 20:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
46. Support Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
47. Weak Support I dont see a reason for not supporting -- Tinu Cherian - 07:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
48. Support - Looks good to me. Holler if you have questions...there's plenty of advice to be had if you need it. Frank | talk 10:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
49. Support - Looks ok to me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
50. Support - From my interactions with ColdReam, I'm glad to support him in his request for adminship. (X! · talk) · @623 · 13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
51. Support Looks good to me. hmwith τ 18:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
52. Support Looks good. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
53. Support. Good answers to the questions. I see a net positive. — Σ xplicit 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
54. Support Excellent user. Triplestop (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
55. Support. Good candidate. --Carioca (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
56. Support. Have come across several times, good edits, impressed with answers to the questions. KuyaBriBri ^Talk 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
57. support Things seem to be in order here. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
58. Support per my prior interactions with the editor. He will make an excellent admin, just be sure to read the manual first. -MBK ₀₀₄ 22:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
59. Support per above. One two three... 06:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
60. Support No problems here. --S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
61. Support He was always busy on anti vandalism which is a real problem these days. Jeromeplacec (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
62. Support Overall track record looks good, though I concur with the recommendations to take it slow at first. Glass Cobra 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
63. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
64. Support Good grounding and sense of the role everyday users play. I don't necessarily agree with every word, but I like where he ends up. ~ Amory (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
65. Support Some pretty good answers to questions. I like him. shirulashem (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
66. Support User has been around since March 2006,civil and believe user will show more discretion in CSD in future.See no scope for misuse of tools and feel project will only gain with user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
67. Support. Generally good contributions. Just please brush up on CSD criteria. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
68. Support Took the words out of my mouth, Fastily :) YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
69. Support. You'll do fine, solid track record. Keeper | 76 18:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
70. Support - Colds7ream has only about 1200 article edits, but some of them are high quality edits. I analyzed his edits to Shuttle-Mir Program, and some of them are pretty good. AdjustShift (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
71. Support You don't learn without making some mistakes and acknowledging them. He'll do fine. Krakatoa Katie 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
72. Support I'll admit that I'd rather see more edits to work with, but what I can see looks like quality. Candidate appears to have a good grasp of policy and guidelines, and the answers to the questions were very good. I can't find a reason to oppose. — Ched : ? 01:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
73. Support - would make a great admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
74. Support, will do a great job. Jozal ^(talk) 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
75. iMatthew : Chat 19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
76. Support Can't say we've met before, but you seem like a good candidate, no reason not to support. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
77. Support — Michel Mapaliey (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
78. Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
79. Support - nothing wrong here. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) Weak Oppose - For misunderstanding of A7 here and here. CSDA7 needs to be accurate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (削除ここまで). Changed to support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to state that, following these misedits, I took the time to study in-depth the criteria for all CSD proposals, and, I hope, am making more appropriate proposals as a result. Colds7ream (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I will take that into consideration - if an admin could verify the appropriate tagging of A7 after these incidents, much obliged. And no, because they were deleted does not mean they were accurate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I will verify 1, 2, 3, and 4. Malinaccier (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) Weak Oppose - per q.13, this user doesn't mention ignoring hang on tags for G3, G10, or G12 cases.Fingers ^OnRoids 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

My apologies, that's my mistake - I did in fact mean G for those items in which I stated A in my answer to q13, and will edit the answer to reflect this correction; many thanks for pointing it out. As for G12, I maintain that, if, for instance, an editor has copied text across and intends to use it as basic starter information for an article, if they ensure that the information is fully removed when their editing is completed, and as a result such articles may be saved, if sufficient evidence that an editor intends to make these changes is given. If, on the other hand, the given reason is not legitimate, I would of course ignore the hangon tag in that circumstance. Colds7ream (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I have to disagree with you there, I would rather delete and leave a note on the creator's talk page saying that if they wish to recreate, they may do so, but only if they do not use copyrighted text. However, now that I see that it was just a simple typing error, and you do have a grasp on when to ignore the hang on tag, I will move to Neutral, pending further look at your contribs.Fingers ^OnRoids 16:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) A candidate cannot go unopposed :P Until It Sleeps 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]
(削除) #Oppose (削除ここまで) - I have only ever seen Colds7ream while he has been working on WP:ACC. However, I feel that he often acts too hastily in these cases. One case where I can point to, though I cannot remember what # this was, was when User:Soap reserved a request, then unreserved it while he went to go follow up with the requester via email. However, instead of asking Soap why he unreserved, Colds7ream simply ignored the log, which was plainly visible to him, and instead created the account, which now contains a spelling error. In addition, Colds7ream recently "had tool access suspended by FunPika because: "Inappropriate closures of several requests most recently including #30752". Sorry about this ACC-only evidence, but this was more of a gut-instinct oppose because I feel that Colds7ream would act too hastily as an administrator. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Fair enough - I have to say that some of my ACC decisions haven't exactly been brilliant, but those were largely due to a misunderstanding of what extra powers I had with my account creator status. As for the Soap incident, I don't remember that particular request, but I believe its not an error I would make again in the future thanks to experience I've had with the tool since. I would also like to point out that I fully intend to reapply for access to the tool. Colds7ream (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

My access has now been restored. Colds7ream (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

(conflicted) "* FunPika Approved, User 422 (Colds7ream) at 2009年06月04日 22:15:16." aka unsuspended. Also, usually when a request is unreserved it is fair game for any one to reserve/handle again I believe. In that case I think that Soap keeping it reserved would have been the best idea. Fun Pika 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll assume some good faith here, and hope that you won't repeat these mistakes. Please do remember that you can take your time and act slowly (I should probably remember some of this myself :) ), in any area of Wikipedia that you work in. With the work that you have done, I don't suppose it is necessary to oppose over something that isn't as important as some of your other work. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 12:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

1. Symbolic Oppose for CSD issues. To be honest, I think Colds7ream knows his stuff and is likely to make a good admin; but since this is passing anyway, I hope he won't mind me registering my concern here about his judgement with speedy deletions. The CSD criteria are extremely clear and precise for good reason, and it's essential that any admin who intends to work in this area knows them well enough not to make mistakes; as a bad speedy-deletion may not be noticed by anyone but the creator of the article, and they may not know how to contest it. The links provided by Wisdom89 above and Kingpin13 don't give me sufficient confidence that Colds7ream knows exactly what he's doing in this area. I apologise for my lack of trust, and very much hope it will prove mistaken. In the meantime, I would suggest that Colds7ream makes sure he's certain of all the CSD criteria before he gets the chance to press the delete button. Robofish (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   Of course (although I was kinda getting used to the idea of an unopposed request... ;-D) - I think that I definitely need to consider the issues brought up here with my CSD tagging, and take them as an opportunity to improve my knowledge in an area where it needs to be stronger before I go on an inappropriate deletion rampage. I am and will continue to take the advice put on here with reference to reading materials, etc., and definitely make sure that any deletions I do make agree with the letter and spirit of the CSD criteria. Colds7ream (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

2. Symbolic Oppose. Although it is not a requirement, I like to see a respected member of the community prepared to nominate the candidate. As far as Unopposed goes, please go slowly and remember that 60 or 70 votes here is in no way a mandate. Best of luck. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply ]
3. Oppose Numbers 10 and up should be written as numerals, not spelled out. Keepscases (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   ...? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   The implication, I believe, is that it should be Coldssevenream seeking adminship. ~ Amory (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   And he also provided "twenty" as his age (and was becoming too excited about going unopposed). Keepscases (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   This is pretty much the worst rationale for an oppose in the history of Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   Really, were number semantics all you could think up?--Koji † 00:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   If I were Colds7ream, I'd take this kind of oppose as a compliment - if that's the best that can be mustered, then this AfD ain't too shabby. ~ Amory (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   AfD? ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   Well, I suppose everyone's entitled to voice their opinion - still, thanks for the messages of support, folks! Colds7ream (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

1. Neutral Will not abuse the tools, but needs a few months more experience. -down load ׀ sign! 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   Er... he's been around since 2006. He's never been a particular high counter on edits per month, if you're meaning based on that? rootology/equality 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   My opinion is that more activity is needed, especially if a candidate is using Twinkle and Friendly. Best, -down load ׀ sign! 21:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

2. Neutral - Switched to neutral after the candidate corrected his answer, will take a further look at contribs before supporting or opposing.Fingers ^OnRoids 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
3. I probably would have supported, but the answer to Q6, while not "wrong," is missing the key part. Yes, lawsuits and PR are important, but the real people we affect with our articles and the idea of "basic human decency" are the most important reasons behind the BLP policy. Mr. Z-man 04:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
4. Neutral for now, mostly per SoWhy and Mr.Z-man. How we affect the lives of real people is an order of magnitude more important than the public image of "the project". On the positive side, candidate seems to have the right temperament, and has contributed positively for a long time. Unfortunately, the answer to Q19 was not quite what I wanted. decltype (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   Fair enough, may I ask what it was that you were after, please? Colds7ream (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   A small hint: Did you examine the article's history? decltype (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   It's already been merged? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

   Yes. Basically, your deletion of the article would constitute a GFDL violation, because the original author is no longer attributed. decltype (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

5. Neutral I was the one who asked FunPika to check out the account creation tool problems, and I would suggest that in the future Colds7ream makes sure to read the rules and guidelines before doing whatever he may be doing. Prodego ^talk 01:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
6. Neutral , per some of his CSD-related work, not having looked over much of his other stuff, and mainly because I can't see deleted edits to view his other work in this area, I'm goin' neutral, rather then oppose, but thought I should bring it up for the benefit of the nommed and "reviewers". CSD area is quite important (to me), especially if the user plans to work around there, so here goes: (all three recent) This is slightly disappointing, CSD#A7 makes it clear that A7 doesn't apply to schools, he removed this after another user pointed this out. This page clearly does not meet CSD#A1, which only applies to very short articles, which this isn't. Not as bad (in my opinion) as the other two, but CSD#G3 does only apply to blatant hoaxes/vandalism. If the user plans to "delete" under speedy deletion, I suggest they read the whole CSD page (again). I was also put off by this is where he removed "vandalism" using HotCats, without checking the page history (which if he had done he would have realised the the bot owner wanted that category there). - Kingpin ¹³ (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (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.