Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobaltbluetony: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cobaltbluetony (talk | contribs)
30,362 edits
→‎Neutral: neutral
Line 124: Line 124:


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====
#'''Neutral''' Cannot support based on answer to Q10, but cannot oppose due to great track record. [[User:ArcAngel|ArcAngel]] ([[User talk:ArcAngel|talk]]) 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
#

Revision as of 13:42, 25 March 2008

Cobaltbluetony

Voice your opinion (talk page) (35/0/0); Scheduled to end 18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobaltbluetony (talk · contribs) by Rudget. I am simply delighted to nominate Tony for adminship, due to the many factors which I will now go on to explain. Cobaltbluetony has been a model Wikipedian for a good few years now (four in fact), but only started to actively contribute around mid–2006 and has since that time amassed over 15500+ undeleted edits and 1985 deleted contributions. But that is only for those that focus on edit counts...

Tony is an active participant in deletion discussions at the multiple XfD venues where his comments are always enlightening, backed by policy, use common sense and in some cases, reflect that Tony knows where he has made errors (1, 2, 3 4). CBT is a clueful user which is somewhat of a rare-ity at RfA nowadays, where he diligently updates project noticeboards to reflect newer changes which are relevant, he has refactored comments so alignment and priority comments are placed where applicable, creates sockpuppet reports where necessary (resulting in blocks for all those named), reverts clear-cut vandalism, knows CSD tagging policy, and reports articles that are in need of attention and for other reasons may be deleted.

In talkspace terms, Tony is excellent with outstanding experience in that field. A sincerely and deeply civil user (with a clean block log), he has excelled in communication with other users: commenting on user's username (which he later received a barnstar for), recognising others good work, quoting policy to inform users of where they have made mistakes, tagged articles under the applicable WikiProject ([1], [2]), removed comments that aren't constructive, and made name changes to articles where appropriate.

In the mainspace he has extensively developed the Jehovah's Witnesses article, and helped out further at Ghana, Moose, Ronaldinho, Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses etc. (see all) Furthermore, Tony has rescued articles from speedy deletion on numerous occasions (1, 2), copyedited, expanded etc.

With this in mind, I feel that Anthony is an exceptional candidate for the mop and I put him forward to you for consideration. Rudget. 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Rudget's nomination. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mostly CSDs, and fighting vandalism, with an interest in working with new editors in helping them understand notability criteria.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am proud of Indian King Tavern, Act of Consolidation, 1854, and more recently, Gakken. I am interested in the history of the area in whih I live and was amazed to find that things I thought were well-known weren't published here, so the first two articles were well-suited to help me in learning Wikipedia. Gakken, more recently, because I find loreign-language subject really difficult to evaluate, and yet I found significant eveidence revealing the notability of this company, especially in Japanese education and entertainment culture. In summary, I really enjoy creating articles which have significance I can determine through research, especially in relation to my regional interests.
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: Some time ago, I worked tirelessly against POV editors in the Jehovah's Witnesses series of articles (until I opted out of that subject matter) in an amlost unedning battle with editors whose POV edits were well-hidden in quasi-research and veiled criticisms. It was untimately too stressful for me to try to defend my efforts as unbiased (as I am a JW) while striving to keep out POV statements and/or attempt to 'edit for the enemy' and limit those statements to "here's a notable opposing point view" expressions.
More recently, I was uncharacteristically flippant with Randy Blackamoor (talk · contribs), for which I was appropriately chastised by TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs). Before that, I nearly got pulled into the Homeopathy debacle involving ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) and his aligned co-editors.
I am usually a non-confrontational individual, both in person and online, and rely on Wikipedia policies here to substantiate my viewpoints. When those viewpoints come into conflict due to individual interpretation, I much prefer discussion, arbitration, and community consensus to bickering. I loathe personal bickering with a passion. I'm not here to do that, nor will I persist in any engagement which appears untlimately fruitless. MY real life is stressful enough.

Optional (not really though, we all know that) question from Keeper:

4.You mentioned above (Q1) that you are interested in helping new editors "understand notablity criteria". Two part question:
4.1:What are our notability criteria? purposely open ended, I'd like to see where you go with this :-)
A.:The guidelines are consistent in that articles must present, or follow-up editors must be able to find verifiable, reliable sources, which should be from unbiased or uninvolved parties with some notability of their own. The sources must not contain promotional material likely posted by the subject or interested parties, and the mention must not be trivial (i.e. an events listing). The subject of the article must also be clear. (Oftentimes a person is promoted when only his company might be notable.)
Specific categories of notability rely on standard, common reliable sources to confirm notable facts such as the existence of locations (per USGS or similar), or the charting peaks of individual songs.
4.2:How exactly do you plan on "helping" them?
A.:First, I'd like to create and utilize simpler, clearer template messages, so that even quick-fingered, light-reading teen contributors can catch on sooner that this is not a trivial effort, and perhaps even take their contributions a bit more seriously and learn to contribute effectively -- instead of inundating everyone with excessive text that can frustrate otherwise capable contributors. Second, I'd like to propose a new user automatic redirect feature for attempted recreations that clearly explains why the article was deleted (in as few words as possible) before allowing them the chance to recreate. I'd also like to use the term "vandal" much less, unless the content of contributors' entries warrants it.

Optional question from Balloonman (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. You are reviewing speedy deletions when you come across an article that was just created by an established editor. The article as it stands does not make a claim for notability and is about a person. What do you do?
A. Depends on how "established." To give the benefit of the doubt, I might immediately tag with {{notability|Biographies}} and Google the name. If I cannot find anything, I would then message the editor to quickly make an edit. If they do not and I cannot find anything, I may speedy it, or keep searching. Ultimately, if nothing can be found, the article must be deleted. (Just for reference, I usually Google a name if the article isn't silly or about someone's hot teacher.)
6. Your nominator did a superb job of introducing you to this community. Besides getting him, what (if anything) have you done to prepare for your RfA?
A. Well, first of all, he offered without my initiation. Second, I'm not sure what I should have been doing that I'm not doing now. (Is this a trick question?)
No, there is no correct answer. While I like to see people who have given some thought to the subject before their RfA, it is not required. I like it when I see people who have gone through Admin Coaching OR did some self study. I like it primarily because it it's a person who has given thought to the subject and considered it. That being said, responding to an offer is also perfectly acceptable. I know that when I ran, I increased my activity by 50% for the 6 weeks leading up to my RfA---I actively got inolved with places that I wasn't familiar to get some additional experience. (You can tell when I ran just by looking at my edit count history.)Balloonman (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

7. Please review the Leigh Bowery article. How, in general, would you address the concerns shown at the top? Are there any additional concerns that you have?
A. Immediately I notice that the importance of the individual is not clear in the introduction. "Early career" starts with the individual's birth. The "tone" tag is quite accurate, as well as this information not be relevant to his notability, nor his unique style (presuming this is notable as well). It's entirely a POV biography. There are some potentially offensive sentences as part of the POV, which should be stricken of everything except cold statement of facts.
The {{citations missing}} tag should be added, as the plethora of external links evidently being used as reference material are not properly linked into the individual statements or sections they might support. The MySpace link text is inappropriate; the link itself is marginally eligible if it contains unique subject-written material, as if the subject were using it as a blog.
All that being said, I'm not sure how this addresses my adminship...
Continuing... The reference tag can be addressed by review ALL of the external links and locating what statements they may support. The tone has to be addressed as a total rewrite, which may in fact release some of the external links from being needed. The sections tag can most easily addressed by modifying the career into decades or other significant eras. The MoS issues are minor, but included non-capitalization of common words in section headers except the first words. ... Is there more?

Questions from ChetblongTalkSign

8. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A:A block is a technical mechanism; a ban is a community decision that basically tells an editor, 'we don't want you editing here for a while,' or, 'ever again.'
9. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
A: Initiate discussion through talk pages, and determine which policies each of us are relying on for our viewpoints, and work for a resolution or compromise, inviting community input if desired or required.
10. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A:They Blocks should be used when editors persist in making personal attacks and fail to assume good faith, or other blatant policy and civility violations that disrupt the community, maintenance, and the progress of article improvement. They shouldn't be used soley to shut up an angry user, as this simply makes them angrier. clarified
11. What is your opinion on WP:IAR?
A: IAR is meant to enforce the spirit of the rules here, and these rules are created by community consensus, which can change. Rules may outlive their usefulness, no longer be applicable, or otherwise no longer make sense. Breaking a rule will undoubtedly create a reaction, and that will generate a consensus, either for or against the action. HisSpaceResearch is experiencing this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbeat (Scouting for Girls song). I applied the strict rule for individual songs requiring some sort of charting, while HSR seems certain that the article subject is destined to meet the criteria anyway, and very soon, so "jumping the gun" on this one isn't a big deal. I think this AfD represents a test of those criteria, inasmuch as HSR has even cited IAR.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Per nom. Rudget. 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support per nom. Editor has a strong need for the tools and I believe would use them responsibly. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Yes, per the nom by far. Very detailed and informative. User participates evenly on the wiki, has a level head, engages in civil discussion and leaves me with a feeling of trust. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, Tony has been very helpful on the antivandalism front for a long time. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Seen him around a lot, and have been very impressed by his skill and judgement. Will be an excellent admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very strong support. Someone who can be trusted to rescue/improve as their first instinct. Mrprada911 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yup.. Nice answers! I had already looked through your superb contribs, (and I'd seen you around anyway and had a postivite vibe). You answered question 4 superbly, as I also detest the word "vandal". Nail/Head/Hit. Easy support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that this is necessary, solicited, or even productive, let me assert, upon reading your answers to Balloonman, (as an admin coach no less!), that standing for adminship honestly has no prerequisites. You have done nothing wrong, based on my research of your edits/contribs, you have done a lot right, and for that matter admin coaching is not required, and I am happy to support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    er, where did I say there were any requirements? In fact, I went out of my way to stress that preparation isn't required. I was just curious if he had done anything! And if so, what. I guess my bolding the comment, there is no correct answer was missed? or my comment, "That being said, responding to an offer is also perfectly acceptable." And I made my response BEFORE you responded here. His nomination and answers to questions are quite impressive, which is what led me to ask the question. I need to look at his contributions, but I would be very surprised if I find anything that would prevent me from supporting.Balloonman (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, balloonman, you are absolutely right. I didn't mean to single you (or your questions) out, your question was a good one. I misread your question, and for that, I apologize. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology accepted and issue forgotten.Balloonman (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Anthøny 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Good answers to questions. Seen him around. No apparent problems. --John (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per the nom and answers to questions. Midorihana~いいですね? はい! 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Per obvious qualifications and my trust of Rudget's nom. Tan | 39 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support KTC (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support -- I needn't really say much here..brilliant user all round...very friendly....--Camaeron (t/c) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Thought he was one! GlassCobra 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support (Insert standard text here expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin). I've noticed this editor around a number of places on wikipedia -- judgement has always been good, and communication has always been excellent. No worries here.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support: Seen him around, can definitely be trusted with the tools. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No problems here. --Sharkface217 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support. Good editor. I trust the nominator besides...Malinaccier (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per nom, well-rounded candidate. SpencerT♦C 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - per excellent nomination details and great answers to questions. κaτaʟavenoTC 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - should have the tools.   jj137 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. -- Naerii 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support Color me sentimental but User:Cobaltbluetony welcomed me to wikipedia and I've been watching his page ever since. His energy is astounding and though I've neither interacted with him and nor have we edited the same articles, his discussion page is a model of fair comments without being wishy washy. No question that he'll make a great admin!--RegentsPark (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support It is excellent to see in the answer to Q1 that the candidate plans to "work with new editors in helping them understand notability criteria". It's great to see someone who says specifically that they want to work with new editors, rather than just delete things. Dean B (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Impeccably trustworthy I think. I've scene him around and I've never had an issue with his judgement. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Great editor, file under "though he was already an admin." OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support on excellent potential. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Rudget gave one of the best introductions to an RfA candidate in a long time and his answers so far have been excellent... I didn't have to spend too much time reviewing his edits to become convinced that Cobalt not only knows the policies but lives them. Good luck.Balloonman (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - excellent answers to questions, great to see he wants to work with new users, mop-time for tony! Good luck! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. No big deal, and a Rudget endorsement that was close to some of my better ones :P dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, contributions seem solid enough, no evidence that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Neutral Cannot support based on answer to Q10, but cannot oppose due to great track record. ArcAngel (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobaltbluetony&oldid=200794390"