Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Oppose: oppose
Dorftrottel (talk | contribs)
14,762 edits
→‎Oppose: oppose
Line 129: Line 129:
#'''Oppose''' as per Raymond Arritt and others above. There have to be sensible limits to [[WP:AGF]]. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 12:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' as per Raymond Arritt and others above. There have to be sensible limits to [[WP:AGF]]. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 12:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
#'''oppose''' per Raymond. Demonstrates failure to understand [[WP:NPOV]], especially the undue weight clause. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
#'''oppose''' per Raymond. Demonstrates failure to understand [[WP:NPOV]], especially the undue weight clause. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per above, especially Raymond Arrit. Also because it feels somehow a tad.. 'awkward', for lack of a better word, to see Avi nominate and Jake Waskett support after and because Coppertwig worked on the [[Circumcision]] article. No way, sorry. I don't even bother to examine his participation there, as I'm 100% sure it would make my stomach turn like a white-washing machine. [[User:Dorftrottel#DT|'''D'''or'''<!-- -->ft'''ro'''tt'''el]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Dorftrottel|bait]]) 14:48,&nbsp;[[May 7]],&nbsp;200<!--DT-->8


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 14:48, 7 May 2008

Coppertwig

Voice your opinion (talk page) (26/8/4); Scheduled to end 02:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) – Coppertwig has been active since November 2006

Nomination by Avi. Coppertwig initially came on my radar screen due to edits to a particularly contentious and tendentious article. What struck me was Coppertwig's constant control, calm demeanor, rational posting, and intense effort in trying to craft an article that adhered to our standards of neutrality. What truly set Coppertwig apart, was the demonstrated remarkable civility, if not downright cordiality, in dealing with the involved parties, even in the face of contentious disagreements between the parties. Regardless of how heated the discussions became, Coppertwig made the extra efforts to involve parties in mediation and attempt as best as possible to resolve disputes through the application of reason, logic, and polite discourse. Through these efforts alone, Coppertwig has demonstrated the the decision making and judgment that I feel is a prerequisite for wiki sysops, both in the areas of policy and guideline, as well as the area of dealing with project participants. Coppertwig has that rare synergy of the mettle to enforce our rules with sanctions, and the diplomacy to explain, and often prevent the need for, the applications of those sanctions. I am honored to be able to nominate Coppertwig for adminship! -- Avi (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]


Co-nomination by Rudget. Coppertwig is a unique character (especially in respects to the reasons I began to communicate with him). I first met with Copper in my request for adminship in January. CT has systematically and categorically been the single-most admired user, I've probably ever had the opportunity to work with (that sounds a little overstated, but it is uniformly correct). Since they began editing in November 2006, they have amassed near 9500 edits including around 400 deleted versions.

A user who focuses on improving relations between users, community cohesion and overall resolve of situations, Coppertwig has been (some might say unluckily) in the position of mediating disputes or by resolving them by other means. CT is an intelligent and clueful user who diligently aids others when they are in need of assistance (1, 2). He helps further, often by providing invaluable insight or other comments which are of use (3, 4, 5), making edits which are relevant to the appropriate page (6). CT helps provide further assistance, particularly at the three-revert-rule violation noticeboard and the administrators incident noticeboard. A consistent user who "prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war", Copper abides by a 1RR system and is part of the harmonious editing club.

In mainspace terms, Coppertwig isn't as active in the reversion of edits by anonymous editors (or registered accounts for that matter) as some of our other editors, however, he vastly makes up for this in article-building terms with extensive work already being conducted on Medical analysis of circumcision, Hellenistic art, Essential nutrient, to name but a few. Able to speak French (something, I've never been able to grasp) Coppertwig has on many occasions attempted to help translate between Français and Anglais (random examples).

In consideration of all that above (and those edits which have been specified here), I am exceptionally glad to nominate Coppertwig for adminship. An outstanding candidate, I would be extremely surprised if this request for adminship didn't pass 150. I would ask the community to support this nomination. Rudget 13:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Co-nomination by Moonriddengirl – I am pleased to have the opportunity to co-nominate Coppertwig, who strikes me as an extremely diligent contributor. I find him (or her. For convenience, I'm sticking with "him") unfailingly civil and highly motivated in helping others navigate Wikipedia. I am impressed by the tricky work he has undertaken in attempting to mediate disputes, including the considerable amount of time he has put into assisting at the 3RR noticeboard. He does not shy away from expressing & explaining his opinions even if they are not universally popular, which is good, but does not rely on bluster or disregard alternate opinions, which would be bad. In other words, he's not a sheep, but he's not closed or aggressive...which is just the combination we need. I think his work in the area of dispute resolution and 3RR will benefit by the use of the tools in protecting pages and, when necessary and appropriate, blocking 3RR violators. My observations of his approach suggest that he will be prudent in using these tools, will ask other opinions if in doubt, and will be meticulous in considering feedback. Further, I have no fears about his handling of other areas of admin work. He is sensible and conscious of community standards, and I have all faith in his knowledge of speedy criteria, given that he wrote or co-wrote most of the templates. :) (See 1, 2, 3 & 4). Coppertwig has considerable integrity, and I do not believe he will abuse the tools. I hope you will investigate his contributions and join me in my confidence. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 7 May 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: At first I plan to work on 3RR, where I've been helping regularly since March 20, and RM. Later I may do CSD and RFPP, and as I develop my knowledge I may move on to other areas. Moonriddengirl has kindly agreed to provide new admin coaching.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution was shortening Circumcision according to WP:SUMMARY, moving material into (existing) sub-articles, as described here. It's a controversial article, yet the shortened version I came up with was accepted with essentially no complaint from either side. I also wrote Confidence region, Women's rights in Canada, Leaders' debate on women's issues during the 1984 Canadian federal election campaign and a few other articles listed at User:Coppertwig/Contributions; and I helped develop new versions of the CSD templates.
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've been involved in some editing disputes, but more recently as I've broadened my participation and realized that there isn't time for everything I've found it easier to let some things go.
A number of times when I received what I considered to be a personal attack, I re-read WP:NPA with the intention of doing something about it; but each time I reluctantly came to the conclusion that this, too, was a situation where ignoring it was the best option. I redirect the energy from personal attacks against myself into doing what I can to respond to personal attacks against other people, where it's more likely that my intervention might do some good.
I make mistakes from time to time, often apologize or strike out some of my words or both (example), and try to learn from my mistakes.

Optional questions from RyRy5

4. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
A:
5. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
A:

Optional question from Dorftrottel

6. From Avi's nomination: "Coppertwig initially came on my radar screen due to edits to a particularly contentious and tendentious article." — Which article would that be? What made or makes it "particularly contentious and tendentious"?
A:
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 7. Would you describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • 7a. ...an editor to be blocked?
  • A:
  • A:
  • A:
  • A:
  • 9. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A:
Optional questions from Editorofthewiki
  • 10. How would you determina admin abuse and, if you encountered it, how would you deal with it. By extension, how would you deal with an established editor that starts to be disruptive?
  • A:

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. As nom. -- Avi (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. beat 2 noms support ;p but seriously, i was under the impression that he was one. -- Naerii 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Seems prone to gnomism but also seems dedicated to improving articles. Particularly impressed with concerted effort on Che Guevara. Shows no inclination towards abuse. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support - per oppose #1 Great candidate with great nominators, over all no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Net positive. Tiptoety talk 03:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support his talk page is dotted with Thank You's so he must be doing something right! -Icewedge (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Patient and diplomatic, Coppertwig has been helping out recently at the 3RR noticeboard. I first ran into Coppertwig in late 2006 when both of us were helping to translate the article on Hellenistic art from the French Wikipedia. Something Coppertwig finished recently was a project with Moonriddengirl and others to create new wording for all the message templates for WP:CSD, to agree better with the policies. (For instance, see this talk thread). Completing this reform shows a certain grasp of the Wikipedia policies and an ability to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Appears to be a consistent good-faith editor and I believe they'll make good use of the tools. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Appears to Assume Good Faith in every instance possible. That's what I like and what I think we need. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support as a generally well-rounded user who keeps his cool. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Per Tiptoety. Net positive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Outstanding neutrality and civility above and beyond the call of duty. Firm grasp of core policies and their practical, common sense application. A willingness to confront difficult, time consuming issues with diligence and patience. Blackworm (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support unlikely to abuse tools. Jpmonroe (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I am supporting on the condition he is not involved in science-related issues with the admin tools, as I am concerned by the issues raised in opposition. Coppertwig, I would appreciate a comment in relation to this condition. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Support. The opposes bother me, but, like DHMO, I'm sure you'll keep away from science articles as an admin. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Coppertwig engages in constructive discussions. I don't always agree with Coppertwig, and from what I remember of Iantresman I have grave doubts about whether he'll be able to contribute positively, but that's okay. I only expect admins to be able to follow consensus instead of their own opinions, and I'm sure that Coppertwig will do so; admins don't have to agree with me all the time. By the way, I've never discovered any unorthodox leanings from Coppertwig's edits of mathematics articles and I'd welcome Coppertwig's use of admin tools there. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. It's OK to have POVs.(vide Oppose 5 reg. anti-science POV!) All of us do. Hell, I have POVs. Being an admin for me is more about prioritizing quality of the article and integrity of Wikipedia above one's POVs, and I could not find a reason to think that this editor would do otherwise. Prashanthns (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support based on my interactions with this extraordinarily civil, thoughtful, diplomatic, and intelligent editor. Coppertwig describes his/her best contribution as shortening the circumcision article, which I had the pleasure of observing. It was boldly done, extraordinarily skilful, and yet with evident desire to ensure that the rationale for each edit was transparent, and that there was consensus throughout. I was delighted to sit back and watch in stunned amazement. Since then, Coppertwig and I have interacted regularly, sometimes in agreement and sometimes not, and I invariably look forward to reading his/her contributions. Last but not least, while we have our disagreements from time to time, I respect and - above all - trust Coppertwig. Jakew (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. First the discussion and opposes have latched onto a single incident that concerns them and frankly is a little concerning to me. User:Iantresman was not banned because he had a POV. He was banned for his bad conduct. But as regards User:Coppertwig, the idea that everyone must understand every situation in the exact same way is unwise. It's obvious the nominee sees the Iantresman case differently and suggested that the user be rehabilitated. While we may not agree with his conclusions we should respect that he has a right to speak his mind. Coppertwig did nothing wrong and worked transparently and within the system to bring about a change he thought proper. It's embarrassing for him to be opposed so vehemently because his opinion differs from others. Someone show me evidence that he would have wheel-warred over this or that he would reject consensus? He has shown coolness and cordiality which is always a useful characteristic. Therefore I conclude that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary he should be given the tools. -JodyB talk 11:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Seen you around. Malinaccier Public (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, no evidence whatsoever that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  23. Support. A quiet, reflective Wikipedian, not likely to abuse the mop. I don't see a problem. Yaf (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Over the 18 months that I have been aware of Coppertwig I have found him to be contributing to WP in ways well above normal. I have never seen Coppertwig "loose it", engage in personal attack or edit disruptively. Rather he has worked towards consensus. Coppertwig will do good work as an admin. SmithBlue (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No evidence to suggest his alleged point of view will stop him being a rational, neutral admin. EJF (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support as co-nom. :D I didn't realize we had gone live. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Stellar noms. Avruch T 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per the nom statements and other supports above. Adminship for the candidate should be a net positive for the Project. Dlohcierekim 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose Too quick to come to the defense of POV pushers and fringers, giving them the benefit of the doubt where no doubt exists. I've had concerns about his sense of priorities in the past, but his advocacy for unblocking User:Iantresman is the last straw. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Got diffs? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you doubting Raymond's word, or his assessment, or for some reason not willing to look for yourself in the candidate's contrib history? Dorftrottel (criticise) 04:23, May 7, 2008
    (ec) Sure. Try this thread.[1] Iantresman has made two appeals to arbcom, both thankfully declined[2][3] much to the relief of those of us who had to deal with his disruptive and tendentious editing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I was asking if there are specific instances that Raymond (a) is concerned about, and (b) can conveniently provide links to. Yes, I've looked at the contribs. So far the "worst" thing I've seen is an essay containing some advice on how to get unblocked. I'm seeing mostly Che Guevara, of course, and I'm having difficulty seeing where the "POV pusher/fringer" opinion is coming from. I hope this post is long enough to be interpreted in good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 04:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Raymond and strong reservations about editor's tendencies. Baegis (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose well, unless hell froze over. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Raymond. The evidence given is troubling. —Dark talk 07:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose even if hell froze over. Raymond is putting it succinctly in the Iantresman unblocking push by Coppertwig. Anti-science POV editors cannot be expected to be admins that can uphold NPOV. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be willing to explain the last sentence, since I'm having trouble understanding it? Are you saying that no editor with some POV should become admin, or that there is something special about an anti-science POV which makes that while we can have admins with some POV, we can't have ones with an anti-science POV? I'm afraid that neither of these opinions makes much sense to me, so perhaps you're saying something else and I'm misunderstanding you completely. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I may well be completely out of place here, but I would like to state that certain points of view are not just tolerable, but are absolutely required for encyclopedic content. To hold one who has a strong attachment towards science and rational thought in the same light that one would hold a homeopathetic Truther young-Earth Creationist is intellectually reprehensible, and only serves to encourage the relativist chattering that these glorified trolls spew forth on the talk pages of a wide range of articles. All points of view may be equal - as they're all, well, points of view. Some points of view - namely, those backed by the scientific method - are more equal than others. (and, no, ignorance is not strength)--Badger Drink (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a professional scientist and I support the scientific method, including not jumping to firm conclusions without evidence. Coppertwig (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying I'm jumping to a conclusion somewhere without evidence? Or am I missing something? --Badger Drink (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I was thinking in terms of article content and in terms of blocking someone without evidence such as diffs. I wasn't talking about you, Badger Drink. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Orange, I cant find anything (maybe I'm alookin in the wrong place) regarding his anti-science views. Can you provide a link? Thanks! Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Raymond. Coppertwig has a troubling habit of, for want of better phrasing, equating nonsense with sense; NPOV does not mean giving equal weight or respect to the two. Supporting editors who promote nonsense is not fair or just; it is harming the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per above.--Filll (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose as per Raymond Arritt and others above. There have to be sensible limits to WP:AGF. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. oppose per Raymond. Demonstrates failure to understand WP:NPOV, especially the undue weight clause. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per above, especially Raymond Arrit. Also because it feels somehow a tad.. 'awkward', for lack of a better word, to see Avi nominate and Jake Waskett support after and because Coppertwig worked on the Circumcision article. No way, sorry. I don't even bother to examine his participation there, as I'm 100% sure it would make my stomach turn like a white-washing machine. Dorftrottel (bait) 14:48, May 7, 2008
Neutral
  1. Need to sleep on this and do some more research SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 04:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pretty much per Mr. Steel. I worry that Mr. Twig may be too willing to extend the olive branch of peace to personalities that the encyclopedia is better off without. The diff provided by Raymond, above, is troubling - while Mr. Twig was not vehement in his desire to get a troublesome editor unblocked, the very fact that he made such a statement without (apparently) actually familiarizing himself with the history is bothersome, as is the lack of a definitive final word for or against his original position. It just seems to fizzle. That said, this may be an anomoly in an otherwise level-headed and sane editing history, so I'll remain committedly-non-committal for now. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Make it a trio; I also need to do more research. It's not clear if CT is one to support, or oppose.--Bedford 12:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am really on the fence with this one. Will do a little more research and chime back in. For now I am neutral. Canyouhearmenow 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Coppertwig&oldid=210815170"