Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig: Difference between revisions

Coppertwig

Voice your opinion (talk page) (10/1/1); 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)

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)

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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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:

• 7b. ...a page to be protected?

• A:

• 7c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A:

• 8. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an WP:XFD discussion, a WP:DRV discussion, and an WP:RM discussion.

• 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:

General comments

• Links for Coppertwig: Coppertwig (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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)
2. beat 2 noms support ;p but seriously, i was under the impression that he was one. -- Naerii 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
4. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
10. Support as a generally well-rounded user who keeps his cool. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - Per Tiptoety. Net positive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
13. Support unlikely to abuse tools. Jpmonroe (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

   Got diffs? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   (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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Raymond and strong reservations about editor's tendencies. Baegis (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose well, unless hell froze over. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Need to sleep on this and do some more research SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)