Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Coppertwig

      run at Thu May 8 21:46:37 2008 GMT

Category talk:  5
Category:       15
Help talk:      2
Help:   6
Mainspace       2690
Portal talk:    2
Portal: 2
Talk:   1497
Template talk:  35
Template:       496
User talk:      2172
User:   1022
Wikipedia talk: 670
Wikipedia:      841
avg edits per page      3.68
earliest        22:53, 2 November 2006
number of unique pages  2569
total   9455
2006/11         666     
2006/12         230     
2007/1  370     
2007/2  697     
2007/3  473     
2007/4  67      
2007/5  10      
2007/6  148     
2007/7  70      
2007/8  949     
2007/9  526     
2007/10         3       
2007/11         261     
2007/12         721     
2008/1  929     
2008/2  861     
2008/3  1323    
2008/4  1005    
2008/5  146     
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)


Mainspace
191     Che Guevara
129     Medical analysis of circumcision
95      Circumcision
87      Safavid art
44      Hellenistic art
41      Leaders' debate on women's issues during the 1984 Canadian federal election campaign
34      Chase McEachern
28      Essential nutrient
27      AIDS
25      Prevalence of circumcision
25      Domestic violence
25      Bioethics of neonatal circumcision
24      Lamb waves
24      History of male circumcision
21      Sexual effects of circumcision

Talk:
309     Circumcision
139     Che Guevara
72      AIDS
45      Mucoid plaque
40      Circumcision and law
36      Uncommon Dissent
31      Chiropractic
29      Birth control/Archive2
28      Eicosanoid
24      Shock wave
22      Female genital cutting
20      Pain/Archive 1
20      Safavid art
18      Medical analysis of circumcision
18      Lamb waves
Category talk:
2       LGBT Wikipedians
 
Help:
2       Diff
 
Help talk:
2       Diff
          
Portal talk:
2       Animals
 
Template:
41      Db doc
10      Db-t3/new
10      Db-g12/new
9       Db-i9/new
9       Db-i1/new
8       Db-a5/new
7       Db-i7/doc
7       Db-g6/new
6       Db-g1/new
6       Db-g6/doc
6       Db-a1/new
6       Db-t3/doc
6       Db-i2/new
6       Db-copypaste/new
6       Db-move/new

Template talk:
10      Trivia/Archive 1
4       Db-meta
4       BirthControl infobox
3       Editprotected
2       Vitamin
2       Db-g1
 
User:
270     Coppertwig/Sandbox
175     Coppertwig
95      Coppertwig/Sandbox6
77      Coppertwig/CSD
57      Coppertwig/links
56      Coppertwig/Sandbox2
56      Coppertwig/Stability of policy
27      Coppertwig/homepage
21      Coppertwig/Sandbox3
17      Coppertwig/monobook.js
16      Coppertwig/Sandbox4
14      Coppertwig/Sandbox5
13      Coppertwig/Contributions
10      Coppertwig/Attribution policy discussion
8       Coppertwig/CSDlist

User talk:
607     Coppertwig
76      Moonriddengirl
49      Blackworm
35      Coppertwig/Stability of policy
31      Adrian de Physics
29      Phyesalis/Mediation request
27      Phyesalis
27      Redthoreau
24      EdJohnston
20      Iantresman
18      Seraphimblade
17      Jakew
16      Jayjg
15      Edwardsville
15      Jonathan

Wikipedia:
146     Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
140     Help desk
55      Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
28      Translation into English/French
24      Village pump (proposals)
21      Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
15      Attribution
12      Village pump (policy)
11      Requests for adminship/Seresin
10      Requests for adminship/Coppertwig
10      Requests for comment/COGDEN
10      Requests for arbitration
9       Attribution/Poll
9       Articles for deletion/J Stalin (2nd nomination)
9       Administrators' noticeboard

Wikipedia talk:
132     Criteria for speedy deletion
128     Attribution
78      No original research
51      Attribution/Poll
28      Attribution/Community discussion
21      Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (other)
21      Attribution/Role of truth
19      Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (general)
18      Trivia sections
14      Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (images)
13      Consensus
13      New pages patrol/patrolled pages
12      Verifiability
10      Requests for mediation/Reproductive rights
9       Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (articles)

Contents 1 Removed vote 2 Optional question from User:Mattisse 3 Edit warring 4 comment explaining my slight change of vote/ plus question about his mediation with Mattisse/Redthoreau 5 I invite all participants to visit my talk page

[edit] Removed vote

Oppose Due to the fact that you had 666 edits in your first month, indicating you are possibly the spawn of Satan.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, excuse me? I do not feel this is the appropriate venue to make jokes like that. Please reconsider your !vote. Tiptoety ^talk 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to consider the same thing. I agree with User:Tiptoety.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what venue means, but regardless, I think it's hilarious. I'm gonna leave it up for a day or two, then change it to a support when I feel like it.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a very disrespectful thing to do, and I think it is made in poor humor. Tiptoety ^talk 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec agian) Is that really necessary considering it a joke and not changing it now? I don’t think RFA’s should be commented on like that. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an RfA on Wikipedia for god's sake, what's the big deal?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with it being a big deal or not, but more to do with the fact that the oppose is rude and disrespectful to the candidate. Tiptoety ^talk 03:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You've misjudged your audience, KojiDude. I highly recommend you remove it quickly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your !vote. Tiptoety ^talk 03:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That sort of stuff puts people off going for adminship, i would be hurt if that occured to me, i oppose this nomination but that joke was highly misjudged. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Optional question from User:Mattisse

[edit] Edit warring

Yeah, this isn't the time or the place, can the people involved at least take it to each other's talk pages and spare the rest of us the irritation? naerii - talk 00:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The next time any of them reverts the others actions it will result in a block. Tiptoety ^talk 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To which I will heartily agree. Edit warring at an RfA is ridiculous, like starting a fistfight in a courtroom. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by this. I literally had the block window open for both of them, but then I figured I was getting too rouge for my own good... MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, i thought most the people here were admins? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be worse, they could be edit warring on WP:AN3 or WP:RFAR -- Avi (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] comment explaining my slight change of vote/ plus question about his mediation with Mattisse/Redthoreau

I hope this editor studies this RfA, I think he could learn a lot from it and hopefully succeed next time, if not this. To me the problem is not sympathy for the underdog (a trait I have myself) but that sometimes his ideas are half-baked. Instead of running somewhere to try and get Iatresman unblocked, he could have asked editors involved why he was blocked in their opinions, as maybe they know more about it than him. Similarly with Mattisse and Red- his efforts to mediate were commendable but he needn't have taken it to AN/I. If the actions on the pages concerned were that objectionable, another admin would probably have spotted it already, and he needn't then have undermined his mediatory role by "dropping them in it" on AN/I where the editors involved would face scrutiny and perhaps a possible block. I know AN/I shouldn't feel like that, but everyone knows or can imagine what it would feel like if they themselves were the subject of a thread on there. He could have discussed it with another editor/admin and they could have posted about the situation if need be, or given him their opinion. He undermined the trust of the editors with whom he was mediating (Mattisse at least) by doing that. He seems to want to make busy work for himself, and so sometimes causes more of a contratemps rather than less, because he ends up feeling he has to do "something". Merkin's mum 11:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the ANI thread correctly, RedThoreau opened the thread, and Coppertwig first commented about 3 hours later. So I'm not sure that it's fair to say that CT dropped them in it. Have I misunderstood? Jakew (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is the thread in question. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think that's the one. Does anyone know- was his attempt at mediation as a result of a request for mediation or a request for a third opinion, or did Coppertwig decide to do it of his own accord? I feel something was "not quite right" about it, however he did put a lot of hours into it. Anyone any ideas what the problem was, before I give up in confusement lol:) Merkin's mum 14:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the AN/I thread linked, it was in response to an incident report at 3RR, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that FAR editor, SandyGeorgia, Polaris999 and others editors were willing to work to save Che Guevara. SandyGeorgia suggested the only chance the article had was if we reverted to an earlier version before Redthoreau started editing. We agreed under those conditions we would work to save the article's FA status. We all very sad to see that status endangered. That is the only time I know of that SandyGeorgia was willing to help in such an enterprise. (See the FAR of Che Guevara -- I do not know how to provide a link to it). However, it soon became apparent that the massive POV edits were continuing in a hopeless fashion and SandyGeorgia was no longer willing to do the revert and felt the article was hopeless. Consequently the other editors also dropped out as they also felt the current article was hopelessly POV. Coppertwig started editing heavily by the end of March. It was not until April 4 [1] that he had acquired Anderson's book on Guevara, necessary to any editing of the article. No one ever agreed that Coppertwig was a mediator. He took on that role, despite his knowing little about Che Guevare at the time. He supported Redthoreu unconditionally. The large amount of edits by Coppertwig and Redthoreau over many weeks did not save the article and it lost it's FA status. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Addendum: User:Redthoreau has apologized on my page [2]. Possibly it was the threat of mediation on the AN/I, as admins have reverted some of his postings on my page. I do not take any such apology seriously, given his past behavior, although possibly the rest of you do so I offer this information for your consideration. I have retired from editing articles and will only post opinions. Writing and editing articles brings pain. I notice that the editors who voice the most opinions do little article writing or editing. Thus I will become one one of the opinionated, non-editing non-writing persons. In this capacity I have little to fear from Coppertwig and therefore have less investment in the outcome of this RFA. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'm sorry to see that you have decided no longer to edit articles. I hope you reconsider. Yes, conflict over articles can bring pain; but in the end it's usually worth it, and it's the reason why we're here. I should say again that I do think that Coppertwig was sincerely making a good faith effort at mediation in the dispute at Che Guevara, but s/he was just in over his or her head. Still, there are many other articles out there to edit. I hope you continue to work on some of them, and find more pleasure than pain on Wikipedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I thank you from my heart for your comments, Jbmurray. However, I feel I must ventilate here over my pentup frustration that those of us who do the actual article writing are the lowest of the low on the totem pole of respect and power. Just as with User:Coppertwig, an editor like me can never tell when a mediator who is described as "s/he was just in over his or her head" will step in (as was the case with User:Blueboar also) and create havoc and allow the destruction of an article. There is no protection for sincere editors who want to create articles only. Editors like me are always vulnerable to the stray post, like the one on this evidence page, purporting to show that since User:Blueboar could not mediate between me and another, this proves I am a difficult editor, despite more that 46,000+ edits with virtually no conflicts except between me and Blueboar, Coppertwig, or mediators and other disagreements caused by the gang of sock puppets that stalked me for six months without respite until the Starwood Arbitration when they were caught.

Note, Coppertwig, never asked if his interference was wanted on Che Guevara. He just took over after the editors involved in the FAR dropped out and began address lecturing posts to the two of us (Redthoreau and me) without any announcement of his intentions or request for a mutual agreement as to his role. Meanwhile he wrote flattering posts to Redthoreau, as Redthoreau did to him, and supported his edits in the Che Guevara article while claiming not to be making content judgments. I am tired of always being treated as if I am the problem when I have tried my very best to be civil at all times and write the very best articles I can. I have learned to distrust the "pretty words" of those extremely polite and verbally fluent editors whose underlying actions are destructive. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I started helping at the 3RR noticeboard on March 20 and this was the first case I was involved in. Since I already had a book about Che Guevara and was interested in the topic, I decided to start editing the article. Before I actually started editing the article, the two above-named editors who were involved in the 3RR report posted messages on my talk page, in a discussion in which they each asked for my help. [3] [4]. The recent AN/I thread was not opened by me. The earlier AN/I thread I opened after one of them asked for my help and the situation was escalating; it seemed to be appreciated, but I soon realized that it would probably have been better not to go to AN/I in that situation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not distort reality. This is a more representative post of mine to you, User:Coppertwig, made on the same day [5] in which informed you that your mild rebuke of User:Redthoreau was met by increased abuse from User:Redthoreau toward me that seemed designed to drive me from the Che Guevara page. At that point you had already installed yourself in the role of mediator. I was realizing your bias but felt I had no other recourse but to appeal to what at that time I still thought was your sense of fairness. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I invite all participants to visit my talk page

I appreciate everyone taking the time to participate in this RfA. I enjoy the encouragement from the Support votes, the constructive feedback and information about different viewpoints from the Oppose votes, both of those things from the Neutrals, and various interesting discussion. (And yes, I'm aware that votes are not votes.) Truly, thank you for participating in my RfA. It's been an amazing experience.

I've written an individual message of thanks to each participant here (which may eventually be archived here). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)