Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Colipon.09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Colipon(2/5/2) 18:38, 26 May 2004

A professional academic, one of the site's best users, a fairly active user since 8/03, and an excellent contributor to the site's China-related articles (among the strongest topics on Wikipedia) 172 18:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Awaiting acceptance from Colinpon of nomination.

Support

1. 172 18:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
2. Neutrality 21:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Good and promising editor, not but ready yet, IMO. Many breaks of weeks or longer in editing, and many of the 700 edits are from failure to Preview or mark as Minor. Would like to look again in a few months. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
2. What Cecropia said. Snowspinner 18:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

   Come on, the quality of his edits should offset these trivial weaker areas. Wikipedia needs talent and expertise, and more over it needs more professionals like Colipon, not necessarily people who are always online. 172 19:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

   As I said, fine editor and promising, but aren't we adding sysops to help with dog work, which requires some presence? Of course, people can become admins and not be able to devote time later for various reasons. Just want to see more consistent track record. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

   I'm very likely to support once the user reaches 1000 edits, and when a level of sustained activity is demonstrated. I think admins should be people who follow Wikipedia pretty closely. Snowspinner 19:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

3. Oppose, due largely to insightful comments by Isomorphic below. If this guy has alot of expertise w topics thats great, but w his lack of free time and small number of edits its hard to imagine he aught to spend what little time he spends here w the chores of being an admin. Its not ment to be a status symbol or badge of merit, but rather an added responsibility. Sam [Spade] 05:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)~
4. Not enough experience here. Kingturtle 06:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Not enough experience. Moncrief 18:26, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

• Support later. - Fennec 03:06, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support in a month or so. - Fuzheado 03:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Comment

• User has made about 700 total edits, but only 20 in the last 3 months. I am not sure they are active enough to be an admin. Maximus Rex 18:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
  • It looks more like Colipon's back after a long break. That's not unusual. I didn't make many contributions between 9/03 and 2/04, but I retained my adminship and periodically stopped by. 172 18:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
• I don't know him well enough to vote, but I would like to mention that, if Colipon hasn't been around much recently, there are a _lot_ of new approaches and policies that I would want to know that he/she was familiar with -- frequent editors, we can assume they've stumbled upon most of the policies (or we've seen them acknowledge them in action), but often-absent users have a lot to catch up on, I think. This may be a great editor who deserves our thanks but is so frequently absent that it wouldn't make sense for them to be admin -- if they wanted to use any of an admin's powers, they'd constantly need to be reviewing all the changes since they were last here before taking action. Does that make any sense? :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
• It seems to me that 172 is misunderstanding the purpose of adminship. I agree that Wikipedia could use more professional academics, but they aren't automatically more qualified for adminship. Being an admin is like being a cross between a janitor and a manager. Either way, neither role requires being an expert in any given subject matter. The most relevant qualities for an admin are responsibility, maturity, respect for the community, ability to work with others, and an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. Isomorphic 20:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
  • In fact, I'd argue that trying to get a good content editor involved in administrative matters is potentially a waste of human resources. Isomorphic 21:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
    • That's never been grounds to deny anyone adminship, though I guess it is a form of flattery. "You're too smart for this mind-numbing work?" :) Fuzheado 03:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
      • LOL. I just meant we don't necessarilly want to encourage our best writers to spend their time fighting vandals, maintaining VfD, and such. Certainly I wouldn't oppose for this, but I won't support just because someone writes good content. I need to believe that they would use adminship well, and that there's some reason why they should have admin powers. Those are separate issues. Isomorphic 05:16, 20 May 2004 (UTC)