Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/COGDEN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] COgden

final (12/1/0) ending 04:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

COgden has been here about a year and has over 1500 edits. That's plenty to judge by (which is the only real reason for needing time and history). I'm not aware of any negatives. User writes good content, appreciates NPOV policy, and seems always civil from what I have seen. Will make a cool-headed admin, I think. Tom - Talk 04:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Tom - Talk 04:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Very strong support. User puts significant effort and content into his contributions. Seems to work well with others too. Cool Hand Luke 06:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Big content contributor. Content almost always gives both sides of controversial issues - not afraid to be neutral in edits. Even though I don't always agree with the amount of detail of what he adds, it is generally best for the topics he edits. Support. -Visorstuff 15:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. From my observation, truly committed to NPOV ideals and knows how to write neutrally regardless of personal feelings on the subject matter. --Michael Snow 17:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. I've seen nothing but good from this user. Skyler1534 18:52, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Strongly support. --Lst27 (talk) 00:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. I agree with all of the above -- an excellent contributor. Jwrosenzweig 18:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. —No-One Jones (m) 18:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. I know next to nothing about the history of Mormonism, but I can see the amount of effort put in, and I'll trust other people's judgement that it's all good editing. Excellent work. Shane King 00:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Will support after 1336 edits. Oh, wait a minute... -- Grunt   ҈  01:11, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
  11. Andre (talk) 17:35, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  12. uc 22:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Scope of work seems a little narrow in my mind, and religious topics tend to make involved editors very over-protective. Also doesn't seem to be a very active editor - 1335 edits over the course of one year is pretty low for someone who wants to be an admin. I don't see COgden participating in any routine maintenance efforts, either. Would support in a couple months if he can become more involved, but right now I don't see evidence that admin privilege is well-placed here. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • 1335 Edits since Nov 2003. Cool Hand Luke 06:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Certainly reverting vandalism when I see it, as I have always done, and I would block abusive vandals when I catch them. I would assist in deleting articles according to the deletion policy, especially concerning the subject matters of my personal interest.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Deconstruction: this is a somewhat controversial article, and over the months I have added lots of substantive content and formal revisions for NPOV. Mormonism and Christianity: after lots of heated discussion, I assisted in "historicizing" the article (turning argumentative opinions into historical facts) in a way that everybody appears to be living with. Family values: an article I created on a very controversial subject, which has managed thus far to avoid edit wars. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some of its spin-offs: this is a huge unfinished project, and I contributed the bulk of the content. Other examples are on my user page. Most of these are religion articles, but I am also interested in the areas of Law, Science, Government, and Critical theory.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. I've put in my two cents in a number of heated discussions, but they've all been worked out amicably without outside involvement. If I am on the minority side of an issue, where everyone else has reached consensus, I typically defer to the majority. As an outside adjudicator, I would be very hesitant to wholly favor one side of an issue, because there is almost always room for compromise, and if one side feels shut-out, they may stop contributing to the article.