Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cowman109 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Cowman109

Final (65/3/2) Ended 06:23, 2006-08-12 (UTC)

Cowman109 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate User:Cowman109. He has been with us since late October and has more than 3 thousand edits. He is best known as the former head and current coordinator of the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal where he has done some excellent work in. He also fights copyvios [1] and vandalism [2], rewrites articles like Henry Ossawa Tanner and partipates in AFDs [3]. He had one prior RFA nomination in Mid-may Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cowman109 in which he was opposed for inexperince and withdrew early but he is much more experinced now. I think Cowman109 would make an good admin. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Cowman109^Talk 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: The area I'm most interested in is helping protections in WP:RFP, as I've seen times when the list is not looked at for several days and people are left without assistance. As I'm also usually involved in dispute resolution, proper use of page protection could stop an edit war in its tracks before it escalates further. I would also get involved in WP:AN3, as that area seems a bit undermanned. I would refrain from using sysop powers on disputants in a Medcab case I'm involved with, of course, as that would conflict with my neutrality.

I admit I don't forsee myself hunting out vandalism as much as other syops do, but of course I would deal with persistant vandals that I come across through my watchlist. As people often say, I would also lend a hand at the speedy deletion backlog when I have the chance. I sporadically participate in AFDs and RFDs as Jaranda stated above, more so on RFDs, though only on overlooked or borderline cases. As for AFDs I admit it's usually only ones that I've come across or if it's one I've proposed myself. :).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Well, in terms of contributions I'm pleased with, I recently found a chain of copyvio articles (which is pretty evident by my recent contribs) which I am still dealing with. Otherwise, generally my article contributions are usually spread between many articles instead of focusing on one in particular. I recently went on a sort of mini clean-up campaign to clear up Category:Cleanup from June 2005 with the help of the people in #Wikipedia-en, which was quite successful.

In terms of major edits, the majority of my article contributions are indirectly through discussion in talk pages or mediation cabal cases. Though, as Jaranda stated, I have made efforts beyond the mediation cabal for pages as well.

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 how will you deal with it in the future?

A: As I stated in my last RFA, I'm generally a laidback person and few things cause me stress, but when things do, I don't hesitate to take a break to put things back into perspective. As for getting into conflicts, well, that pretty much goes without saying. I'm usually the one trying to fix the conflict.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the concept of administrators putting themselves on a page to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed is inherently flawed as it creates a divide between those who are on the list and those who aren't. It basically says that if you're not on the list, you're scared of getting de-sysopped, which is not what it should be at all. I feel that the system is unnecessary, since if an administrator's powers should be taken away for some reason, there are already processes in place to de-sysop him or her. I have my doubts that this new system of administrators open to recall will result in any administrators being recalled because those who put themselves on the list automatically realize they may be under more scrutiny, so it seems to be more of a badge than a process. I believe that all administrators are always open to recall, as of course arbcom or the community can recognize problems and address them, and that this new category is unnecessary and just separates people into the good and the bad. So, no, I wouldn't add myself to that list.

As for rouge admins, I suppose it could be interpreted as having a deeper purpose of making people realize that sysops aren't out to get you and they are here to build the encyclopedia as well, only stated in a more humorous tone. I'm indifferent towards it, however. Cowman109^Talk 19:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Cowman109 (over the 3379 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 257 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 23, October, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 20.25 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 170 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3379 edits shown on this page and last 1 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.03% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.47% (16)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 5.03% (170)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 75.97%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 1 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1101 | Average edits per page: 3.07 | Edits on top: 10.98%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 40.13% (1356 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 32.82% (1109 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 21.16% (715 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 4.53% (153 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 20.54% (694) | Article talk: 8.38% (283)
User: 8.23% (278) | User talk: 25.3% (855)
Wikipedia: 32.88% (1111) | Wikipedia talk: 3.28% (111)
Image: 0.09% (3)
Template: 1.09% (37)
Category: 0.03% (1)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.18% (6)

• See Cowman109's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Cowman109's edit summary usage with Interiots Edit Count Tool

Username Cowman109
Total edits 3330
Distinct pages edited 1075
Average edits/page 3.098
First edit 04:12, October 23, 2005
 
(main) 671
Talk 282
User 269
User talk 842
Image 3
Template 37
Template talk 1
Category 1
Wikipedia 1108
Wikipedia talk 111
Portal talk 5

• Cowman109's detailed edit count using Ais523's Tool (click the "Show" link below and to the right) alphaChimp ^laudare 20:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hm, well that's definitely not my edit count. It's completely different from what's listed above, at least. There seems to have been a mixup somewhere. Cowman109^Talk 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  My sincere apologies. I'm just working out the kinks of posting this count, and I mistakenly forgot to correct the userspace transclusion. It should work now. alphaChimp ^laudare 21:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Cabal support. --Keitei (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support The main concerns for opposes in Cowman's last RfA we're not enough mainspace work and lack of time here. Neither of these are reasonable causes to oppose at this point. He has helped at many articles making both major and minor changes. In some cases such as Henry Ossawa Tanner he has completely rewritten the articles. JoshuaZ 06:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Michael 06:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support as per last nom. Kimchi.sg 06:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Edit conflicted Support. I looked over your contibutions and I am very impressed by your involvement with other users/mediation cabal. Good luck. Viridae^Talk
7. Support. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. - Cabal experience as well as large amount of Wiki-experience indicates a good admin in the making. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Looks like a good admin candidate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per above—WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support Yes. Very yes!!! Cowman is a helpful, knowlagable, excellent user, who totally deserves the tools. Best of luck. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. A kind, capable user whose committment to the project is admirable indeed. Brisvegas 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Where-did-I-put-that-"thought you were already an admin"-cliche support for a very dedicated user. WP:RFP needs all the help it can get! --james^(talk) 11:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
14. You betta smile, smile, smile... He'll be great, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Will not abuse the tools. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:41, 05 August '06}
16. Definitely. -- Steel 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nom., etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Will he abuse the tools? Nope. alphaChimp ^laudare 13:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support I trust the nom, and see no reason to oppose. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Merovingian - Talk 14:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I've seen this user around and believe he's certainly to be trusted with the extra buttons. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong Support. This is one of those "thought you were an admin" situations. Any interaction with Cowman has been a pleasure. SynergeticMaggot 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong There Is No Mediation Cabal Support. Meh. CQJ 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. A truly hard worker. --Gray Porpoise 18:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. G.He 18:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Perfect score. I've actually entrusted cowman109 with much harder tasks than adminship already. Kim Bruning 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Moo. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Excellent editor. Will be an excellent admin. Has a good understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm impressed with the nom's mediating skills. --FloNight ^talk 21:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Strong Support a great editor that looks like he definitely could use the admin tools. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong support per all of the above. —Khoikhoi 21:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Strong Support, great asset to the project. Roy A.A. 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Thanks for helping me cite DECv ;) --Deon555|talk|e 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Yes please. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support He always do lots of work in Wikipedia, and never abused tools. Good editor. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support -- ADNghiem501 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Yanksox 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Seems like a good maintanence person. He has helped to point out some oversighted overprotected pages. I hope you help me out with WP:PP after making admin.Voice-of-All 05:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support excellent contributor. Stubbleboy 05:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support positive contributor to Wikipedia, including posts aimed at educating editors. Stephen B Streater 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Ack! I got up in the night and look at the auto-updated userpage of mine, and it says "Hey dummy, Cowman109's on RfA" and I just had to stop and give my MedCab Obligatory Support. You couldn't ask for a fairer, more reasonable admin! I'd offer you luck, Cowman, but you won't need it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 08:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, positive contributor. --TheM62Manchester 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
44. No reason not to... Support ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support hell yeah! Computerjoe's talk 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Dedicated to helping the project in whatever ways he can - absolutely! --Aguerriero (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support -- per comment on the oppose vote --T-rex 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support, I think we have nice admin material there :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - Has significant experience in controversial matters, and definitely can be trusted. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
50. 50th support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per the above. --Coemgenus 01:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
53. I Tawker with the power invested in me to vote in this RFA do indeed support Cowman109's attempt to obtain adminship. This support does not contain any fine print whatsoever however it comes with no warranty whatsoever and may be backed by uncited claims. Use of this support is at your own risk and Tawker will assume no responsibility for it (and man I write bad legal crap :o) -- Tawker 01:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
55. Support as solid contributor, will make responsible admin. —Xyrael _{/ 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
56. Support per Xyra: will make a solid admin. Bucketsofg✐ 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
57. --SB | T 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. I've had nothing but good experiences with you. You seem very level-headed. Luna Santin 23:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. As I said when I opposed Cowman109's RFA last time for lack of experience, "I anticipate supporting in the future", and here I am doing so. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
61. Weak Support; low on the article work. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
62. Support looks great. No problems here. Wikipediarules2221 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
63. Support - He's good to work with on MedCab and he's definitely ready for the upgrade. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
64. Holy cow - I thought I had already supported! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Good Cowboy. Weird Bird 13:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose In my opinion administrators should have experience on article creation, commitment and improvement and I don't see enough of these to support. Joelito (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hello Joelito : - ) I agree that it is important for all users to work on articles. Our community's primary mission is writing an encyclopedia. That's why I was pleased when I saw the work he did on this article with a cleanup tag. [4] IMO, the nom did a good job cleaning up the article and getting rid of one of our many articles tagged for cleanup. Take care, FloNight ^talk 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Nice, but ultimately not enough to change my vote. Joelito (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. No FA? None I can see, anyway. -- Миборовский 23:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   You might want to consider grounding your opposition in logic.--SB | T 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   One could apply the very same advice to your own participation hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Miborovsky means that he'd like to see at least one featured article. That's actually not a bad criterion for a featured article type admin (see RFA talk for my comments on that). Do note that Cowman109 more of a mediator/wikigovernance kind of person. Kim Bruning 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. neutral Little actual editorial contribution to articles, and <1k mainspace edits. Popular enough with the RFA crowd to get adminship, but I'm unmoved by editorial contributions. Pete.Hurd 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hi Cowman, in answer to your question about my neutral comment on your RFA. As an admin you will be making decisions that relate to edits made to articles in the encyclopdeia, sooner or later, everything here boils down to what goes into the articles. I think it's reasonable to expect some experience in making substantive contributions to articles. In the past, some RFA voters have voiced the opinion that an sucessful candidate ought to have made a real contribution to an article that has reached featured article status. My expectations are not nearly that high. Pete.Hurd 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Great answers, seems like a great candidate, but I believe that my criteria of 1000 article edits is not overly excessive. Looks like the nom will get the tools, but if he doesn't I will support on re-app with a few more edits under his belt. Themindset 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

#Neutral (edit conflict saved this from being a weak oppose) - Nothing personal, and has been doing some admirable work identifying copyvios in the Scrubs articles. He did (politely) ask me if an article I'd created was a copyvio from certain sources. Since it clearly wasn't, this possibly shows a lack of initiative and confidence in making a simple judgement? (this quasi-incident was very lame and flimsy so I don't want to make a big deal from that, esp. since Cowman was doing admirable copyvio work). My second reason for oppose is that he didn't respond to my reply; just a quick note to say 'OK thanks' would have been appreciated. I think this shows a lack of an important communication skill: asking if a user is being honest in their submissions should be treat with care and optimum politeness. Nothing personal at all, and keep up the great work. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - withdrawn due to subsequent polite msg. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.