Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cowman109

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Cowman109

Final (21/13/0) ended 22:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109 (talk · contribs) – Cowman has effectively been the head of the Mediation Cabal since Fasten became inactive. There has been a major shift in the cabal under Cowman109's leadership and the time to get a mediator assigned to a case is now averaging about a day. Cowman109 himself has taken numerous cases and more importantly has done all the support work: talking to mediators, keeping them focused, organizing and archiving material, discussion policy... required to make the cabal function. He's shown exactly the kinds of willingness to serve the community and leadership needed for the position of admin. I think his mediation case history proves his ability and willingness to handle controversy exceptionally well.

He's also active in Esperanza, though I can't comment in detail on his work there. I do know however that he developed some of their templates. Looking at his earliest edits you can see he was active in the fight against vandalism during 2005 and thus his tradition has been long-standing. jbolden1517Talk 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for nominating me. While I feel my edit count may be a little bit on the low end, hovering a little bit below 1500, I am eager to actively help in areas needing administrator attention. Therefore, I graciously accept this nomination. Cowman109Talk 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I will do as has been suggested and work more on article space edits - I am withdrawing my acceptance of this nomination so I can work on this first. Thanks for your support. Cowman109Talk 22:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Nominator support - An honor to cast the first vote for the reasons listed above. jbolden1517Talk 02:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support looks fine to me. I like the smile campaign. Smile! :-) --Tone 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. YES! Thank you for the smiles!!! :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support insofar as I can see, everything looks amazing. joturner 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Computerjoe's talk 20:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. :) Support - great user who can use the tools -- Tawker 20:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support despite low edit count. Work at mediation and protection more than overcomes lack edits in other areas. :) Dlohcierekim 21:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support And note that edit count here is misleading since Cowman has handled mediations by email. JoshuaZ 21:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Actually I don't believe I responded to more than 2 cases by e-mail, so the edit counts from that would be very minimal. Cowman109Talk 21:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    In that case, note his honesty for saying so. JoshuaZ 02:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per above. DarthVader 22:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Every reason to. RadioKirk talk to me 23:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support ForestH2
  11. Support --Osbus 23:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. No reasons to believe that his edit count is lower higher than his civility and experience. Fetofs Hello! 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support His conduct is a good role model for fellow wikipedians.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support. His experience in the mediation cabal will prove an invaluable background for his adminship. 24.57.137.160 01:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for your support, but Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About RfA states Who may not vote: Editors who are not logged in ("anons"), or do not have an account. Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry. Cowman109Talk 01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support for the sometimes thankless and much needed Mediation Cabal work, I override my own editcountitis. Sandy 01:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support(thanks for striking out a support vote for yourself by an anon.) Have seen him almost everywhere on WP:RFPP commenting about requests, so I think it's time to allow him to take on these - by giving him the mop. Kimchi.sg 01:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    *Cough* Actually it was GHe who striked out the anon. I just removed the numbering. Cowman109Talk 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support per above. Would make great admin despite lower edit counts.—G.He 02:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Appears to be doing very well with the Mediation Cabal and other tasks, and interest in an uncommon admin area will be useful. Edit counts may be low, but editcountitis (inflammation of the edit count) has its own problems. --Elkman - (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, won't abuse the mop. --Rory096 05:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support per nomination. Keeping people happy and providing leadership through example is just as important as mainspace edits. Good answers, too. GChriss 05:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support as per nom. I've seen the man around and he does some good editing.--Eva db 12:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, I think that an admin should have stronger interest to the Article space than his 378 contributions (only 128 major) suggests. abakharev 23:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose due to concerns brought by User:Alex Bakharev above. Involvement in the actual purpose of Wikipedia (to produce an encyclopedia) seems too low at this point. —CuiviénenT|C, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 00:40 UTC
    In response to the above comments, I would like to note that while I generally have not added extensive amounts of content to articles, I focus more on grammar, formatting, and copyediting of articles in the main namespace. In my March contributions there was a good deal of copy-editing of articles that were apparently poorly translated. These edits I marked as minor as they were mainly dealing with grammar points (I did always enjoy grammar in school). Cowman109Talk 00:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per abakharev. Naconkantari 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose lack of contributions to articles. Joelito (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose up-and-coming editor, just needs a little more time and edits to demonstrate knowledge of policy, trend looks good though, mediation participation a good sign, I anticipate supporting in the future. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Naconkantari. Not ready now. --Cyde↔Weys 06:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Too less contribution to article space worries me. He is level-headed and definitely a future "admin material" (as people would put it). Spend some more time on the encyclopedia editing articles and you will get my support. As I would put it: User knows the knife, but not the butter. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Article contributions a bit tow low, along with edits/day. Keep up the good work though. Recognition of errors and POV will increase with time and article edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 07:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Level headed, and definitly future admin material, but too little experience in project space (outside of your excellent work in the mediation cabal) to give confidence that you know the 'ways of the mop'. Some back soon with some good experience of *fd/rfa/drv, and I'd easily support you, but not yet. Sorry. MartinRe 10:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. A little more experience shall be better. --Bhadani 11:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, pretty much as per above. This is an encyclopaedia, not a web community, and the paucity of article space edits suggest there'd be too little familiarity with article issues, which is what admins mainly need to deal with. Proto||type 14:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose; I don't think this user has put enough effort into the encyclopedia. I admire his MedCab work, but still can't support. Ral315 (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose This nomination is simply too soon: too few article edits and too few project edits suggests lack of experience. Keep up the good work, and come back in at least three months. Xoloz 22:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments All user's edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Cowman109 (over the 1477 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 178 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 18, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 23, October, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 76.09% Minor edits: 94.5%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 86.67% Minor article edits: 94.14%
Average edits per day (current): 8.28
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 0.41% (6)
Unique pages edited: 484 | Average edits per page: 3.05 | Edits on top: 12.32%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 26%
Minor edits (non reverts): 45.09%
Marked reverts: 18.55%
Unmarked edits: 10.36%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 25.59% (378) | Article talk: 4.74% (70)
User: 8.26% (122) | User talk: 25.25% (373)
Wikipedia: 31.48% (465) | Wikipedia talk: 1.49% (22)
Image: 0.07% (1)
Template: 3.05% (45)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.07% (1)

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: I have long had my eye on Requests for Protection and I feel that it is generally under the watch of only 2 or 3 administrators. I began giving my opinion on request for protection cases until I realized that my actions were only causing confusion (woops). If I were to become an administrator I would definitely help with protecting and unprotecting pages there, and would request consensus for incidents that are borderline. Lately I have also began voting in Redirects for Deletion, though I still am trying to learn more of the procedure for how it works. Just recently as well I have noticed that the category list for articles labled for speedy deletion is often quite full, so they could use some help there as well.
I have, for some reason, enjoyed doing janitorial work such as helping organize the Mediation Cabal. While some might think the next step up would be the Mediation Committee, I actually prefer the laid back, informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, so I would remain there, hoping my status as a sysop does not become a source of conflict.
I don't intend to focus heavily on fighting vandalism and blocking users: that area is pretty much handled by a dedicated team of people over at Vandalism in progress. My vandalism fighting, however, is mostly done with the help of Navigation popups, and I try to make sure that what I'm reverting does not remove any helpful information that might have been caught in between vandalism. From time to time I also sift through the recent changes list to look into any vandalism in progress as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am most pleased with my work in the Mediation Cabal, among my actions there is the mediation of cases, keeping the related opentasks list updated, and assisting in reducing the backlog of inactive cases. I'm naturally an empathetic person so I look to help people with disputes in any way possible. I have learned through my participation in the Mediation Cabal to recognize different viewpoints of matters and to always maintain a calm, friendly matter.
A second set of contributions I'm pleased with would be the creation of the Smile Campaign I started to help spread the Wikilove, to quote the smile templates directly. I fiddled with several different concepts for the smile campaign, though I feel that thus far it has been a success, as even Jimbo recieved one (or 3). This campaign has pretty much started itself and now others are handling the majority of the Wikilove-spreading. Sometimes, though, I do give off a few smiles to stressed users who need one.
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: Mainly dealing with Mediation Cabal cases, I am naturally inclined to work to deal with conflict and other users' stress. However, sometimes incidents are either beyond my control or I am simply unable to handle matters, such as an incident involving a user who had difficulty conveying his thoughts in English. I have learned to assume good faith, however, (though during an old incident at Talk:Latino concerning a user who would not respond to talk dicussion, I admit I may have become a bit upset and probably appeared aggressive, though I have learned to not repeat that same mistake).
I also admit I become a tad stressed when users do not act with civility towards each other, though I try to defuse the situation by focusing more on why the person in question would be unhappy so I can understand where the frustration is coming from. I am a firm believer of not biting newcomers, as well.
The above 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.