Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GlassCobra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] GlassCobra

Closed as successful by Cecropia 23:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC) at (61/3/1); Scheduled to end 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra (talk · contribs) - Jmlk17, my admin coach, was supposed to nominate me, but seeing as he is on a Wikibreak for an indefinite amount of time, I decided to be bold and nominate myself. Hopefully he won't be too angry with me. :)

I've been with the project since late April of this year. My most passionate involvement is and probably always will be combating vandalism. I have close to 3,000 pages on my watchlist and try to keep an eye on them. I'm active at WP:AIV, WP:XFD, WP:UAA/WP:RFCN, the Help Desk (and keep an eye on various other help forums), and am relatively active here at RFA as well. I have a very high user talk count because I'm diligent about warning users and IPs whose actions I revert, and will sometimes even warn users who I haven't been involved with if I see that they haven't been warned properly. To me, communicating with other users is very important, whether it's warning for vandalism or collaborating on projects, or even just a friendly note to say hey.

I'm active at WikiProject Redwall; I revived it after it had been tagged as inactive. We're currently working on developing a quality scale to judge articles, as well as creating a Redwall portal. If sysopped, I'd immediately place myself into Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall; I want to remain as open as I possibly can. I'm not going to pretend that I know every nook and cranny of this place, especially the minutia of image copyright policy. If I get the tools, I will start out very slow to get a feel for them, but I am an eager and quick learner. I see being an admin as an area of learning and building up knowledge through practical experience. However, it is also my belief that Wikipedia is a perpetual learning experience; as the project grows and evolves, so must we all. I want to help Wikipedia run smoothly as possible. I can already do this on some level without being an admin, but I can do more by being one. GlassCobra 23:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept my nomination from myself. :) GlassCobra 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: The number one task I would use the tools for would be to fight vandalism, plain and simple. Upholding the quality of articles is paramount. Being given the extra buttons will certainly speed things up, especially at WP:AIV and WP:UAA, where I'm already pretty active, as well as Newpages and Recentchanges patrol. As an admin, I'd be able to more efficiently deal with persistent vandals and spammers with blocks, as well as help out at WP:RFPP. I'm not terribly active at WP:ANI at the moment, though I do read it quite often, my participation there and at WP:AN would go up were I to get the mop since I could actually take action. I would also delete pages at AfD as consented by the community, and help out in other XfD areas. I've got over a thousand mainspace edits, and I only predict that going up. What I'd really like to try my hand at is going through the massive amount of backlogs, both regular and administrative, that we've accumulated. We have thousands upon thousands of pages of CSDs and PRODs to be deleted, articles to be cleaned up and referenced, neutralized and categorized. I'd also like to get more involved with policy discussions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Some people who require an FA from an admin candidate will object to my lack of fulfillment in this particular criteria; however, this isn't for lack of knowledge of our writing standards. Rather, I feel that while it is very important that we improve as many articles as we can to a level on par with the professional paper encyclopedias, it is also our duty as an online encyclopedia to have as many articles as possible at even a readable level, a level that will make it at least useful to someone trying to do research on a particular subject. We have a host of editors dedicated to the task of improving articles to FA status, and I trust their judgment. While there have been a few articles that I've brought out from stub status or otherwise cleaned up, I don't really think any of those are worth bragging about. I do have one GA that I wrote and promoted almost entirely by myself, Manila Hotel. You can see that I was the one that tagged it with a CSD almost immediately after it was created as a one sentence stub that said "Built in 1919." Indeed, if I hadn't done some quick research, this article probably would have been lost. I spent about a day researching and writing the article, and was very proud when it was awarded GA status. As I mentioned above, I'm also proud of my contributions to the Redwall WikiProject, including making all of the articles in Category:Redwall characters consistent. I'm also proud of my defense against vandalism, particularly on Spells in Harry Potter, The End's Not Near, It's Here, and List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction, among others.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: To date, I haven't been in any truly major conflicts, though I've been involved in some very heavy edit warring on vandalism on various articles, especially Spells in Harry Potter, and brushed against the 3RR rule, also on the aforementioned article. I am sometimes frustrated by our policies, but I know that they are vitally important to keep us from descending into chaos. I am not afraid to ask for help when I need it, or to solicit third, fourth, or fiftieth opinions on matters. I'm confident that I can keep my cool as an admin; I can comfortably stand by my positions if I'm confident in their basis, but I'm not so stubborn that I'm unwilling to yield in the face of good arguments. I am perfectly aware that being an administrator inherently comes with more controversy and more conflicts, as many decisions are not black-and-white and are bound to create discord. I await the challenge. The editing conflicts that occasionally arise here are a very small downside to the benefits of having a free enycylopedia which is built by thousands of volunteers from all corners of the planet. Wikipedia's open sourced nature, the concept of "anyone can edit", will inevitably lead to people who are overenthusiastic or have differing opinions on what should be included or what should not, and this is truly what makes it great.
4. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?
A: As I said above, I would most definitely add myself (different than being willing to add myself) to the category. Just because I pass an RfA once should not mean that I'm set for life. This is actually similar to a belief that I hold about driver's licenses; it seems to me that a lot of bad driving could be solved by occasionally requiring drivers to re-take the test. Now, this is not to say that I want to be recalled a whole bunch of times; but I do want to get the message across that I will hold myself to a very high standard, and expect others to do the same, not only of me, but of themselves.
5. Optional Question from Hdt83
Q. How do you interpret the meaning of WP:IAR and when do you think this policy should be applied?
A. IAR is one of our most important, if relatively little-known, policies. It's part of the policy trifecta to serve as our constant reminder that we are ultimately accountable to the spirit of the rule over the letter. In practice, IAR is the last resort if policy is somehow impeding the improvement of an article; in other words, sort of a last measure if there's some situation that falls between the spaces between existing policies. Our rules are constantly changing and growing, and it makes sense that we should have some kind of backup. I've never seen it cited (properly), aside from exceptions to policies. It seems to me that one can't really see these kinds of situations coming, but instead has to be able to recognize them and use IAR properly.
6. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?
A: I definitely would not simply unblock the user, as I find that very discourteous, and would probably be offended if another admin were to simply reverse my decision so. Instead, I would discuss it with the other administrator and explain my position. Like it says in the blocking policy, it may not be immediately obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to confer with the blocking admin.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/GlassCobra before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Further reference:

Feel free to read these! GlassCobra 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • RFA extension request. I request that this RfA be extended for a few extra days. User:GlassCobra just compared a fellow editor who thought a 12-year-old might be too immature to be an admin to a racist (see [1]). This comment is highly offensive and, since it just occurred within the last few hours, should be considered by editors before this RfA is closed.--Alabamaboy 12:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstood the context and the intent of the comment. It is not racist, nor is it calling anyone racist. An 11 year old editor did not support someone else, who doesn't believe a 12 year old is mature enough to be an admin. The oppose was challenged, so Cobra likened it to an African American being unable to support someone who was racist. Not at all the same thing; he is using an analogy, to illustrate the point a previous editor was making. Nowhere is he calling anyone racist, nor is he commenting on anyone else's views, but merely using an analogy. (repeated below under the "strong oppose") Ariel♥Gold 12:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't misunderstand the comment. Any comparison of ageism in this context to racism is highly offensive. The RfA should be extended so this can be considered.--Alabamaboy 12:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      The comparison is valid in the context in which it is made - I agree with Ariel on this one. Orderinchaos 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      As do I. There is support after the comment as well. DGG (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support John254 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. The candidate has done a good job answering RfA questions and appears to be a good, helpful member of the community. As far as I can tell the candidate is even-tempered and helpful. Nice work on the Manila Hotel article; this shows that you've gone to the effort to build an article from the ground up. While I wish you had some more experience, I suspect you'll be a good admin. Majoreditor 02:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Great answers to all questions. Should do fine as an admin! PatPolitics rule! 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Intelligent answers and we can't get enough vandal fighters! Marlith T/C 04:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Great answers to the questions and a helpful member to the community. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support Would be as nom, but I have been MIA for a bit.  :) Jmlk17 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Futughitryke Support as above --Pumpmeup 09:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, GA was instrumental in getting my support - we all need to be 'pedia builders. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. I'm familiar with his work from various points around Wikipedia and based on that and on what I see in scanning his contributions feel that he'll make good use of the mop. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support per questions and contributions to the good of the project. (Side Note: There are some really solid candidates on the board today, and you're clearly one of them.) K. Scott Bailey 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support great answers and contributions. You are ready. Good luck. Carlosguitar 16:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Good luck! Dustihowe 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. This intelligent editor consistently makes good contributions to AfD that are based on a sound knowledge of the underlying principles and I'm sure he will be just as good an administrator. Accounting4Taste 17:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Impressive answers and looks to be a fine editor. LАМВDОІD T C 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. The answers really show that he is very familiar with the policies and his contributions clearly show that he has put them into practice correctly. I'm sure he will not abuse the use of the mop :) AngelOfSadness talk 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Active user, experience show in the area of vandalism with over 60 edits to AIV. Strongly doubt that he will abuse the tools and nice answers to questions! Tiddly-Tom 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Ρх₥α 20:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support A civil and intelligent editor, no desire for the tools except to help out, very strong answers to the Q's and great WP:AFD work. Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support You know what you're doing. Happy Administrating! J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Great answers. east.718 at 21:57, 10/29/2007
  22. Support. Very fine editor. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support good editor, lots of CSD work and deleted edits to prove it. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support, an excellent editor and Wikipedian - will make a fine admin. Dreadstar † 05:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, I'm impressed with GC's overall work. ~ Sebi 07:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support per nom! Keep up the great work, Glass Cobra, you will make us all proud! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support fine user. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. TIME TO GIVE THE MOP TO GLASS COBRA!!!. I've seen him around as a good user several times. NHRHS2010 talk 11:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support as he's done very useful work on Harry Potter articles, WP:AIV, etc. Can be trusted well. Bearian 13:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - Good answers. Strong editor. Lara❤Love 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. I like this user. Have seen him round before and has dedicated qualities that are key to Wikipedia editors. Rudget Contributions 16:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - this is easy. Jauerback 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. We have had a few disagreements on the Spells in Harry Potter article, but he is still a great editor and will be an even greater editor. Best of luck! Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Super! Meets my standards. Pigmanwhat?/trail 02:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Um, of course... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. the_undertow talk 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support, per all of the above. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  38. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - Per all above! Give 'em the mop. Tiptoety 04:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  41. Well I owe Jmlk17 a favor so... --DarkFalls talk 09:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. Seems to be a vigilant anti-vandalism worker and cleaner-upper who I believe would make good use of the tools. From what I've seen at WP:AFD and elsewhere, a helpful and good-humoured contributor. --Kateshortforbob 11:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Strong answers and contributions. I've also seen GC's work around, and it seems GC will be great with a mop. --Bfigura (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support <<no comment>> :) Phgao 03:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support, looks good. --Coredesat 05:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  46. Weak support; candidate indicates that they may deal with speedy deletion backlogs, but only as their seventh priority – Gurch 06:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for your support, Gurch! I wanted to tell you that the way I had listed things was definitely not my priority order. In fact, I saved mentioning the backlogs until the end because I wanted to emphasize that it was a rather high priority for me (i.e. "What I'd really like to try my hand at"). :) GlassCobra 13:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  47. He is a good user. Good luck!--SJP 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support Good editor, and even Gurch likes him. Sort of. - KrakatoaKatie 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  49. Great user, I've been impressed with GC - support Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support--MONGO 01:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Has great answers; impressed me on more than one occasion; recently saved my userpage from vandalism; why not? Ichormosquito 10:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support - This candidate's answer to Q3 shows good experience as an editor and knows the challenges we have with difference of opinions on the project. Here's my trust. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support answers to the questions, taking the bold step of self nominating when it known to draw negative responses. I see nothing in GC edits to be concerned about. Gnangarra 00:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    comment reviewed my position in light of extension request by User:Alabamaboy using an an analogy to describe a situation isnt racist I see no reason to reconsider my position Gnangarra 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  54. Heh, turns out I know GlassCobra from another website, as well as this one. Definitely have no problem with him being an admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 09:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support I've had the pleasure of getting to know GC over the past months, and I've looked into his contributions. I'm impressed with his willingness to work with others, his civility, and his ability to communicate. His answers to the questions further illustrate his respect for fellow editors, and his sense of community. I have no concerns whatsoever, and feel that GlassCobra would be a wonderful addition to the current administrative team. Ariel♥Gold 11:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support An excellent candidate, highly likely to use the mop to the benefit of Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support Good candidate. People want this extended, why not shorten it? wiki would be better for it. Twenty Years 15:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support Shows a good understanding of both policy and of the practical dimensions of the job. DGG (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  60. No reason to oppose. Acalamari 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support no reason not too, and I think it was a great analogy. Dureo 18:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    I thought you stoped with that crap. Jbeach sup 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    If he asked me to nominate him, I would have. He's a great editor and passionate about the project. He doesn't show much other evidence of having power hunger in my opinion. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but I ask you to reconsider. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    I love RfAs! K. Scott Bailey 01:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Also Kurt, GlassCobra mentioned that he was being BOLD by doing a self-nom. I am his admin coach, and have recently been on a wikibreak of sorts. I would have more than gladly nominated him. Jmlk17 03:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose for comparing a fellow editor who thought a 12-year-old might be too immature to be an admin to a racist (see [2]). This comment is highly offensive and, since it just occurred, I'd suggest this RfA be extended a few days so people can decide if it matters toward this person becoming an admin.--Alabamaboy 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstood the context and the intent of the comment. It is not racist, nor is it calling anyone racist. An 11 year old editor did not support someone else, who doesn't believe a 12 year old is mature enough to be an admin. The oppose was challenged, so Cobra likened it to an African American being unable to support someone who was racist. Not at all the same thing; he is using an analogy, to illustrate the point a previous editor was making. Nowhere is he calling anyone racist, nor is he commenting on anyone else's views, but merely using an analogy. Ariel♥Gold 12:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    No, I didn't misunderstand the comment and I didn't say he was making a racist comment. However, even implying that an editor is racist for thinking a 12-year-old might not be mature is offensive. But other people are free to draw their own conclusions. However, the RfA should be extended so this can be considered.--Alabamaboy 12:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that such an implication would be unacceptable, but support Ariel's reading that the candidate did not imply this. His analogy seems straightforward to me: young editor's response to ageist candidate is like African American editor's response to racist candidate. Nowhere do I see an implication that ageism is racist or that the candidate being accused of ageism is. I don't even see an agreement that the candidate is ageist. One might presume that if he held such negative views, he might withdraw his own "strong support" of the candidate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    I do see how GlassCobra may not have intended his comment to be taken as comparing LaraLove to a racist and, if that's the case, I look forward to him explaining the statement. I'm always willing to change my mind on a situation.--Alabamaboy 13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    I assure you, Alabamaboy, that I was not at all trying to imply that Lara was a racist in any way, shape, or form. Thanks to Ariel and Moonriddengirl for helping me out, and they had it exactly right; it was merely an analogy, nothing more. I apologize if you thought it was done in bad faith, but I meant absolutely nothing by it. As Moonriddengirl noted, I did strongly support Lara and would not even consider changing my vote. GlassCobra 15:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the thoughtful response, GlassCobra. I changed my strong oppose to a weak oppose per Xoloz's reasoning below (and I agree with xoloz that this should not now derail your RfA). While the comment still disturbs me, I now see you did not intend it to be an attack on LaraLove in any way. I've also struck the request that the RfA be extended. Best,--Alabamaboy 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose per Alabamaboy. I'm sure the candidate didn't mean for his statement to be interpreted harshly, but that analogy was still a poor choice. When an argument arises over a controversial subject, mentioning other controversial subjects often generates more "heat than light", adding "more fuel to the fire." (see Godwin's law.) While I don't really think this slip-up should derail the candidate's RfA, I do wish to caution him to be more temperate in the future. (Don't worry... this particular skill is one that I also had to learn on-wiki -- in law school, they adore controversial analogies! The more heat, the better! :) Xoloz 15:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    I understand. Thanks for the advice! :) GlassCobra 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral. I am concerned about the comment you made towards LaraLove's RfA.[3] Another editor has responded with similiar concerns. [4]. The original discussion was ageism, yet you compared Lara as a racist. Can you explain your reason behind making that comment? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. He has explained his reasonings under oppose #2 above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2007 (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.