Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 7 May 2008

Coppertwig

Voice your opinion (talk page) (34/15/9); Scheduled to end 02:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) – Coppertwig has been active since November 2006

Nomination by Avi. Coppertwig initially came on my radar screen due to edits to a particularly contentious and tendentious article. What struck me was Coppertwig's constant control, calm demeanor, rational posting, and intense effort in trying to craft an article that adhered to our standards of neutrality. What truly set Coppertwig apart, was the demonstrated remarkable civility, if not downright cordiality, in dealing with the involved parties, even in the face of contentious disagreements between the parties. Regardless of how heated the discussions became, Coppertwig made the extra efforts to involve parties in mediation and attempt as best as possible to resolve disputes through the application of reason, logic, and polite discourse. Through these efforts alone, Coppertwig has demonstrated the the decision making and judgment that I feel is a prerequisite for wiki sysops, both in the areas of policy and guideline, as well as the area of dealing with project participants. Coppertwig has that rare synergy of the mettle to enforce our rules with sanctions, and the diplomacy to explain, and often prevent the need for, the applications of those sanctions. I am honored to be able to nominate Coppertwig for adminship! -- Avi (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Rudget. Coppertwig is a unique character (especially in respects to the reasons I began to communicate with him). I first met with Copper in my request for adminship in January. CT has systematically and categorically been the single-most admired user, I've probably ever had the opportunity to work with (that sounds a little overstated, but it is uniformly correct). Since they began editing in November 2006, they have amassed near 9500 edits including around 400 deleted versions.

A user who focuses on improving relations between users, community cohesion and overall resolve of situations, Coppertwig has been (some might say unluckily) in the position of mediating disputes or by resolving them by other means. CT is an intelligent and clueful user who diligently aids others when they are in need of assistance (1, 2). He helps further, often by providing invaluable insight or other comments which are of use (3, 4, 5), making edits which are relevant to the appropriate page (6). CT helps provide further assistance, particularly at the three-revert-rule violation noticeboard and the administrators incident noticeboard. A consistent user who "prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war", Copper abides by a 1RR system and is part of the harmonious editing club.

In mainspace terms, Coppertwig isn't as active in the reversion of edits by anonymous editors (or registered accounts for that matter) as some of our other editors, however, he vastly makes up for this in article-building terms with extensive work already being conducted on Medical analysis of circumcision, Hellenistic art, Essential nutrient, to name but a few. Able to speak French (something, I've never been able to grasp) Coppertwig has on many occasions attempted to help translate between Français and Anglais (random examples).

In consideration of all that above (and those edits which have been specified here), I am exceptionally glad to nominate Coppertwig for adminship. An outstanding candidate, I would be extremely surprised if this request for adminship didn't pass 150. I would ask the community to support this nomination. Rudget 13:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Moonriddengirl – I am pleased to have the opportunity to co-nominate Coppertwig, who strikes me as an extremely diligent contributor. I find him (or her. For convenience, I'm sticking with "him") unfailingly civil and highly motivated in helping others navigate Misplaced Pages. I am impressed by the tricky work he has undertaken in attempting to mediate disputes, including the considerable amount of time he has put into assisting at the 3RR noticeboard. He does not shy away from expressing & explaining his opinions even if they are not universally popular, which is good, but does not rely on bluster or disregard alternate opinions, which would be bad. In other words, he's not a sheep, but he's not closed or aggressive...which is just the combination we need. I think his work in the area of dispute resolution and 3RR will benefit by the use of the tools in protecting pages and, when necessary and appropriate, blocking 3RR violators. My observations of his approach suggest that he will be prudent in using these tools, will ask other opinions if in doubt, and will be meticulous in considering feedback. Further, I have no fears about his handling of other areas of admin work. He is sensible and conscious of community standards, and I have all faith in his knowledge of speedy criteria, given that he wrote or co-wrote most of the templates. :) (See 1, 2, 3 & 4). Coppertwig has considerable integrity, and I do not believe he will abuse the tools. I hope you will investigate his contributions and join me in my confidence. --Moonriddengirl 13:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: At first I plan to work on 3RR, where I've been helping regularly since March 20, and RM. Later I may do CSD and RFPP, and as I develop my knowledge I may move on to other areas. Moonriddengirl has kindly agreed to provide new admin coaching.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: My best contribution was shortening Circumcision according to WP:SUMMARY, moving material into (existing) sub-articles, as described here. It's a controversial article, yet the shortened version I came up with was accepted with essentially no complaint from either side. I also wrote Confidence region, Women's rights in Canada, Leaders' debate on women's issues during the 1984 Canadian federal election campaign and a few other articles listed at User:Coppertwig/Contributions; and I helped develop new versions of the CSD templates.

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: I've been involved in some editing disputes, but more recently as I've broadened my participation and realized that there isn't time for everything I've found it easier to let some things go.
A number of times when I received what I considered to be a personal attack, I re-read WP:NPA with the intention of doing something about it; but each time I reluctantly came to the conclusion that this, too, was a situation where ignoring it was the best option. I redirect the energy from personal attacks against myself into doing what I can to respond to personal attacks against other people, where it's more likely that my intervention might do some good.
I make mistakes from time to time, often apologize or strike out some of my words or both (example), and try to learn from my mistakes.

Optional questions from RyRy5

4. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?

A:

5. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?

A:

Optional question from Dorftrottel

6. From Avi's nomination: "Coppertwig initially came on my radar screen due to edits to a particularly contentious and tendentious article." — Which article would that be? What made or makes it "particularly contentious and tendentious"?

A:

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 7. Would you describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
• 7a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A:

• 7b. ...a page to be protected?

• A:

• 7c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A:

• 8. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an WP:XFD discussion, a WP:DRV discussion, and an WP:RM discussion.

• A:

• 9. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A:

Optional questions from Editorofthewiki

• 10. How would you determina admin abuse and, if you encountered it, how would you deal with it. By extension, how would you deal with an established editor that starts to be disruptive?

• A:

General comments

• Links for Coppertwig: Coppertwig (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• Should not the community see AGF in a positive light? Of course, there are limits to what should exist between the boundaries of assuming good faith, and of course if those affected by a banned or indefinitely blocked editor are unwilling (right so, I don't know, I've never come across the particular user mentioned in the oppose section) to negotiate an unblock, then surely there should be at least one who has different views. Of course, as we can see, this user was (from what I can see, block log etc.) disruptive, and I personally would not encourage ArbCom to list a case which could involve the un-banning of that editor. However, Coppertwig's actions in only one case is, what I feel, a unfair representation and only serves as a generalisation, somewhat insinuating that Coppertwig would desire to see banned editors, unbanned. Have the opposers got any other diffs which they can show which may support their arguments? Rudget (Help?) 15:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know this editor or his editing history and I don't feel I need to vote on this, but I'm a little surprised to seem him opposed for "having an anti-science POV"; I'm also surprised at User:Orangemarlin's blanket statement that creationists, inter alia, should not be admins. I also note that many of the opposers are people I've seen working on controversial evolutionism/ID-related articles. I always get the impression, regrettably, that a polemical and confrontational mentality seems to have evolved in that particular topic area, with articles becoming partisan battlegrounds; editors who seem to be advocating more favourable coverage of intelligent design theory tend to be greeted with suspicion. Don't get me wrong; this isn't anyone's fault and I'm not accusing anyone of pushing an agenda. But I don't quite know why the prevailing mentality seems to be that our articles are under siege from some kind of army of ID advocates who must be stopped at all costs. Bear in mind that this is only a layman's view, since I am no scientist and am not qualified to comment on these topic areas (hence why I rarely edit such articles). But I think it would be a bit more constructive for those with differing views on the evolution-ID controversy to try and work together to build a neutral article, as happens very successfully in most other areas of the project. Just my $0.02. Please tell me if I've radically misunderstood the situation, which I acknowledge is a possibility. Walton 19:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would agree, and as Anthony.bradbury points out below, this was a few months ago. Is it really necessary to define a candidate by one event? In which case, failed anyway? The answer from me is no. Rudget (Help?) 19:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say you are not too far off. I know that I, for instance, wandered into some of these articles to make spelling, grammar changes, tightening of language, etc., and got pegged as some kind of creationist nutjob by some of the opposers here. There seems to be a slight seige mentality, but that also seems to come and go. I will also say that I am a bit disappointed to see so many opposes based on a stated willingness to unblock and mentor a user. Honestly, this has very little bearing on whether he or she will abuse the tools. For instance, Stifle also expressed an interest to unblock (conditionally supported by LessHeard vanU), and I am unaware of anyone who thinks Stifle (nor LessHeard vanU) isn't a good administrator. It's a shame what appears to be a good candidate (on first take... I haven't had time to do more than a cursory glance through his or her contributions... hence no vote here) being derailed over a willingness to try and help a user (POV pusher/fringer that he may be). Oh well. ʻAʻole pilikia. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. -- Avi (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2. beat 2 noms support ;p but seriously, i was under the impression that he was one. -- Naerii 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - Seems prone to gnomism but also seems dedicated to improving articles. Particularly impressed with concerted effort on Che Guevara. Shows no inclination towards abuse. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong support - per oppose #1 Great candidate with great nominators, over all no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Net positive. Tiptoety 03:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Support his talk page is dotted with Thank You's so he must be doing something right! -Icewedge (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Patient and diplomatic, Coppertwig has been helping out recently at the 3RR noticeboard. I first ran into Coppertwig in late 2006 when both of us were helping to translate the article on Hellenistic art from the French Misplaced Pages. Something Coppertwig finished recently was a project with Moonriddengirl and others to create new wording for all the message templates for WP:CSD, to agree better with the policies. (For instance, see this talk thread). Completing this reform shows a certain grasp of the Misplaced Pages policies and an ability to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Appears to be a consistent good-faith editor and I believe they'll make good use of the tools. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Appears to Assume Good Faith in every instance possible. That's what I like and what I think we need. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Support as a generally well-rounded user who keeps his cool. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - Per Tiptoety. Net positive. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. Outstanding neutrality and civility above and beyond the call of duty. Firm grasp of core policies and their practical, common sense application. A willingness to confront difficult, time consuming issues with diligence and patience. Blackworm (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
13. Support unlikely to abuse tools. Jpmonroe (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
14. I am supporting on the condition he is not involved in science-related issues with the admin tools, as I am concerned by the issues raised in opposition. Coppertwig, I would appreciate a comment in relation to this condition. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    I like my non-admin hat and plan to wear it frequently, for example in issues directly involving articles which I've been editing beyond minor, noncontroversial edits, or in issues in which I have specific opinions on article content, whether science-related or not. Admin tools are for preventing disruption, not for promoting one POV over another. Science is a broad category and not all topics would require seeking another administrator to handle situations; however, I've been avoiding editing any articles in the field of science in which I'm involved professionally. Coppertwig (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

15. Weak Support. The opposes bother me, but, like DHMO, I'm sure you'll keep away from science articles as an admin. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. Coppertwig engages in constructive discussions. I don't always agree with Coppertwig, and from what I remember of Iantresman I have grave doubts about whether he'll be able to contribute positively, but that's okay. I only expect admins to be able to follow consensus instead of their own opinions, and I'm sure that Coppertwig will do so; admins don't have to agree with me all the time. By the way, I've never discovered any unorthodox leanings from Coppertwig's edits of mathematics articles and I'd welcome Coppertwig's use of admin tools there. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
17. It's OK to have POVs.(vide Oppose 5 reg. anti-science POV!) All of us do. Hell, I have POVs. Being an admin for me is more about prioritizing quality of the article and integrity of Misplaced Pages above one's POVs, and I could not find a reason to think that this editor would do otherwise. Prashanthns (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
18. Support based on my interactions with this extraordinarily civil, thoughtful, diplomatic, and intelligent editor. Coppertwig describes his/her best contribution as shortening the circumcision article, which I had the pleasure of observing. It was boldly done, extraordinarily skilful, and yet with evident desire to ensure that the rationale for each edit was transparent, and that there was consensus throughout. I was delighted to sit back and watch in stunned amazement. Since then, Coppertwig and I have interacted regularly, sometimes in agreement and sometimes not, and I invariably look forward to reading his/her contributions. Last but not least, while we have our disagreements from time to time, I respect and - above all - trust Coppertwig. Jakew (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. First the discussion and opposes have latched onto a single incident that concerns them and frankly is a little concerning to me. User:Iantresman was not banned because he had a POV. He was banned for his bad conduct. But as regards User:Coppertwig, the idea that everyone must understand every situation in the exact same way is unwise. It's obvious the nominee sees the Iantresman case differently and suggested that the user be rehabilitated. While we may not agree with his conclusions we should respect that he has a right to speak his mind. Coppertwig did nothing wrong and worked transparently and within the system to bring about a change he thought proper. It's embarrassing for him to be opposed so vehemently because his opinion differs from others. Someone show me evidence that he would have wheel-warred over this or that he would reject consensus? He has shown coolness and cordiality which is always a useful characteristic. Therefore I conclude that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary he should be given the tools. -JodyB _talk 11:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. Seen you around. Malinaccier Public (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Support, no evidence whatsoever that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil 12:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
23. Support. A quiet, reflective Wikipedian, not likely to abuse the mop. I don't see a problem. Yaf (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Support. Over the 18 months that I have been aware of Coppertwig I have found him to be contributing to WP in ways well above normal. I have never seen Coppertwig "loose it", engage in personal attack or edit disruptively. Rather he has worked towards consensus. Coppertwig will do good work as an admin. SmithBlue (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
25. No evidence to suggest his alleged point of view will stop him being a rational, neutral admin. EJF (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Support as co-nom. :D I didn't realize we had gone live. --Moonriddengirl 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
27. Support. Stellar noms. Avruch 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Support per the nom statements and other supports above. Adminship for the candidate should be a net positive for the Project. Dlohcierekim 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Natürlich. Pro co-nominierung. Rudget (Help?) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. Accepting the "opposers" accusations as true, Coppertwig's views aren't that outlandish to warrant a ban on him becoming an admin, ecpecially when there's no history of him violating any policy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
31. Support Excellent editor, no reason for any concerns as an administrator. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Epbr123 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
33. Support due to reasonable statements I've seen the candidate make in discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
34. Wizardman 19:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I do not think that one bad call, some months ago, should be allowed to bar the adminship of an otherwise excellent candidate. --Anthony.bradbury 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Too quick to come to the defense of POV pushers and fringers, giving them the benefit of the doubt where no doubt exists. I've had concerns about his sense of priorities in the past, but his advocacy for unblocking User:Iantresman is the last straw. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Got diffs? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Are you doubting Raymond's word, or his assessment, or for some reason not willing to look for yourself in the candidate's contrib history? Dorftrottel (criticise) 04:23, May 7, 2008

   (ec) Sure. Try this thread. Iantresman has made two appeals to arbcom, both thankfully declined much to the relief of those of us who had to deal with his disruptive and tendentious editing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   (ec) I was asking if there are specific instances that Raymond (a) is concerned about, and (b) can conveniently provide links to. Yes, I've looked at the contribs. So far the "worst" thing I've seen is an essay containing some advice on how to get unblocked. I'm seeing mostly Che Guevara, of course, and I'm having difficulty seeing where the "POV pusher/fringer" opinion is coming from. I hope this post is long enough to be interpreted in good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 04:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Raymond and strong reservations about editor's tendencies. Baegis (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   This is all per the Che page and the associated questionable actions and GF from the Iantresman case, especially the part about telling the people who are supporting the status quo that it is our job to present evidence, or words to that effect. Just FYI, so no one asks. Baegis (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose well, unless hell froze over. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Raymond. The evidence given is troubling. —Dark 07:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose even if hell froze over. Raymond is putting it succinctly in the Iantresman unblocking push by Coppertwig. Anti-science POV editors cannot be expected to be admins that can uphold NPOV. OrangeMarlin 07:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Would you be willing to explain the last sentence, since I'm having trouble understanding it? Are you saying that no editor with some POV should become admin, or that there is something special about an anti-science POV which makes that while we can have admins with some POV, we can't have ones with an anti-science POV? I'm afraid that neither of these opinions makes much sense to me, so perhaps you're saying something else and I'm misunderstanding you completely. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   I may well be completely out of place here, but I would like to state that certain points of view are not just tolerable, but are absolutely required for encyclopedic content. To hold one who has a strong attachment towards science and rational thought in the same light that one would hold a homeopathetic Truther young-Earth Creationist is intellectually reprehensible, and only serves to encourage the relativist chattering that these glorified trolls spew forth on the talk pages of a wide range of articles. All points of view may be equal - as they're all, well, points of view. Some points of view - namely, those backed by the scientific method - are more equal than others. _{(and, no, ignorance is not strength)}--Badger Drink (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   I am a professional scientist and I support the scientific method, including not jumping to firm conclusions without evidence. Coppertwig (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Are you saying I'm jumping to a conclusion somewhere without evidence? Or am I missing something? --Badger Drink (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   No, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I was thinking in terms of article content and in terms of blocking someone without evidence such as diffs. I wasn't talking about you, Badger Drink. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Orange, I cant find anything (maybe I'm alookin in the wrong place) regarding his anti-science views. Can you provide a link? Thanks! Queerbubbles | 12:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   His request to unblock Iantresman is prima facie evidence of an anti-science attitude. I don't care if someone is a creationist or CAM-promoter or thinks that AIDS is caused by bad beer, and I don't care if they edit, but it is clear that they shouldn't be admins. Moreover, Coppertwig's support of the unblocking of Iantresman, despite several arbcomm rulings about him is typical of the anti-science POV. They are always right. And please, I do not want to further this conversation. Please ask Raymond these questions, because he might be more willing to answer.OrangeMarlin 14:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   This edit is the first anti-science edit I found after about 10 seconds. The evidence is quite significant with over 500 PubMed articles discussing it positively. However, in this edit, he's equivocating the data presented by much better secondary sources. Moreover, the biology is in support of this. OK, now I'm really done. OrangeMarlin 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Comment The diff that you offer indicates in edit summary that the change was made following talk page conversation. Indeed, consensus for that edit seems to have been several days in forming. I wasn't there for that conversation (I've never touched the article that I know of), but notes like "The major publications that express doubt that circumcision helps against HIV were published before the controlled trials and apparently said that we can't conclude it helps until we get the results of the controlled trials" don't really seem anti-science to me. I disagree with your conclusion that a request to unblock Iantresman is necessarily related to any kind of attitude about science. One of the earlier encounters I had with Coppertwig involved his need to address unintentionally harsh treatment of a new contributor (see specifics; for further context, see User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12). On the basis of that (being all sciency :)), I'm inclined to presume rather that Coppertwig is quite seriously concerned with seeing that contributors to Misplaced Pages are given fair treatment. Whether or not I agree in all specific cases, I find it hard to find fault in that. With regards to Iantresman, as JodyB expressed it so well above, Coppertwig "did nothing wrong and worked transparently and within the system to bring about a change he thought proper". Given the transparency with which he works, I see absolutely nothing to lead me to concern that he would abuse admin tools in attempting such mediations. I am concerned, moreover, that opposing admin candidates for differences of opinion, without evidence that such differences would lead to misuse, may give quite the wrong message to future candidates about the advisability of frank and honest discussion. --Moonriddengirl 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Comment. That diff is anti-science? It looks as if he presented both sides and at least one of the sources was the National Institutes of Health. It was a very well-balanced edit and came as the result to talk page discussion. That is what we want. I assume you participated in that discussion and added sources to either refute him or substantiate what you just said? That's the way the system works. I think it would be helpful for people to review the talk page discussion regarding the edit you offer and see the way this user works within the system to gain consensus. The section is here. Please everyone, do not allow your understandable anger at Iantresman cloud your judgment as to the value of this editor. -JodyB _talk 17:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Raymond. Coppertwig has a troubling habit of, for want of better phrasing, equating nonsense with sense; NPOV does not mean giving equal weight or respect to the two. Supporting editors who promote nonsense is not fair or just; it is harming the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua 11:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose per above.--Filll (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose as per Raymond Arritt and others above. There have to be sensible limits to WP:AGF. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
9. oppose per Raymond. Demonstrates failure to understand WP:NPOV, especially the undue weight clause. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose per above, especially Raymond Arrit. Also because it feels somehow a tad.. 'awkward', for lack of a better word, to see Avi nominate and Jake Waskett support after and because Coppertwig worked on the Circumcision article. No way, sorry. I don't even bother to examine his participation there, as I'm 100% sure it would make my stomach turn like a white-washing machine. Dorftrottel (bait) 14:48, May 7, 2008

    Hi, Dorftrottel. I'm really sorry that you feel so strongly about C-Twig, as I know you have a good understanding of what makes a good sysop. If it makes a difference, User:Blackworm, who is the most eloquent and outspoken of the people who believe that the Circumcision article is improperly skewed towards a pro-circumcision outlook, is also a supporter of C-Twig's RfA, so I believe that indicates that there is no whitewashing going on at all, but hard and detailed work to build consensus between parties. C-Twig's biggest fault, would be too much assumption of good faith, I believe. As for the anti-scientist perspective, I can confirm to the best of my knowledge (I have not met C-Twig in person) that C-Twig is a professional scientist who has been published in the peer-reviewed journals of C-Twig's field, so I am somewhat uncertain as to the genesis of C-Twig's being labeled "anti-science". "Too trusting" perhaps, but not "anti-science". -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    For the record, I don't see Coppertwig as anti-science but as being too sympathetic towards disruptive editors while disregarding the effect this has on the rest of us. I assume he's well intended but the practical results are incredibly discouraging to those of us trying to build a credible reference work and having to deal with such editors day in and day out. I don't think we need more admins who are willing to give disruptive or tendentious editors a near-endless string of last last last last last last chances; we have enough of those already. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose per Raymond and the differences he provided. This user clearly does not understand the WP:NPOV and WP:AGF policies/guidelines. Until he does, I cannot support this nomination. Razorflame 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per his lack of insight into the effect of the destructive behavior of User:Iantresman on other editors, and offering himself as Iantresaman's mentor (for which I believe he is not qualified—see below) and other lapses in his judgment in evaluating POV issues although he appears to be very well meaning. He injected himself as a self-appointed mediator in the Che Guevara FACR, and took the side of one editor with a strong POV immediately (an editor whose edits had resulted in the recommendation in FACR that a POV tag be added to the article). He presented himself in a position of authority. I thought he was an administrator at the time and would proceed fairly. Among Coppertwig's first interactions with me were to formally threaten me with a block for making statements of fact and to threaten to revert my edits if the edit summaries did not meet with his approval although he acknowledged he knew nothing about the subject matter. He seems to fail to understand WP:NPOV and WP:AGF and has little understanding of basic MoS despite his willingness to police the editing of an article in FARC. –Mattisse (Talk) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
13. Strong oppose, as most of my work here consists of removing POV. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I had been impressed by some of Coppertwig's contributions, but Coppertwig's sustained push to reinstate Iantresman, makes me question his judgment. (Iantresman was a tendentious editor, a single purpose account or the next thing to it, and a frequent wikilawyer.) Cardamon (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
15. Weak oppose - After looking at some history, he seems to have a few too many lapses of judgment, although I have not ruled out of changing my opinion.--Bedford 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Need to sleep on this and do some more research SHEFFIELDSTEEL 04:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   I am concerned about the candidate's judgment having read about the Iantresman affair (and CuTwig's opinion of it), and I have considerable respect for the reasoned Opposes above. On the other hand, the contribs that I've seen are all very nice. On balance, while I worry that this candidate might be involved in future drama involving the tools (and I acknowledge that my perception may be distorted by my current opinion that the potentially most damaging admin tool is "unblock"), I would never believe that they would wilfully abuse them. Does all that add up to a net positive for Misplaced Pages? I honestly can't tell, so here I stay. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Pretty much per Mr. Steel. I worry that Mr. Twig may be too willing to extend the olive branch of peace to personalities that the encyclopedia is better off without. The diff provided by Raymond, above, is troubling - while Mr. Twig was not vehement in his desire to get a troublesome editor unblocked, the very fact that he made such a statement without (apparently) actually familiarizing himself with the history is bothersome, as is the lack of a definitive final word for or against his original position. It just seems to fizzle. That said, this may be an anomoly in an otherwise level-headed and sane editing history, so I'll remain committedly-non-committal for now. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

:Make it a trio; I also need to do more research. It's not clear if CT is one to support, or oppose.--Bedford 12:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I am really on the fence with this one. Will do a little more research and chime back in. For now I am neutral. Canyouhearmenow 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2. I'll have to look into this further. Majoreditor (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Pretty much my only interaction with Coppertwig was at my own RfA - therefore, lest I be seen as acting in bad faith, I will not oppose, but I would like to have my say here. In my very limited interaction with Coppertwig I have found him to be argumentative, petty and a poor communicator. From what I've seen, he lacks the levelheadedness and good judgment to make an effective administrator. faithless () 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I see the concerns, but I'm not certain. I'd like to see responses to questions before making a decision. - jc37 18:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral - I am just... entirely confused. I'm seeing diffs here and there, and... just entirely confused. When I followed Raymond's oppose to the user in question, I could see where others take issue with advocating the readmission of a particularly distruptive editor. However, his outward demeanor seems to win others over (with the exception of the fine man above). I am just entirely confused by this candidate. Queerbubbles | 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I really leaned toward support because I trust the judgment of the nominators, moonriddengirl in particular. But the more and more I read into this editors past history and the difference quoted above, the more uneasy I am about giving him the mop. I might still lean toward support as this RfA play out, but for the time being I'm just seeing too many red flags. Trusilver 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral -- At first I was all for this user. Then I researched some of the users diffs and now I am not too sure, though the incidents seem to be a few months back. Perhaps Coppertwig could elaborate and answer the rest of the questions and I will reconsider my vote..if not I'm staying here in Switzerland = )...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)