Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig

User:Coppertwig

      run at Thu May 8 21:46:37 2008 GMT

Category talk:	5
Category:	15
Help talk:	2
Help:	6
Mainspace	2690
Portal talk:	2
Portal:	2
Talk:	1497
Template talk:	35
Template:	496
User talk:	2172
User:	1022
Wikipedia talk:	670
Wikipedia:	841
avg edits per page	3.68
earliest	22:53, 2 November 2006
number of unique pages	2569
total	9455
2006/11 	666 	
2006/12 	230 	
2007/1 	370 	
2007/2 	697 	
2007/3 	473 	
2007/4 	67 	
2007/5 	10 	
2007/6 	148 	
2007/7 	70 	
2007/8 	949 	
2007/9 	526 	
2007/10 	3 	
2007/11 	261 	
2007/12 	721 	
2008/1 	929 	
2008/2 	861 	
2008/3 	1323 	
2008/4 	1005 	
2008/5 	146 	
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)


Mainspace
191	Che Guevara
129	Medical analysis of circumcision
95	Circumcision
87	Safavid art
44	Hellenistic art
41	Leaders' debate on women's issues during the 1984 Canadian federal election campaign
34	Chase McEachern
28	Essential nutrient
27	AIDS
25	Prevalence of circumcision
25	Domestic violence
25	Bioethics of neonatal circumcision
24	Lamb waves
24	History of male circumcision
21	Sexual effects of circumcision

Talk:
309	Circumcision
139	Che Guevara
72	AIDS
45	Mucoid plaque
40	Circumcision and law
36	Uncommon Dissent
31	Chiropractic
29	Birth control/Archive2
28	Eicosanoid
24	Shock wave
22	Female genital cutting
20	Pain/Archive 1
20	Safavid art
18	Medical analysis of circumcision
18	Lamb waves
Category talk:
2	LGBT Wikipedians
 
Help:
2	Diff
 
Help talk:
2	Diff
 	  
Portal talk:
2	Animals
 
Template:
41	Db doc
10	Db-t3/new
10	Db-g12/new
9	Db-i9/new
9	Db-i1/new
8	Db-a5/new
7	Db-i7/doc
7	Db-g6/new
6	Db-g1/new
6	Db-g6/doc
6	Db-a1/new
6	Db-t3/doc
6	Db-i2/new
6	Db-copypaste/new
6	Db-move/new

Template talk:
10	Trivia/Archive 1
4	Db-meta
4	BirthControl infobox
3	Editprotected
2	Vitamin
2	Db-g1
 
User:
270	Coppertwig/Sandbox
175	Coppertwig
95	Coppertwig/Sandbox6
77	Coppertwig/CSD
57	Coppertwig/links
56	Coppertwig/Sandbox2
56	Coppertwig/Stability of policy
27	Coppertwig/homepage
21	Coppertwig/Sandbox3
17	Coppertwig/monobook.js
16	Coppertwig/Sandbox4
14	Coppertwig/Sandbox5
13	Coppertwig/Contributions
10	Coppertwig/Attribution policy discussion
8	Coppertwig/CSDlist

User talk:
607	Coppertwig
76	Moonriddengirl
49	Blackworm
35	Coppertwig/Stability of policy
31	Adrian de Physics
29	Phyesalis/Mediation request
27	Phyesalis
27	Redthoreau
24	EdJohnston
20	Iantresman
18	Seraphimblade
17	Jakew
16	Jayjg
15	Edwardsville
15	Jonathan

Wikipedia:
146	Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
140	Help desk
55	Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
28	Translation into English/French
24	Village pump (proposals)
21	Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
15	Attribution
12	Village pump (policy)
11	Requests for adminship/Seresin
10	Requests for adminship/Coppertwig
10	Requests for comment/COGDEN
10	Requests for arbitration
9	Attribution/Poll
9	Articles for deletion/J Stalin (2nd nomination)
9	Administrators' noticeboard

Wikipedia talk:
132	Criteria for speedy deletion
128	Attribution
78	No original research
51	Attribution/Poll
28	Attribution/Community discussion
21	Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (other)
21	Attribution/Role of truth
19	Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (general)
18	Trivia sections
14	Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (images)
13	Consensus
13	New pages patrol/patrolled pages
12	Verifiability
10	Requests for mediation/Reproductive rights
9	Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (articles)

Removed vote

Oppose Due to the fact that you had 666 edits in your first month, indicating you are possibly the spawn of Satan.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, excuse me? I do not feel this is the appropriate venue to make jokes like that. Please reconsider your !vote. Tiptoety ^talk 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to consider the same thing. I agree with User:Tiptoety.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what venue means, but regardless, I think it's hilarious. I'm gonna leave it up for a day or two, then change it to a support when I feel like it.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a very disrespectful thing to do, and I think it is made in poor humor. Tiptoety ^talk 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec agian) Is that really necessary considering it a joke and not changing it now? I don’t think RFA’s should be commented on like that. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an RfA on Wikipedia for god's sake, what's the big deal?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with it being a big deal or not, but more to do with the fact that the oppose is rude and disrespectful to the candidate. Tiptoety ^talk 03:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You've misjudged your audience, KojiDude. I highly recommend you remove it quickly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your !vote. Tiptoety ^talk 03:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That sort of stuff puts people off going for adminship, i would be hurt if that occured to me, i oppose this nomination but that joke was highly misjudged. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Mattisse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not the place to have this discussion, move on! Tiptoety ^talk 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Question is not in the least related to this RfA, moved here to prevent further disruption.

• 11 I have placed a request on your user page that you try to influence User:Redthoreau to desist from repeatedly posting on my user page accusations that I am engaging in personal attacks because I have expressed my views in public regarding User:Iantresman and also here on this page regarding your RFA. I realize that you have made it clear to me that I am never to post anything negative about User:Redthoreau on your user page or on article talk pages (per diff given below). Therefore, in asking for your help in this matter I have broken your firm rule. I hope you will forgive this, as I do not know what else to do. Could you advise me on a permissible way to communicate to you my problem and ask for your help?

• Unbelievable, untrue, and amazing that you would skew the reality Mattisse and bring the reactions and requests of you to stop your poor behavior into this type of forum. Your interpretations on reality never cease to amaze me. You are the prime example of just why Coppertwig should be an administrator. Because amazingly he/she has managed to interact with your irrational behavior, while all the while remaining polite, civil, and objective - despite your attacks on him/her as well.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mattisse, when you want to send me that type of message, I suggest you follow the suggestion at the top of my talk page and post your message on your own talk page, and post a short message on my talk page telling me that there's a message for me on your talk page. I expect to find time later to reply to this more fully and to reply to an earlier message from you on my talk page. You're certainly welcome to ask me for help like this, and I'm sorry that I'm a little busy right now. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Coppertwig, I have told you many times why I will not post anything about User talk:Redthoreau on my talk page. I have receive way too many personal attacks from User talk:Redthoreau there without posting on my talk page and will not post there for fear of an escalation of the attacks. You remember how I had to plead with you not to use my name in other places because of the abuse I receive from him at the very mention of my name by you. I posted here only because it was a relatively safe place to post. Your mild posts to him to desist have resulted in an escalation of his attacks. He has been out of control on my user page, blaming me even for actions others have taken. Today, he has deleted my messages on public forums which had to be replaced by other editors and he was rebuked for doing so and told that his actions amounted to vandalism. I was fearful of posting on your personal page at all and still am. I will post no more there. I do not think you can control him so I will give up. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, your lies are pathetic. I consider it an epic travesty that anyone would waste more than 1 minute addressing the troll-like/multiple personality behavior you exude. I have been requesting that you desist from harassing me for the past 3 days to no avail. Now you try to pretend as always to be the victim. Your behavior would be comical if it weren't so infuriating.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

/me distributes chill pills. MessedRocker (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring

Yeah, this isn't the time or the place, can the people involved at least take it to each other's talk pages and spare the rest of us the irritation? naerii - talk 00:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The next time any of them reverts the others actions it will result in a block. Tiptoety ^talk 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To which I will heartily agree. Edit warring at an RfA is ridiculous, like starting a fistfight in a courtroom. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by this. I literally had the block window open for both of them, but then I figured I was getting too rouge for my own good... MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, i thought most the people here were admins? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be worse, they could be edit warring on WP:AN3 or WP:RFAR -- Avi (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

comment explaining my slight change of vote/ plus question about his mediation with Mattisse/Redthoreau

I hope this editor studies this RfA, I think he could learn a lot from it and hopefully succeed next time, if not this. To me the problem is not sympathy for the underdog (a trait I have myself) but that sometimes his ideas are half-baked. Instead of running somewhere to try and get Iatresman unblocked, he could have asked editors involved why he was blocked in their opinions, as maybe they know more about it than him. Similarly with Mattisse and Red- his efforts to mediate were commendable but he needn't have taken it to AN/I. If the actions on the pages concerned were that objectionable, another admin would probably have spotted it already, and he needn't then have undermined his mediatory role by "dropping them in it" on AN/I where the editors involved would face scrutiny and perhaps a possible block. I know AN/I shouldn't feel like that, but everyone knows or can imagine what it would feel like if they themselves were the subject of a thread on there. He could have discussed it with another editor/admin and they could have posted about the situation if need be, or given him their opinion. He undermined the trust of the editors with whom he was mediating (Mattisse at least) by doing that. He seems to want to make busy work for himself, and so sometimes causes more of a contratemps rather than less, because he ends up feeling he has to do "something". Merkin's mum 11:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the ANI thread correctly, RedThoreau opened the thread, and Coppertwig first commented about 3 hours later. So I'm not sure that it's fair to say that CT dropped them in it. Have I misunderstood? Jakew (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is the thread in question. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think that's the one. Does anyone know- was his attempt at mediation as a result of a request for mediation or a request for a third opinion, or did Coppertwig decide to do it of his own accord? I feel something was "not quite right" about it, however he did put a lot of hours into it. Anyone any ideas what the problem was, before I give up in confusement lol:) Merkin's mum 14:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the AN/I thread linked, it was in response to an incident report at 3RR, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that FAR editor, SandyGeorgia, Polaris999 and others editors were willing to work to save Che Guevara. SandyGeorgia suggested the only chance the article had was if we reverted to an earlier version before Redthoreau started editing. We agreed under those conditions we would work to save the article's FA status. We all very sad to see that status endangered. That is the only time I know of that SandyGeorgia was willing to help in such an enterprise. (See the FAR of Che Guevara -- I do not know how to provide a link to it). However, it soon became apparent that the massive POV edits were continuing in a hopeless fashion and SandyGeorgia was no longer willing to do the revert and felt the article was hopeless. Consequently the other editors also dropped out as they also felt the current article was hopelessly POV. Coppertwig started editing heavily by the end of March. It was not until April 4 [1] that he had acquired Anderson's book on Guevara, necessary to any editing of the article. No one ever agreed that Coppertwig was a mediator. He took on that role, despite his knowing little about Che Guevare at the time. He supported Redthoreu unconditionally. The large amount of edits by Coppertwig and Redthoreau over many weeks did not save the article and it lost it's FA status. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Addendum: User:Redthoreau has apologized on my page [2]. Possibly it was the threat of mediation on the AN/I, as admins have reverted some of his postings on my page. I do not take any such apology seriously, given his past behavior, although possibly the rest of you do so I offer this information for your consideration. I have retired from editing articles and will only post opinions. Writing and editing articles brings pain. I notice that the editors who voice the most opinions do little article writing or editing. Thus I will become one one of the opinionated, non-editing non-writing persons. In this capacity I have little to fear from Coppertwig and therefore have less investment in the outcome of this RFA. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'm sorry to see that you have decided no longer to edit articles. I hope you reconsider. Yes, conflict over articles can bring pain; but in the end it's usually worth it, and it's the reason why we're here. I should say again that I do think that Coppertwig was sincerely making a good faith effort at mediation in the dispute at Che Guevara, but s/he was just in over his or her head. Still, there are many other articles out there to edit. I hope you continue to work on some of them, and find more pleasure than pain on Wikipedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I thank you from my heart for your comments, Jbmurray. However, I feel I must ventilate here over my pentup frustration that those of us who do the actual article writing are the lowest of the low on the totem pole of respect and power. Just as with User:Coppertwig, an editor like me can never tell when a mediator who is described as "s/he was just in over his or her head" will step in (as was the case with User:Blueboar also) and create havoc and allow the destruction of an article. There is no protection for sincere editors who want to create articles only. Editors like me are always vulnerable to the stray post, like the one on this evidence page, purporting to show that since User:Blueboar could not mediate between me and another, this proves I am a difficult editor, despite more that 46,000+ edits with virtually no conflicts except between me and Blueboar, Coppertwig, or mediators and other disagreements caused by the gang of sock puppets that stalked me for six months without respite until the Starwood Arbitration when they were caught.

Note, Coppertwig, never asked if his interference was wanted on Che Guevara. He just took over after the editors involved in the FAR dropped out and began address lecturing posts to the two of us (Redthoreau and me) without any announcement of his intentions or request for a mutual agreement as to his role. Meanwhile he wrote flattering posts to Redthoreau, as Redthoreau did to him, and supported his edits in the Che Guevara article while claiming not to be making content judgments. I am tired of always being treated as if I am the problem when I have tried my very best to be civil at all times and write the very best articles I can. I have learned to distrust the "pretty words" of those extremely polite and verbally fluent editors whose underlying actions are destructive. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I started helping at the 3RR noticeboard on March 20 and this was the first case I was involved in. Since I already had a book about Che Guevara and was interested in the topic, I decided to start editing the article. Before I actually started editing the article, the two above-named editors who were involved in the 3RR report posted messages on my talk page, in a discussion in which they each asked for my help. [3] [4]. The recent AN/I thread was not opened by me. The earlier AN/I thread I opened after one of them asked for my help and the situation was escalating; it seemed to be appreciated, but I soon realized that it would probably have been better not to go to AN/I in that situation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not distort reality. This is a more representative post of mine to you, User:Coppertwig, made on the same day [5] in which informed you that your mild rebuke of User:Redthoreau was met by increased abuse from User:Redthoreau toward me that seemed designed to drive me from the Che Guevara page. At that point you had already installed yourself in the role of mediator. I was realizing your bias but felt I had no other recourse but to appeal to what at that time I still thought was your sense of fairness. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I invite all participants to visit my talk page

I appreciate everyone taking the time to participate in this RfA. I enjoy the encouragement from the Support votes, the constructive feedback and information about different viewpoints from the Oppose votes, both of those things from the Neutrals, and various interesting discussion. (And yes, I'm aware that votes are not votes.) Truly, thank you for participating in my RfA. It's been an amazing experience.

I've written an individual message of thanks to each participant here (which may eventually be archived here). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)