Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coren

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

Coren

Voice your opinion (2/7/0); Ended 07:12 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Coren (talk · contribs) - Despite my relatively low edit count, I think I can hold the mop with success. In fact, over the past several years, my irregular interaction with article space have allowed me to find a better niche than article editor per se.

I found my best contribution to the 'pedia to date is new page patrol (how's that for boring, repetitive tasks?). I have a fairly good crap detector, and I think my hit/miss ratio speaks for itself. I'm not perfect, but I acknowledge and correct mistakes when I make them.

I sometimes contribute in article space, and I think I have never(?) made a controversial edit there, but my strength has always been to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to terminate the chaff with extreme prejudice. I also use the opportunity to give a little push to budding articles, if only with tags to encourage correcting the weaker points.

The reason I'm asking for adminship is simply so I can contribute to Wikipedia in the way I am most able to: quality control. Coren 02:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and technically, my edit count should be higher, but it seems edits to page that are deleted don't count. I guess CSD success isn't good for the blind stats.  :-) Coren 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it would be wiser to withdraw my request at this time. I felt that my solidity would overshadow my low editcount, but it's quickly evident I should wait a few months before trying again. I've obviously got not much probability of reaching concensus.

Two things for the record, however:

• The incident with Ruanua is indeed a good indication of my reaction to ill-founded criticism, but I feel it has been interpreted incorrectly. As attempts to courteously explain to the editor that her(?) article was not appropriate for notability reason and suggesting other ways of contributing quickly descended into name-calling and paranoia, I prefered to immediately stop escalating and forestall that class of unproductive discussion.

I fail to understand why that would be held against me rather than in my favor. A quick read of the relevant talk page in addition to mine would have shown that. I suppose my message might be seen as overly strongly worded (and I will, indeed, soften it posthaste), but I did assume good faith from her, and I did repeatedly attempt to civilly redirect her efforts in productive ways.

I would appreciate it if, in addition to offering the harsh critique, I was explained how to handle that particular event without escalating the dispute or hurting feelings. I felt it best to simply sweep that matter aside and forestall further dispute since there was nothing that could possibly gained by continuing. (My talk space is probably a better place for this, however).

• The criticism about too few article edits are well taken. I will endeavor to work a bit harder in main space, and thereby gain experience in appears most people here feel I need even though I expect to never be a very good or very prolific article editor. I suppose I have to agree that this experience would be valuable even though this will never be my forte. 24.200.97.225 06:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(That previous comment was left by me-- I'm not certain why I was no longer logged in). Coren 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?

A: Concentrate where my strengths are: new page patrol, XfD, and AiV. I'm always willing to give a hand wherever there's a backlog, but I'm pretty sure that's where I'd be most useful. I'm going to keep editing when I feel I can contribute something useful, though.

I'm probably never going to be speedy deleting articles outright, though. I feel deleting only articles tagged by other editors keeps a very useful double check to a fairly opaque process. Once every so often, I have made overzealous tags that were then caught by an admin (much to my relief). So I'll only speedy tagged articles, or tag but not delete myself.

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

A: I don't think anything I did to date shines especially. I pride myself on being consistent, and keeping within my sphere. But I also think I never did anything that particularly stunk. I'll leave the brilliant prose to those more able than I, and concentrate on the gruntwork.

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: Not especially. Doing new page patrol gets me a regular dose of flak, but I've never lost my temper over it. I think I can state outright that I've always remained civil. I've begun implicating myself in the mediation cabal, with (I feel) some success. I plan on continuing that activity in the future.

4. Why did you take a break from April of last year to April of this year?

A: Simply put: work. My job will occasionally require me to do crunches several months long involving a lot of international travel, and Wikipedia simply got the backburner. (That reminds me, I have a few very nice pictures I took in Algeria. I need to see if any of those could be useful here).

General comments

• See Coren's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Coren before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - A year in WP, no controversy, hard worker. Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support I see nothing that leads me to believe that this user will abuse the tools, so here's a support. Frise 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, sorry. Your enthusiasm is most welcome but more experience is needed in all areas, especially admin-oriented ones. Keep up the good work and try again in a few months.--Húsönd 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose You seem solid, and I know your heart is true. However, the fact that you would nominate yourself for a bid that, if I know anything about Wikipedia, is destined to fail, shows your lack of familiarity with process. Furthermore, the mainspace is the most important thing, no matter what. You need to show your commitment there. --Tractorkingsfan 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose User:Ruanua pestered you with questions as to why you tagged his article for A7 deletion [1]. You responded by blanking the comments and writing the following rejoinder, which you copied to your userpage:

   ((snipped long rant about my being a "climate change denier" because I requested speedy on an article on a non-notable fringe ecological group in new zealand))

   For the record: If I request speedy-delete one of your article, for A7 (non-notability) it's not because I don't like your cause/group/sister/band/pet rock. It's because it is not notable. You may feel he/she/it is important. It might be. But important is not notable.

   I will take rants and accusations of denial/revisionism at face value: baseless and vicious attacks on my integrity. I will not entertain you with justification. I will not entertain you with a debate. Your comments will just be ignored and deleted. Coren 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

   I expect admins to interact with others on a high moral standard. Please read WP:BITE and WP:AGF, and try to learn from your mistake. I wish you the best of luck. YechielMan 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Strong oppose per above. It's important to be civil, long rants or not. Incvility is not excused by someone else starting it. You should not refuse to explain why you did something because you dislike the person who asked you. If someone asks for justification, unless they are yelling at you (which this guy was not), I expect you to provide a reason behind your actions. A7 does not mention notability. The criterion is "does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". We really don't need a new person who misuses A7. And this was only a week ago... -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per issues raised by YechielMan. This behavior is not indicative of someone who can be trusted with admin tools. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose Less than 300 article edits? Somewhere around 1000 edits overall? Nowhere near enough experience for me to trust you. Αργυριου (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose - The item identified above by Yechiel man leads me to believe that the candidate cannot be trusted with admin status - at least, not now. Admins must not be personally offended when involved in a conflict. The candidate's threat to delete comments from his talk page is improper. - Richard Cavell 07:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.