Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coburnpharr04

Coburnpharr04
Final (9/6/0) ended 03:55 24 September 2005 (UTC)

– I find it extremely awkward to be nominating myself for adminship. Yet, I think I have the qualifications for it. I have been a member of wikipedia since May, 2004. Originally, I just wrote and collaborated in articles regarding my homeland, Puerto Rico, and aspects of its' culture. However, as time passed I became more active in other areas of wikipedia, specifically articles having to do with Music, politics and history. I am a firm believer of the Neutral Point of View Policy, as can be seen on the talk page of the Steven Adler article. I also have become recently involved in resolving edit wars, as can be seen in the talk page of the Guns N' Roses article. In the end, I am requesting adminship since I am interested in continuing the battles against vandalisms and articles which violate the NPOV policy and, most importantly, be of more service to the community. Thank you. <> 04:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Strong Support His dedication to the project has demostrated without a doubt that he is an asset to Wikipedia. Besides, he's a hell of a nice guy. Tony the Marine 05:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - he meets my standards so long as you commit to using edit summaries. You seem like a very nice guy. --Celestianpower hab 07:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Definitely!!! --Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - good editor, solid contributor. Guettarda 02:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Antonio Puerto Rican Invasion Martin 18:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. El_C 03:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, seems like a good editor. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, even if you did use caps in anger. ;-) Martin  21:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - I see no reason against this candidate, but providing edit summaries would be much better.--Jusjih 08:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose After a little more research, I noticed you rarely use edit summaries and lack edits in the Wikipedia and User Talk namespaces. Leaving a summary helps out the RC Patrollers use that they don't have to check if you are vandalizing an article. Few Wikipedia and User Talk edits indicate lack of admin-esque work and lack of communication, respectively. I'll support in the future provided you expand your horizons beyond just writing articles.  Acetic  ' Acid  07:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose &mdash; concur with A.A. Aslo, a low edit count given the time you have been here. Will gladly support in the future. Some useful tips:
 * 3) *try to parrol the Recent Changes and New Pages section.
 * 4) *Get involved in community discussions:
 * 5) **participate in AFD, RFA talk, etc
 * 6) **Contribute to the village pump
 * 7) *Use edit summaries more often.
 * 8) *Broaden your horizon! (edit atleast 1000 distinct pages)
 * I can guarantee that in a month or two, you'll have unanimous support.   Journalist C./ Holla @ me! 
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrá 05:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Toward the end of the naming dispute at Talk:Guns N' Roses, you began "yelling" and excessive criticism of a revert-warrer. He deserved it, I admit, but an admin needs to tread softly in every situation. DDerby(talk) 20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Commit to not using caps, and talking politely to/about even the worst vandals, and I'll support next time. DDerby(talk) 20:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I used the caps to draw attention to the words I was using, since it was pertinent with the discussion that was being held. It was not out of a fit of anger. Yet, I do understand that anywhere on the internet, caps usually mean anger, so I do understand your comment. Thank you for participating. <> 21:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Lack of edit summaries is problematic; uses them 21% overall, 32% in the last 300 edits. I prefer seeing >80% minimum in an admin nominee. Participation has increased since joining Wikipedia, but average edit count is 5.4 per day for all days, 7.6 for contributing days over the last month. I prefer see >10 edits per day average for an admin nominee. The dispute noted by DDerby wasn't too bad, but throws up a tiny red flag. Participation outside of Article/User name spaces is 15% of total edits. Not a really low percentage, but slightly low. --Durin 17:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose need more non-article edits.--Alhutch 20:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral I'm not sure if you understand what adminship is about. In the answer to the first question, you said you are interesting in working with POV and minor vandalism. Both of those can be corrected without sysop rights. Edit wars can also be settled without adminship, unless you were referring to page protecting. I'm curious if there are any admin-only tasks you would participate in if you were promoted.  Acetic  ' Acid  04:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Changed to Oppose. Acetic  ' Acid  07:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Like you point out, page protecting would be one of the tasks I would use if the case requires it. However, I would primarly patrol for vandalisms, and therefore I think it would be useful if I could revert this vandalism quickly.<> 04:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) Do you plan to enforce a user block?  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *In other words would you block another user? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would look for a consensus with other admins to see whether or not the faults of the user in question merit him/her to be blocked. If the user is simply vandalising or breaking established wikipedia policy, I would certantly ask to have him/her be blocked. However, blocking users would not be one of my priorites.<> 18:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't request for the justification of a block, but I just wanted to know if you do plan to block. The reason I've asked you this is that you haven't specified an email id. Sometimes it becomes necessary to block a user, particularly a newbie if he does not respond to warning flags waved at him. In that case the person is requested to contact the blocking admin via email to sort things out. Would you be willing to add an email id? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Definetively. I just added it.<> 19:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding an email id. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Use edit summaries more often. Oleg Alexandrov 05:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Perfect, the majority of the time that I do not use edit summaries it's either because they are extremely minor or because they are done in articles I wrote. However I do commit myself to make full use of edit summary.<> 17:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) A chart showing this user's edits along with an total # of edits line is available here: Image:Coburnpharr04-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 16:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * I am particularly interested in working with POV, edit wars and minor vandalisms.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Aníbal Acevedo Vilá was one of my first articles, and I am extremely proud of it. I contributed greatly on the upgrading of the Guns N' Roses article. This article gets constantly vandalized and I find myself patroling it constantly.
 * 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?
 * The edit war on the Guns N' Roses article is the best example of an edit war I have tried to resolve. I must say it has caused some stress since some of the parts involved in the argument are not members of wikipedia, and usually do not adhere to our protocols. They simply go on and vandalize the article. I ahve also been involved in consensus discussions on the Pope Benedict XVI article.