Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig


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

Closed - unsuccessful. No consensus to promote. Raul654 (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig
(68/44/18) - Final.

– 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 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 Wikipedia. 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 (talk) 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 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: 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 Wikipedia, 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: I would revert the edits and place warning templates on the IPs' talk pages. If the vandalism continues, and if it is indeed vandalism, the key questions here seem to me to be whether the IP's are operated by the same person, the overall rate of edits to the article, and whether the same IP's are also vandalising other articles. Semi-protection is a likely solution, but the more frequent the constructive edits to the article, the more harm semi-protection would do. If the IP's are operated by a single user, blocking may be more attractive than if they're several different users, but semi-protection could be a good solution even if they are a single user.  If they're vandalising other articles, blocking is probably the right option.  Until I gain more experience I would involve another admin in this situation, at least to review my actions.


 * 5. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
 * A: I would post a personal message on the user talk page pointing out that their edits appear to be unconstructive and asking them to stop and explain, post to AN/I about the situation in order to try to get the attention of a steward, revert the edits, and watch to see whether any further action is required.

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: I assume Avi is referring to Circumcision. The article has experienced much heated dispute due to conflict between POV's, e.g. as described in the fourth paragraph of the article as "opponents of non-therapeutic circumcision" and "advocates of circumcision".


 * 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: The reasons are described in the blocking policy, and can be summarized in general terms as situations in which blocking can prevent serious disruption which could not be more fittingly prevented by another method such as page protection. Examples of situations where blocking is appropriate are where an editor continues after warnings to vandalise, post advertisements, violate copyright, or to post material seriously violating the WP:BLP policy. Coppertwig (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 7b. ...a page to be protected?
 * A: The situations in which it's appropriate to protect pages are described in WP:Protection policy. Common examples include full protection of a page where there is a content dispute, usually when multiple editors are involved so that blocking is a less attractive option; and semi-protection of a page that is experiencing a high rate of vandalism from non-registered users. Coppertwig (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 7c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?
 * A: A page can be speedily deleted when it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), except that care should be taken with a very recently created article which meets a criterion only because of a lack of information, as the article may be in the process of being edited. An admin can delete at any time a page which meets one of the criteria, although some admins prefer to place a speedy-delete tag on an article so that more than one person checks whether the criterion has been met.  Admins can look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (shortcut CAT:SD) to find articles that others have marked as being candidates for speedy deletion, and delete articles which they determine to meet the indicated criterion or another CSD, or remove the speedy tag from articles which are do not meet the criteria; often in such a case some other action is required, such as AfD or adding maintenance tags.  Before deleting, one should check the page history, as there may be an earlier version which was a valid article. One example of a CSD is A7. An article about a real person, organization (other than schools) or web content can be deleted if it does not indicate why the subject is significant. It doesn't have to establish notability, only make a statement which suggests that the subject may be notable, for example "was the most well-known musician in Nigeria during the 1970's".  Whether notability is actually established can be determined at AfD if necessary.  Besides checking whether the article makes an assertion of significance, before speedy-tagging under A7 I usually also do a web search to check for possible notability.  Articles about other types of things, for example books, are not speedy-deletable under A7.


 * 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: Determining consensus means evaluating what the decision of the community is, not imposing one's own individual interpretation. One needs to read the whole discussion, carefully considering the reasons people bring up, especially reasons connected with policy.  A question to consider is, "what outcome will be most acceptable – or least unacceptable – to the people involved?"  On a talk page discussion, a consensus version is a version which is most likely to remain in place, even if some editors are not pleased with it but they accept it because they see that it would not be feasible to get consensus for a version closer to what they prefer.  A difference with an XfD discussion is that there are fewer possible outcomes than with an article content dispute.   A decision of "no consensus" is reached if there are approximately equal number and weight of reasons on both sides; in practice the number of editors in good standing is also a factor. If one side is heavily supported, a few votes in the opposite direction do not usually prevent consensus from being declared because it is believed that the editors will accept the overall decision; although during the discussion editors should carefully consider the reasons presented by the minority and attempt to resolve the difference through discussion. At DRV, there are several outcomes:   undelete, relist or endorse; if the weight of the discussion is evenly divided among the three, relist would be a sensible interpretation of the overall outcome. In a RM discussion, a page will usually remain at its present location unless there is a clear consensus to move it to a specific other name, so that it is believed that moving it will not result in a move war; therefore a small number of editors or a single editor strongly opposing the move prevent the move from occurring.


 * 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: I would reply briefly on my talk page that I intended to look into the situation. I would study the article history and users, considering how many editors were involved, whether the situation involved vandalism, new users or possible sockpuppets, whether the same edits had also been reverted earlier by either the same or other editors for example earlier in the week, and whether the editors had a history of editwarring.  If there was no 3RR violation I might decide not to intervene, and would reply to JohnQ (either on JohnQ's talk page or on my talk page but leaving a brief message or talkback template on JohnQ's talk page with a link to my response) advising that there was no 3RR violation and no admin action seemed necessary, and offering suggestions such as that JohnQ might want to discuss the situation with the users, and that WP:3RRN and WP:RFPP were available if the situation worsened.  If there was a 3RR violation I would post a warning with a link to the three-revert rule policy page on the talk page of the violating editor or editors, and perhaps also on the talk pages of other editwarring editors who had not violated 3RR; but if they had already been warned I would likely issue blocks or protect the page: in the case of two editors reverting back and forth probably blocking, up to 24 hours for a first offense.


 * 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: Admin abuse could be considered to be any use of admin tools that would be generally recognized by any reasonable, knowledgeable observer as being seriously harmful to the project. I would discuss it with the admin in question.  If we were unable to come to a common understanding and the abuse continued, I would begin a discussion at AN/I, possible outcomes of which might be resolution of the problem in some way, or an arbitration request as the next step. Re an established editor that starts to be disruptive: the first and most important thing to do is to communicate with the user, via their talk page to ensure that they receive the message, to make it clear to them that their behaviour is disruptive and what they need to stop doing. I would encourage the user to engage in discussion about the situation instead of immediately continuing the behaviour,  but if disruptive behaviour continued after a clear warning and there was no reason to suppose it was not going to continue further, I would block the user. After blocking I would continue to discuss the situation with the user if the user seemed open to such discussion.


 * Optional question from User:Mattisse
 * Question is not in the least related to this RfA, moved to RfA talk page.

General comments

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


 * Links for Coppertwig:

''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. WaltonOne 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. Aole pilikia. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali&#39;i 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone isn't rabid and rude about their anti-ID stance doesn't necessarily mean they're pro-ID. User:Merzul has been accused of the same and he's a devout atheist. Anyway even if Copper is into ID- not that I know the details, but I know what those articles are like and how consensus is maintained there with unnecessary rudeness IMHO- he's a mature, level-headed person who can act as an admin in a way that implements consensus rather than his own opinion.  Merkin's   mum  01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are correct, consensus is maintained on those articles by lots of screaming and yelling and rudeness. That's probably why the ID article is an FA, despite the fact it gets trolled by anons and new accounts regularly to attack the editors.  I guess we should try harder to build a better article.  Maybe it can be super FA status.  Baegis (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On the issue of assuming good faith, I think it goes wrong in both directions. I've seen editors being accused of things they are not, so on the one hand there is a failure to assume good faith. On the other hand, other people have a tendency to ascribe good faith when none is present. As a "devout atheist", I think all discussions about good or bad faith is irrelevant ;) We have rules, such as respecting consensus, and if someone fails to do so, they are be banned. The whole anti-science, pro-science, ID-supporter, fringe-theorist discussion is something of a red herring. Raymond Aritt's oppose seems to the point. The important question is if Coppertwig is unnecessarily siding with problematic editors. Problematic editors are those, who don't follow our rules because they have some agenda. Their precise agenda is irrelevant, it is the failure to co-operate that is. Merzul (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Merzul, I still don't think "having a go" and threatening other editors with blocking, is necessary on that article, however having looked more at the Iatresman case, combined with the Che one, I will have to change my "vote" for now. :( Merkin's   mum  11:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for contributing your insights, everyone. I've been wondering whether people have somehow gotten the idea that I believe in creationism or "intelligent design" because I edited the article Uncommon Dissent for a few weeks in February of 2007. Not everyone who edits a fringe article endorses those views. I went there from Mediation Cabal, and my primary purpose (as decribed here) was to discourage edit warring and personal attacks, while also helping craft a neutral-point-of-view article.  Coppertwig (talk) 23:48, 10 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. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 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  talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia policies and an ability to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Indented double-!vote (see oppose section for the later !vote). Dorftrottel (vandalise) 22:57, May 7, 2008
 * Strike my above comments. I've had more time to review this candidacy and my oppose vote is accurate.  Good catch, Dorftrottel.  --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Appears to Assume Good Faith in every instance possible. That's what I like and what I think we need.  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as a generally well-rounded user who keeps his cool. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Per Tiptoety. Net positive.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) Support unlikely to abuse tools. Jpmonroe (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) 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)
 * For now, I will maintain my support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support. The opposes bother me, but, like DHMO, I'm sure you'll keep away from science articles as an admin.   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  08:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) 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. -JodyBtalk 11:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Seen you around.  Malinaccier Public (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, no evidence whatsoever that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) 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)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) Support as co-nom. :D I didn't realize we had gone live. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Stellar noms. Avruch  T 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per the nom statements and other supports above. Adminship for the candidate should be a net positive for the Project.   Dloh  cierekim  14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Natürlich. Pro co-nominierung. Rudget   (Help?) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) 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. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Excellent editor, no reason for any concerns as an administrator. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Epbr123 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support due to reasonable statements I've seen the candidate make in discussions. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 20)  Wizardman  19:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) 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"talk" 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong Support - Fair, objective, polite, calm, steady, helpful, and collaborative. One of the best editors I have come across on Wikipedia - who I believe embodies what this endeavor, is about.  [[Image:Smile icon.png|14px]]  Red thoreau  (talk Redthoreau 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Win. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support I trust that this user will be fine with the tools. I also like this user's answers. Good luck! Cheers.-- RyRy5 ( talk  ♠  Review ) 02:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support This user's outstanding temperament and ability to remain civil and neutral in any situation makes me confident that they will be fine with the extra buttons. GlassCobra 03:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Coppertwig is smart and capable. Admins are not granted any special powers in content disputes--the old line about being "regular users with more buttons" is only too true--and although some may disagree with his willingness to engage in contentious debates and argue minority viewpoints, these kinds of editors are indispensable in the creation of a neutral, comprehensive encyclopedia.  More to the point, I have no concerns that Coppertwig will misuse the extra buttons either unintentionally or maliciously, and I would ask those opposing below "per WP:AGF" to reconsider their opinions. -- jonny - m  t  07:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Support this user has done some really nice work, really good and constructive. OK, the POV concerns below raise an eyebrow to everybody, but he ahs already recieved so much stick for it, that I'm sure that sole lack of understanding will not occur again.  Lra drama 09:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. I met Coppertwig at Uncommon Dissent, and appreciated his efforts to point the editors there toward an atmosphere of constructive collaboration in accordance with policies and guidelines.   On matters of content, his input was helpful and perceptive, and on behavioral issues, I found his judgment to be dead-on. Tim Smith (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I went to Uncommon Dissent because it was listed at Mediation Cabal, and tried to help calm things down by promoting a neutral point of view, editing without reverting, etc. It was interesting to learn a little about the creationism debate.  It's good to know that my efforts were appreciated. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I don't agree with everything Coppertwig says but he's a dedicated editor, calm and reasoned in his interaction with others, and should benefit the project as an administrator.  I notice a group of editors opposing below because they don't approve of what they feel are his "opinions about science".  Give me a break. Cla68 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, we were allowed to vote however we saw fit, considering all elements of an editor's work and behavior. Did something change?  Baegis (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Will make a good admin, sensible, smart, and polite. Jayjg (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, looks like they'll make a good administrator, not convinced otherwise by the opposes.  krimpet ✽  05:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I'm with Cla68 on this. Simply because someone doesn't agree with your own POV doesn't mean he won't make a good admin. The user has never forced his opinion through tag team editing, incivility, and revert warring... unlike others. Jacina (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Baegis (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  strong support- he even managed to de-escalate a row between User:Redthoreau and User:Mattisse, which I think helped both avoid a block.  Merkin's   mum  12:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, let me underscore this with this diff which imho summarises and illustrates Coppertwig's approach. (Incidentally, that comment led me to change from oppose to abstention.) Dorftrottel (canvass) 14:19, May 9, 2008
 * Before he finally posted on ANI, Coppertwig had spent much effort typing to and fro advising these editors what they might do to avoid a block etc. While I might disagree with his posting to AN/I, before that he had spent ages advising these editors as to how they could better interact.  See User_talk:Coppertwig and User_talk:Coppertwig  Merkin's    mum  18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Slightly changed my "vote" -see talk page.  Merkin's   mum  11:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support; civility is such an important thing to have in an administrator, and Coppertwig seems to have unfailing amounts of it.  Additionally, even though there is much disagreement on the affair with Iantresman, I am impressed the Coppertwig has respectfully defended his viewpoint without being agressive (from what I have seen).  Seems to have a lot of integrity.  -- Nataly a  14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. — CharlotteWebb 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure. Arkyan 22:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Polite and thoughtful. Claims of 'anti-science POV' haven't gained much foothold with me to dissuade. Achromatic (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Yes, defending Ian Tresman might be a mistake - but since I've spent a reasonable amount of time defending Taxwoman and Vintagekits, it would be hypocritical to oppose on this. I personally think supporting ID is absolutely crackpot, but looking over their history I do trust them not to let it skew their judgement on adminny-type decisions. —  iride  scent  01:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per Cla68, Jayjg, Merkin's Mum, Krimpet, the noms Avraham and Rudget and Moonriddengirl, and per the opposes of Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin. ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I just don't see the anti-science POV, or I would oppose. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Do not believe user will misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's the deal. I give you my moral support per Merkinsmum's comment here. Take those valid points to heart and try again in a while. dorftrottel (talk)
 * 1) Support per the pot calling the kettle black. --B (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support. I have taken the time to review the supports and opposes here. In the end, I see an editor who works civilly, constructively and openly within the consensus model. Regardless of how one feels about the particular POVs involved, Coppertwig is working transparently (and extremely politely) within the system ... exactly as we expect. I do not see anything to indicate that he will abuse the tools or run roughshod over the principles of Wikipedia; quite the contrary, he seems to hold the principles of Wikipedia very dear in practice. Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per, especially, the comment regarding the scientific method. Scientists will often test even the most outlandish theory, and will fully investigate every criticism of their work that they receive, to see if there is any merit in them, so that they may receive the best possible result in their work. Unlike the layman (such as I) who either believes or disbelieves in science, the scientist only believes in the scientific method and the conclusions drawn from vigorous testing of the model. This does not translate as being in sympathy with some of the theories under test. In so far that I believe there is unlikely to be abuse of the mop if granted, I support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, nomination by Avi would tend towards automatic support, but after reading through all of the questions, supports, opposes, and examining the last 1000 contributions, I am convinced that there is nothing pernicious in this user's activities that would interfere with the admin areas he desires to contribute to. MrPrada (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) SupportTotally! Why not?-- B a r k j o n 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasons why not are listed below under Oppose... also, you made 3 supports within 2 minutes of eachother. One even within the same minute. I do hope the 'Crat takes this under account.  Qb | your 2 cents  23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, I trust Avi's and Moonriddengirl's judgment, regardless of Coppertwig's arguing for a user we are better without. I have reviewed this carefully, and see no reason to suppose that Coppertwig would not accept community consensus about indefblocks if an admin, which is what the oppose votes should be focusing on. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Al Tally  (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, more likely to address the issues and content *after mature review*, not before, or shoot-on-sight-because-I don't-like-it playing sides.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I was very impressed with the calm, rational way that Coppertwig dealt with regarding a couple of recent AN/I posts.  --Kralizec! (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I think you mean this thread which may later be archived here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - The Iantresman thing was actually a plus on your part, being that you assumed good faith on his part, even though he may have been a POV pusher. Also impressed with your answer to my question, which shows you will be calm in all adminy situations. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Not the ideal candidate, but then again, who is? Also, kudos for being civil, something I myself have trouble with. I'll also think there is merit to Cla86's point. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
Yes, it's mostly the Iantresman thing. Coppertwig wrote: "I support unblocking Iantresman, on the grounds that the user has apparently done nothing wrong, unless complaining about injustice against himself is considered disruptive." Iantresman wasn't blocked because he held minoritarian opinions; he was blocked because he placed the promotion of those opinions above Wikipedia's policies and the goal of creating a respectable and serious encyclopedia. The inability to perceive a distinction between those two propositions is concerning. As is the idea that someone reveiwing Iantresman's history would conclude that he'd done "nothing wrong" beyond justifiably complaining about injustices. This is relevant because as an admin, your decision to unblock someone (or support for their unblock) carries quite a bit of weight, and I'm not comfortable at this point that Coppertwig is going to make good decisions in that arena. That's just me - I'm one person and that's my personal opinion. This is a regretful oppose, because as I said I think Coppertwig does a lot of things very well and I hope he continues to be a prolific contributor and a role model for dealing with thorny disputes, but then you don't need to tools to do those things, and I'm not comfortable enough to support the additional buttons right now. I hope Coppertwig will consider this in the spirit in which I'm writing it, regardless of whether the RfA passes or not. MastCell Talk 20:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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? S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 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. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 04:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive143 which Stifle had opened about Iantresman has been closed with a consensus not to unblock. My position about Iantresman, summarized at User talk:Coppertwig (eventual archive location)(09:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)), was not to claim that there was no tendentious editing, but that for me to have supported an indef block I would have needed to see a number of diffs of such tendentious editing myself.  I acknowledged that Iantresman posted repeated aggressive demands on a user talk page and was overly litigious (he also violated 3RR twice). However, for me to have supported an indef block, in addition to disruptive behaviour, I would have needed to be convinced that adequate warnings had been given, clearly expressing the behavioural requirements and giving Iantresman what appeared to me to be a reasonable opportunity to comply. It would have been much easier to support the block if there had been evidence of bad faith. Coppertwig (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight -- you're contending that Ian had not been given "adequate warnings"? His indef block was hardly a bolt from the blue, having been preceded by numerous warnings on his talk page not to mention several shorter-term blocks. I'm so astonished by this statement that I must be misunderstanding something. Can you clarify this please? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not contending that, but that as one of many uninvolved editors, I hadn't seen such warnings myself. Regards, Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) Oppose well, unless hell froze over.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Raymond. The evidence given is troubling. &mdash;Dark talk 07:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) 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.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 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  | Leave me Some Love   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. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 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.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 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 Wikipedia 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 (talk) 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. -JodyBtalk 17:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I said my peace. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * Isn't it inherently a POV judgment to label one side of a debate "sense" and the other "nonsense"? (I assume you're talking about an encyclopedic content issue here, not an internal Wikipedia issue.) See my comments in the discussion section above. WaltonOne 20:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No of course it isn't. You have a completely firm point of view in the debate that the article should contain a nuetral point of view. Take this as an example: Someone wants to add that he 9/11 attacks were carried out by space aliens. They will be labeled as nonsense, and the other side labeled as sense in order to cut out crap.-- Phoenix -  wiki  21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I still don't think it's a good way of putting it. To run with your example, the reason we don't cover the viewpoint that "the 9/11 attacks were carried out by space aliens" is because it hasn't received enough mainstream media coverage in reliable sources to be a significant viewpoint, it's held only by a tiny minority, and putting it in the article would violate WP:UNDUE. We refuse it coverage for those objective reasons, not because it is nonsense (though it undoubtedly is). Hypothetically, if 60% of Americans believed that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by space aliens, and this claim had been regularly published in reliable secondary sources, then we would have to include that viewpoint in the article and give itappropriate weight. We don't exclude it simply because we view it as nonsense. WaltonOne 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems possible to me that Phoenix-wiki is talking about two sides of a debate between Wikipedian editors over an article content issue, while Walton is talking about two sides of a debate about a subject matter, a debate which occurs among reliable sources. I may have that wrong. My essay User:Coppertwig/NPOV also touches on the different types of debates. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above.--Filll (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) oppose per Raymond. Demonstrates failure to understand WP:NPOV, especially the undue weight clause. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback, JoshuaZ. NPOV calls for views held by a tiny minority to be left out completely except in articles about those views, and for the other views to be given relative levels of prominence which reflects their prominence in the reliable sources.  I would appreciate it if you would provide more information to help me learn from your feedback, perhaps one or more diffs or further explanation or both. ☺  Coppertwig (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Ok, I'll amend this to a weak oppose, but I'm still underwhelmed by the implications of arguing for the unblocking of Iantresman. Dorftrottel (canvass) 19:34, May 8, 2008
 * Ach, wth. Changing to abstention. I don't need to spill my opinion everywhere, esp. when I'm this torn by all the different arguments. Dorftrottel (criticise) 12:34, May 9, 2008
 * 1) 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. Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b><b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) 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&mdash;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)
 * Perhaps I should mention that as recently as yesterday (May6), Coppertwig informed me that if I wanted to edit Che Guevara again, I should go through formal dispute resolution. Further, the editor he supports on that page left a threat on my user page because I gave my opinion on public pages regarding the issue of Coppertwig's continuing defense of Iantresman. – Mattisse  (Talk) 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a misunderstanding. Mattisse, I hope you will begin editing Che Guevara again and hope you feel free to do so.  You are free to edit at any time and there are no special requirements.  I think the edit you're referring to is this. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As the person who Mattisse is making reference to per Che Guevara, and as a "central player" in the saga he is describing, = I will add that in my opinion, nothing Mattisse says here in relation to Coppertwig is accurate. His accounts of the historical reality are in my view, shockingly different from the reality, and I believe editors should read them with a grain (or perhaps a pound) of salt.  [[Image:Smile icon.png|14px]]  Red thoreau  (talk Redthoreau 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the attitude exhibited in such comments above from the single purpose account (edits articles only on Che Guevara since a new editor last December) of the editor you have consistently and whole heartedly supported at my expense that makes your offer of freely editing the article an empty one.  – Mattisse  (Talk) 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've read of the responses (here and here) Coppertwig made to comments on his/her talkpage I'm impressed at the level of civility he demonstrated. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your positive feelings regarding the nominee and I acknowledge he is very good with words and has generously apologized to me many times. However, the kind words and apologies are not in accord with his behavior as he has continued the unbalanced support of the single purpose account above, at the expense of more substantial and established contributing editors (including the editor who was responsible for Che Guevara reaching FAC in the first place)  who were driven from the article.  – Mattisse  (Talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you name them, I'd like to investigate this comment. Rudget   (Help?) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The user most responsible for Che Guevara and its FAC status was User:Polaris999 who has announced, regarding the Che article, "I will not carry on." – Mattisse  (Talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Polaris999 left before I arrived. I started being involved with Che Guevara March 20.  I just searched Polaris999's contribs for the string "Che Guevara" and the most recent is March 4. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Polaris999 bowed out because of User:Redthoreau . We were both hoping for a more favorable atmosphere and we were watching to see if that would occur. I confused my personal communications with Polaris with public postings. Again, I am sorry for the misrepresentation. – Mattisse  (Talk) 23:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider it an epic travesty that anyone would waste more than 1 minute addressing the troll-like/multiple personality behavior of Mattisse. I have been requesting that he desist from harassing me for the past 3 days to no avail.  [[Image:Smile icon.png|14px]]  Red thoreau  (talk Redthoreau 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you mention your "Further" point? I fail to see the relevance an action of a third party should have on someone's RFA. Achromatic (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - As per WP:NPOV and WP:AGF.  a s e nine  say what?  21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've read of the responses (here and here) Coppertwig made to comments on his/her talkpage I'm impressed at the level of civility he demonstrated. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that has absolutely nothing to do with my concerns.  a s e nine  say what?  22:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't supposed to be in response to you. You put your oppose in front of my comment, I'll put it back. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose, as most of my work here consists of removing POV. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) hmmm. I have a huge amount of respect for Avraham, Moonriddengirl, and Rudget.  Three editors I've worked with and trust to the end.  It was I thought enough to make for an automatic support.  I, however, also have a huge amount of respect and trust for several of the opposers here as well, and the diffs provided, the allegations raised, are concerning.  I haven't had much contact personally with Coppertwig personally, but on balance, I cannot support this candidacy with this many doubts from fellow respected editors, and in my own mind.  Opposing.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. "I'm not aware of any good reason for a probation tag here. I support the use of the usual, objective remedies such as 3RR, and oppose giving admins extra powers to define users as disruptive according to subjective opinion." &mdash;Coppertwig. Coppertwig is not aware of the POV problems with the chiropractic article. The problems have been going on for over a year and is getting worse. We need administrative action and not admins who don't understand the problem or the disruption.  Q ua ck Gu ru   20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) I have seen several things that make me question Coppertwig's judgement or understand of policy, most notably the Iantresman issue. Thus, I feel I must oppose his RFA.  Guettarda (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak oppose: Let me start by saying the following: Coppertwig is one of the most genuinely civil and pleasant editors I've encountered. He's a good example of what WP:CIVIL should mean in practice, and an excellent role model for editors striving to remain civil on controversial topics. He's made very solid encyclopedic contributions. I also have a great amount of respect for all 3 of his nominators and their judgement. I think a number of the opposes above are a bit harsh or unfair. But I still feel compelled to list myself under this column.
 * 1) Oppose - (EC, and I'm with MastCell on this)Iantresman had been blocked six times when you made a stand on his behalf. Six times. That is simply a staggeringly challenging accomplishment for anyone who intends to act in accordance with AGF and NPOV. You have the technical sophistication to make a fine admin, but judgement such as that employed with Iantresman would represent a considerable failure on your part to protect the countless editors of this project who actually participate in the right spirit. I have no problem with anyone who extends an olive branch to tendentious editors. I do it myself. But you have to know where to draw the line with anyone who is here simply to cause problems. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Weak Oppose per the apparent NPOV confusion. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Misunderstanding of NPOV is troubling, inability to recognize and appropriately deal with fringe POV is a deal-breaker. Skinwalker (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Raymond Arritt. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Raymond and Mattisse. Yilloslime (t) 06:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Raymond Arritt. Ashton1983 (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per all the doubts about neutrality expressed above. --Folantin (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  Absolutely not Strong oppose - Very little need to explain, just see above. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you rephrase that to Oppose instead, please? Rudget   (Help?) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish, didn't mean to cause any offence, simply my opinion. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 17:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, such a polite reaction to such a request. I'd probably have replied with absolutely not (+ who do you think you are or some such). Dorftrottel (ask) 19:37, May 8, 2008
 * So Rudget had a problem with "absolutely not", but not "even if hell freezes over"? (see opposes #3 and #5) Tee hee. ;)  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not! I'm just thinking of Coppertwig's feelings here. Rudget   (Help?) 18:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - From what I can tell, for the most part, the candidate is a well-meaning, generally helpful, and polite editor. That said, I have concerns about some things in the candidate's responses to the questions (not just the ones I asked) which indicate to me the need for more experience. In most of the candidate's explanations I repeatedly noticed steps missing. (For example: Taking an admin straight to arbcomm right after an AN/I discussion?) And I found the answer to the question on consensus troublesome. Perhaps, next time. I wish the candidate well. - jc37 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose based on fringe concerns. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This concerns me, am i misunderstanding this? Giving people advise on how to over come a block? Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's excellent advice for anyone requesting an unblock - advice I often give myself. Don't see a problem. MastCell Talk 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this common admin practice? Ive never come across it personally? If other admins do this then im more than prepared to reconsider. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, there is nothing wrong with that unblock page, it is spot on and not of itself a reason to oppose. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on it being common practice, but blocks (as opposed to bans) are not intended to be permanent. They should be overcome, editors should take the tack of not repeating their mistakes, and repentance is not a bad start. We're not talking about helping someone get around a ban or a how to guide on using socks, we're talking about solid constructive feedback on recovering from a block. I see nothing wrong with that especially for new editors who may not understand our culture. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, i change to Neutral for now, i was just unfamiliar with that practice, ive never seen it. Ill add to the Neutral list. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 04:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Based upon my personal experiences with him and what Raymond said, he is not admin material. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Arrit --BozMo talk 09:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Raymond Arritt Jehochman Talk 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - In my interactions with this user I learned to question his judgment and understand of our core content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Regretfully. We need more admins who are willing to take the time to understand long-term abuse of Wikipedia. The short-term obvious stuff is pretty well taken care of. Coppertwig's approach to the Iantresman affair leaves much to be desired. Antelan <sup style="color:#b00000;">talk  21:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Regretful Oppose You are a very civil and kind user, but I am concerned with the issues that Raymond brought up. RFA can be a pretty harsh place (trust me, I've been through it 4 times), so don't sweat it. Don't worry, because even if this does not succeed, you can always improve and try again. I'll gladly support you if you resolve the issues brought up here. Hope this comment helped you out. STORMTRACKER    94  Go Irish! 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) quoting the other opposes. -- Mojska  666  – Leave your message here 12:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a little unsure of your meaning. You are opposing the candidate for quoting? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am quoting the other opposes. -- Mojska  666  – Leave your message here 12:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thank you for clarifying. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Raymond, and Coppertwig's apparent inability to understand WP:NPOV. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 12:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose sorry, but Mastcell summed up what I would have said. The civility is great but the huge problems that would have resulted from an unblock mentioned above would have been majorly disruptive. I am not sure how you can win back trust after this but possibly a few months more civility may do it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose, although maybe I should be supporting just based on this candidate's ability to confuse the hell out of ordinarily sure-footed Wikipedians, which is worth some respect. I was going to sit this one out, but one of Coppertwig's edits  last night on a page I care about decided me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - As per the "confusion" statement bnoted above, I saw this reply and as far as I am concerned, the answer is not an answer. Despite this being an article I am involved in, we have a newbie user who can't even sign posts properly complaining about actions taken entirely in line with policy (the user in question replaced a link that was taken out with reasoning twice, and threatened to keep putting it back in until somebody "gave him an answer" rather than waiting for the answer first).  Coppertwig's reply was weak and vacillating - newbie Netiquette means not jumping into things you don't understand, and when it involves threats of policy violations, something a little stronger than "blah, blah, blah, try to reach consensus" is required, and it can be done while maintaining civility.  The lack of a strong response is indicative of a lackadaisical attitude, which is not good in an admin. MSJapan (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I find that non-self nominations increase the cabalism of Wikipedia. Zginder 2008-05-13T00:29Z (UTC) 00:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they do. But this isn't a self-nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he knows that, read his oppose a bit more carefully. Tiptoety  talk 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, your RfA currently ongoing is an self nom...  Qb | your 2 cents  00:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He/She is saying they want self noms and is opposing because this isn't a self-nom. They're the antiweber. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Alanbly Got what I was trying to say. Zginder 2008-05-13T00:44Z (UTC)
 * Ahh, thank you. Wasnt reading correctly.  Heartfelt apologies.  Qb  | your 2 cents  00:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The defense of Iantresman, is at least in the short term, very disappointing. I'd like to see some evidence that Coppertwig can spot the signs of long-term civil POV pushing next time around. <small style="background:#fff;border:#daa520 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 02:42, May 13, 2008
 * 2) Oppose: Civility is something that should be expected from every editor and any effort to keep cool, assume good faith and be civil is admirable. Still, that doesn't really say anything about how someone will use his or her admin tools. Being able to deal sensibly with difficult users (such as pov pushers) is an important quality for an admin to have. Such problems often require tough decisions and I think most editors feel a bit awkward when approaching that kind of problem? Unfortunately I agree that Coppertwig have shown incredibly poor judgment in this area so far (as shown above). And from what little I have come in contact with Coppertwig before haven't inspired confidence in this regard. I'm also a bit concerned about support for some dubious RfArb's (and as far as I know there was no discussion with the subject before jumping on the RfArb). Having looked through some of the edit history of Coppertwig I feel there is reason to question how well he/she understand policies. – <span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 14:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Need to sleep on this and do some more research  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 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 Wikipedia? I honestly can't tell, so here I stay. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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   (speak)  17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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  | <sup style="color:MidnightBlue;">Leave me Some Love   18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) Neutral Gut feeling. Spencer  T♦C 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) neutral. normally I support, but the strength of opposes from a bunch of people I respect was alarming.  I need to read up a bit.   Dan Beale-Cocks  23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled by some of the interpretation given to some diffs - some edits are labled "anti science" when they're clearly saying what the history used to be, and what it is now. That's a good thing for contentious science articles; it expalins why we used to think the earth was flat (or whatever).  The opposes do feel like a pile on and I'm concerned that people aren't doing enough of their own research.  Dan Beale-Cocks  13:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I share your confusion. The diff offered by Orangemarlin, above, seems to have reflected consensus on the talk page, which in itself seems to demonstrate pretty sound scientific thinking to me, given that the candidate called into question the context of some sourcing. I would very much like to see some diffs supporting the apparent impression some have that this candidate is promoting an anti-science POV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral: This is a first for me. I don't think I've ever come up neutral in an RfA. My personal experience with Coppertwig has been quite positive. He(?) AGFs almost to an extreme degree, perhaps even overly so if that's possible. I've seen him be a productive and calming force in arguments, mediating to reach compromise. This is a good and excellent thing. However, his actions on behalf of User:Iantresman seem so ill-considered I have to wonder about his good judgment in other situations. Perhaps his AGF is a drawback in some situations. An admin also needs to be able to make decisions and take actions that will offend and upset people. This is almost an inevitable part of the job. Not everything on WP can be solved through mediation and/or talk, as much as we might like it to be so. Thus I find myself in the neutral section. Pigman ☿ 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said, Pigman, I hope Coppertwig takes this to heart. I remember being on the other side of the WP:ATT debate as coppertwig, and although from my perspective his opposition was annoying, I can't find fault with his behaviour and would trust him as an admin. But I echo your opinion here that taking assumptions of good faith to extremes is just as harmful as failing to assume good faith. Merzul (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Given the impressive contributions from Coppertwig and the unsettling issues over POV pushers not being held to account. -- B figura (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I am concerned how his POV enters into his decision, and how that might be amplified in his adminship. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - There are too many questions that still linger in my mind, particulary regarding fringe view issues. Still i wouldnt oppose outright. I would be inclined to support if he stayed away from science topics. That might sound odd, but if it were not for that one issue i really wound support the nomination. Im probably going to take heat for that statement but im just trying to be honest. If it wasnt for the science issues the candidate would be a net-gain in my opinion. Please dont hit me too hard with your mops. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He has inclined to do just that in response to Dihydrogen Monoxide's support near the top. Rudget   (Help?) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Diff added by Ali&#39;i on 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't what the link you refer to says. It says: "I've been avoiding editing any articles in the field of science in which I'm involved professionally." That leaves a pretty broad swathe of science articles to get stuck into, and does not address the concerns about involvement as an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont worry Malleus, i read the link, it doesnt satisfy what i called for - "stay away from science topics". My neutral vote still stands. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't worried, I'm just a stickler for the facts. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I had opportunity to observe Coppertwig's attempts at mediation at Che Guevara and, while I see that these attempts were absolutely well-intentioned, I fear that they were somewhat naive and even, as Mattisse's contributions above evidence, ultimately counter-productive.  (Please note that I am not saying that I agree with Mattisse's assessment of the situation.)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but then strangely, User:Blueboar also voluntarily sought to mediate between mattisse and another user and ended up with exactly the same accusations of siding against her etc. User_talk:PalaceGuard008/Archive_2.  Merkin's    mum  11:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Please someone move this if it does not belong here.) You are misrepresenting the example and not evaluating the events but merely going by the words of one post. User:Blueboar was originally mediating the fact that User:PalaceGuard008 had copy/pasted an article I had written (and for which I received a DYK) into his article without any discussion or consensus&mdash;something I had already asked about on AN/I and was told it was against the rules.  I agreed to the mediation believing that Blueboar would follow policies supported on AN/I. Blueboar failed to support me on this issue, and the other user made no positive suggestions during the mediation regarding the article but merely attacked me. However,  if you look at the article's history after User:Blueboar's withdrawal, you will see that I continued to contribute  positively to the new article, Caisson (Asian architecture),  at which time User:PalaceGuard008 then agreed with my suggestions and changed the article accordingly.  – Mattisse  (Talk) 15:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Like Pigman has said, I've seen Coppertwig work hard to de-escalate disputes and behave in a very civil, good faith manner. And I have a lot of respect for these efforts to calm things down, however as per MastCell's and Raymond's opposes, the position Coppertwig took on the Iantresman issue is beyond my understanding and beyond AGF.  I agree with SheffieldSteel in almost everything they said.  I know Coppertwig would never willfully abuse the tools but as per Pigman's words there's a judgment issue here, at least at the moment-- Cailil   talk 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I wasn't going to vote in this RfA, but since it is fairly close, I decided to look into it more. I would really like to support, but some of the issues raised in the Oppose section have me worried. As a vandal-fighter par excellance, (if I do say so myself) I think that vandals and trolls are given way too much respect already. Copper, I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to support this. J.d ela noy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  00:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral: The opposition has raised real concerns, but then again, maybe the user just a reaaaallllly nice person who forgives others far too readily. Actually, what concerns me most is this user's proliferation of excessive user pages.  I thought WP was not a web host.  Otherwise, the editor meets most of my standards for adminship.  So I'm going with neutral. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2008 (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.