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

Coelacan[edit]

Final (118/1/2); Ended Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:07:24 (UTC)

Coelacan (talk · contribs) - I am honored to present Coelacan to the community for adminship. Editing since May 9 2006, Coelacan has amassed over 9200 edits, spread out over the article and Wikipedia namespaces, among others. Though his user page may seen sparse and empty, underneath lies an editor complete with a deep knowledge in policy and well-rounded experience in almost all aspects of Wikipedia (including, but not limited to, XfD's, policy, deletion sorting, etc.). Most importantly, Coelacan has an amicable, civil, and polite personality that helps when help can be offered and advises when advice can be given — a truly rare example in the Wikipedia community. Coelacan has demonstrated his abilities past the most stringent minimums of adminship and into the near-perfect blend of editor and administrator that I am, and will be, proud to nominate. 210physicq (c) 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination - It is with great pleasure that I am able to co-nominate Coelacan for adminship. Coelacan does great work at CfD and AfD always giving very good policy arguments during the discussions. His work on categories is extremely good, showing full understanding of all applicable policies. I feel Coelacan's major asset is his thoroughness, if he starts a job, he finishes it and does it properly - no matter how long it takes. He's a nice chap as well, always friendly, and always open to listen to concerns and deal with them in a diligent manor. When talking to new editors, he always quotes applicable policies/guidlines in a hope to steer them in the right direction - this shows a tendancy to assume good faith and help the newbies. With his time spent here, coupled with his dedication to the project and firm grasp of policy, Coelacan will be a great asset to the administration. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. — coelacan — 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I have enough experience with our fair use requirements that I can begin clearing out the backlog of replaceable fair use images immediately. Images with unknown copyright status and images with no fair use rationale will be easy too. Ideally, handling these backlogs may involve providing the missing information and then keeping the images in some cases; it isn't just about deleting. In my opinion one of the most important issues to handle quickly are attack pages, and while category:attack pages for speedy deletion never seems to be backlogged, I intend to be one more set of eyes on it. The more complicated issues that show up at the biographies of living persons noticeboard need similar attention, though they don't always need admin tools, some persistent BLP problems can benefit from admin involvement. I have a familiarity with XFD discussions, particularly CFD (I can use WP:CFD/W without breaking it), and I'm able and willing to recognize when a consensus favors a result I might disagree with. I feel that I can close almost any XFD discussion impartially, and I'll steer clear of those I can't (and of course those I've participated in). Though anti-vandalism is not my idea of fun, I'll help keep WP:AIV from piling up whenever I can. Beyond these, I anticipate that in a pinch, I can help with most any task when called on. I've watched most processes on Wikipedia, and where I'm unsure of something, it's never hard to find a more experienced admin to confer with first.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I really enjoy freeing images, that is, convincing photographers to copyleft their images for our articles here. A good image makes any article better, and I've "negotiated for the release" of many; my favorites are the ones you see at Whoopi Goldberg, Jeff Corwin, Carlton Pearson, John Shelby Spong and James A. Forbes. Most of my other activity is gnomish: dredging up references, moving articles incrementally toward NPOV, wikifying new articles. I have over time developed an outlook on how this community builds an encyclopedia, and I'm pleased with everything I've done toward that end.
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: Responding to RFCs and requests at the help desk has given me experience in defusing hostilities between editors, and, failing that, at least bringing article-space edit wars to a halt. For example, with the help of other uninvolved editors, I kept the discussion at Talk:First world on track by countering POV pushing from both sides, reducing incivility, and bringing this edit war to a real end. I didn't have to edit the article once; the dispute was resolved through diplomacy. Talk:Max Headroom pirating incident is a more recent example; this one hasn't been resolved to anyone's satisfaction yet, but I've tried to raise the discourse there above a subjective evaluation of who likes having what in the article. In general I find that Wikipedia has already developed many reliable methods for handling conflict. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I find that the old standard of insisting that articles conform to policy, and taking further disputes through dispute resolution, tends to resolve most situations that arise. There were conflicts with one editor which I am not proud of, and which I still regret. These culminated in me whining on ANI over a rather unimportant matter. I was still in a WP:PAIN mode of thinking, and I escalated the conflict rather than cooling it down. After realizing that I was climbing the Reichstag, I let it go, and this mistake helped me to take a new approach to editing here, wherein I don't need to concern myself with unkind things said of me. I now focus on the results of editing and let personal commentary slide off, unacknowledged. Past that instance, I think I do a good job of keeping myself and (when I can) others on the task of writing this encyclopedia. I try to reduce instruction creep, which has recently led to discussion on ANI and my talk page. I've done my best to address this politely. As it's ongoing, we'll have to see what happens, but I'm still optimistic that the usual means of communication and wider community input will bring about an amicable resolution.
Optional question from Gracenotes
4. Under which conditions would you block a non-vandalizing sockpuppet? How would you go about it? GracenotesT § 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Any banned user confirmed as a sock by checkuser I would just block to prevent the expected further disruption. Besides the exception of banned users, a sock is only a sock if the account is being used disruptively; otherwise it's just an alternate account. I'm sure there are some editors out there who were indef-blocked, and have returned with new and better behavior, to everyone's benefit. This option remains open to anyone who is not banned. So the decision to block a sock rests upon the account's editing behavior. Circumvention of 3RR with socks needs to be met with blocking, because edit warring is highly disruptive to everyone who edits (or reads) an article. Continued harrassment of other users often requires blocking; applying the duck test, if someone is blocked and a new account suddenly begins harrassing other editors involved in the previous dispute, the sock should be blocked without worrying that it's a newbie who's not familiar with WP:NPA. Then there are less obvious cases of suspected sockpuppetry, the sort of behavior that might result in blocking an experienced editor but which a newbie might only be sternly warned for. When such an account's behavior doesn't obviously match a pattern I'm familiar with, I would ask another admin more familiar with the puppeteer to give an opinion on the identity. If it's not obvious for anyone, it's best to leave well enough alone and just give the user whatever warning level is necessary, without blocking yet. Any account that I do block as a sock, I will inform of the reason on their talk page, and let them know of the possibility for ((unblock)) review (the ((uw-block)) template series does this already, though). Mistakes are sometimes made, but this balance of caution hopefully minimizes damage to mistaken identities, while giving other editors the opportunity to work productively in relative peace and quiet without repeated disruption.
Optional question from Wooyi:
5. How would you determine whether if there is a rough consensus to delete/keep when you close an AFD/MFD/TFD discussion? WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: This is a tough question to answer in a general sense, so I want to give some specific examples and then elaborate from there. This AFD was a contentious close, and in deletion review, I argued to endorse deletion on the grounds that although the numbers were close, policy was more clearly on the side of deletion. The relevant policy, in this case, was WP:NOR due to subjective inclusion criteria, as succinctly articulated by this editor. For another example, here is an AFD I started, which was closed as no consensus. I agree with rationale behind the closure, but (had I not been involved), I would have closed it differently. I thought there was consensus to keep the parent article and delete the child articles. Policy favored no one in this case, since there was no clearly applicable policy either way and I don't think WP:MUSIC even applied anyway. So numbers became important, and while the arguments from both sides were thorough and thoughtful, enough people seemed convinced by the deletion arguments to at least delete the child articles (many explicitly said "delete all but the main article" or the equivalent). But the closing admin's decision of no consensus was also well within the bounds of reasonable XFD interpretation, as I had already noted. As a final example, this CFD was a difficult close that I agree with. It was a three-way split (several arguments for renaming, in addition to the keeps and deletes), and while I argued for deletion, in the end there was no consensus to delete. WP:OCAT is very subject to interpretation, so it's important to gauge how the community weighs the different interpretations that are offered, and in this case I have to agree with the closer that "we have to take the rename commentors on face value, and they did not suggest delete, which they could have", and "the less destructive option is preferred".
Now, what I'm trying to show with these examples is that I regard XFD as a means of taking specific interpretations of policy and filtering these through the community. Sometimes, in borderline cases, certain interpretations are just not convincing to the community, but if a sane argument from policy convinces a substantial number of editors, this should prevail. If both sides can make convincing arguments from policy, and editors are swayed by both sides, then it may be necessary to just look for a supermajority, and failing that, close as no consensus (then go to the village pump and start a conversation about why policies appear to conflict).
In any case, no matter what the particular details of any XFD, I have a plan that I intend to follow: I will always ask myself how confident I am that I could defend my closing at deletion review. If I'm not sure that I can make the case convincingly at DRV, then I shouldn't make that particular close, and I should reevaluate the XFD with an open mind to a different result.

Optional question from Simply south:

6. Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not particularly proud of? Why? Simply south 10:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sure. Primitive Baptist Universalism is not an article I started, but one I did some minor work on. The thing is, I have one of the only modern source texts (Dorgan's book, In the Hands of a Happy God) and I could expand that article a great deal, but I got sidetracked months ago and I haven't picked it up again. There are other articles like that, but that one springs to mind.

Optional question from Naconkantari:

7. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I place the emphatic marks in IAR a little differently than the policy does: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." IAR is a workaround for the times when the process breaks the product; it still places the encyclopedia before the editor, and it is not a license or free reign for anyone's POV. To be specific, I believe that no editor (admin or otherwise) should use IAR in those situations where an admin should not use admin tools: to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, or to otherwise harass or act punitively against other editors. IAR should also never be used to break the laws of those jurisdictions where Wikimedia servers are hosted; that should be obvious, but there are copyright subtleties and opportunities for personal defamation that may tempt editors into invoking IAR, and that's unacceptable. Other than that, there's no blanket statement I could make about when it should and should not be used. Invocations of IAR, if they are challenged, have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For that reason, all invocations are best made explicit. Newbies and irregular editors need to know when something is being done by editorial discretion, so that they aren't left wondering "where is that in the rules?" Implicit use of IAR isn't something I'd yell at someone over, but it's better to just keep it in the sunshine, instead of assuming that the regulars will "just know" when it's happening.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominator Support —210physicq (c) 00:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, beat the co-nom? - I've seen this person around, and I'm quite sure that he won't abuse the tools. // PTO 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you can understand that some of us victims (it's likely that the others have been banned/blocked and are unlikely to be heard) do not share your confindence that he won't abuse the tools. r b-j 10:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pfeh! - about time "support" - Alison☺ 00:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I see no problems here. (aeropagitica) 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I have been very aware of Coelacan's contributions and have been impressed in all instances. Mallanox 00:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Oh dear God yes. This user lurks around all kind of backwaters on Wikipedia doing stuff that is unpleasant but necessary, is consistently helpful to anyone who knocks on his talkpage and quickly learns from any mistakes made. Even when we have not seen eye to eye we have settled our differences in a civil and amicable manner that I believe Coelcan brings to nearly every discussion. Moreover he has a brilliant sense of humour and a seemingly endless supply of cat pictures for every situation. I have no doubt whatsoever that Coelacan will prove an exceptionally useful and helpful admin. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Honest to goodness, my first thought on seeing this one pop up was "wait, he isn't one?" -- I've been going on this whole time thinking you were, and had no problems with it, so I don't see why I should have any problems with it, now. Personal experience doesn't give me any reason to think the candidate will abuse the buttons. Good luck! – Luna Santin (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No question about this one at all. κaτaʟavenoTC 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, no problems here.--Wizardman 01:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rather late, but super strong support as co-nom - a great candidate (just read the noms :) ) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support undoubtedly an excellent candidate. —Anas talk? 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Another user whom I had already accepted as an admin. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I've seen him around, very good editor, no worry to give him admin tools. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Knowledge and experience with XfDs should allow him to close the most controversial of discussions. –Pomte 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support It's a shame there aren't more candidates like you HornandsoccerTalk 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support You seem trustworthy, and the image backlogs need all the attention admins are willing to give them. I especially like that you linked to specific examples where you didn't handle conflict well, and explained how you changed your approach after that. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I know it seems glib, but "Er, what? Yeah." applies here. Teke 05:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Pile-on support I don't need to read the whole rigmarole. I know this user, and I trust him. YechielMan 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yea, verily. Tomertalk 07:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Good candidate. -LakersTalk 07:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Absolutely - I have only ever had pleasant interactions with this user, and I can't see a reason to withhold the tools. ♠PMC♠ 09:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - No doubts here. Khukri 10:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support--MONGO 10:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per good answers and overall experience. Addhoc 10:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - I have to resort to the cliche: I though you were already and admin! : ) - jc37 11:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I've only ever seen good contributions from this user, too. Sandstein 13:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Although Coelacan and I have been on opposing sides of a number of discussions, Coelacan has always stated his opinion rationally and reasonably, and while we may agree to disagree in the future, I believe that Coelacan will demonstrate good judgement in applying wiki policy and guideline as an admin and that he is worthy of the community's trust. -- Avi 14:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support - Coelacan and I had a disagreement once, but we resolved it civilly, which is all the more reason to support. This user is also highly experienced across all aspects of Wikipedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per all comments others have made. Captain panda 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support This edit alone shows that Coelacan has the required sense of humor to do a great job. (And if you don't like that rationale, Coelacan's participation in XfD shows that he's a reasonable editor who deserves to be trusted with the mop.) Pascal.Tesson 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 16:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Like what I've seen of his work at XfD and elsewhere. --Folantin 16:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Very trustworthy user, good answers to questions and wants to work clearing incorrectly tagged fair use images where we need more admins. Excellent. Will (aka Wimt) 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support, was considering an offer to nominate myself when I saw that it was already happening. Handles tough situations very well, will make an excellent admin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - In my experiences with this prehistoric fish editor, I have observed good judgment. —dgiestc 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I have seen this user making positive contributions to WP.--Danaman5 17:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support-Seems good. We need more admins with image knowledge. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Flawless user. Should be a superb admin. – Riana ऋ 19:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: Seen him at work on the Help Desk, and am impressed with it. x42bn6 Talk 19:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support: I have seen his comments on some talk pages. I think he is a good guy. -:) --- SAndTLets Talk 22:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, I have seen this guy do some good stuff and expect that he would do more as an administrator. J Di 22:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support Ryan did the co-nomination; that's a great sign as far as I'm concerned. Acalamari 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, I've seen Coelacan's contributions and am confident the buttons will be well used and not misused. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Meets or exceeds all of my expectations. This user is one of the better ones. NeoFreak 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per nom, Dev920.Proabivouac 03:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Hell yes? Daniel Bryant 03:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support This person has not only improved wikipedia, they've made me a new and improved Wikipedian. Thank you, --Masterpedia 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Jkelly 05:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. About time. Khoikhoi 05:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Already doing lots of grunt work, which is a good indication that he'll be a good admin. I especially appreciate the effort he puts into discussions. -- Samuel Wantman 08:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Trustworthy. ~ trialsanderrors 09:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. WTF? I don't get this. Genuine case of RFA cliché number 1. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Absolutely no problem at all. Great contributor.--Anthony.bradbury 12:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. All I can say is: Wow! -Mschel 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Very, very well rounded with regards to policy, and also articulate. No streaks of insanity. Yet, anyway :) GracenotesT § 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, another "I could have sworn you had the mop..." situation.--Isotope23 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Thought he already was...etc, etc. Coemgenus 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - well-deserved. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. All the contribs I've noticed by Coelacan have been level-headed and careful. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - All interactions have been positive with this user, even in the rare instances where we have disagreed. --After Midnight 0001 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - As per recent interactions with User:PatPeter. The Boy that time forgot 21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Great work to date - keep it up after you get adminship please.--VS talk 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Wikibreak support- wouldn't want to miss this one. An intelligent and persuasive editor with a lot of relevant experience. The number of supports form editor who have been in disagreements with Coelacan in the past speaks volumes. Has my complete trust. WjBscribe 00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Can trust to be reasonable with use of blocking powers and to respond civilly when questioned about his actions, based on prior experience with his editing. Αργυριου (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, good candidate. Nothing but good interactions with this user. --Coredesat 03:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, Coelacan adopted me about a month ago when I was floundering in the wikipit and has been very helpful! Cool-headed advice and prompt assistance. --killing sparrows 04:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. I could swear I saw you delete something... -Amarkov moo! 05:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Excellent responses Carlosguitar 06:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, sure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, good responses and a good editor all around. Fram 08:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Certainly. >Radiant< 08:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, seems to have the wisdom and temperament to be a good admin. MURGH disc. 09:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. a great user --dario vet (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong support Great editor, will make a very fine admin. :-) Raystorm 11:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong support urgh image backlogs. Great user, soon to be great admin. James086Talk | Email 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support, good experience, good answers. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Looks well balanced and fair answers. Simply south 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - Very experienced ,very good answers and above all one of the most likeable candidates..--Cometstyles 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Weak support. Does seem a bit trigger-happy, but freeing up the images shows dedication. Abeg92contribs 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. A D'oh! thought I'd already been here Support. Shenme 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - will be good admin. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Good, experienced editor. utcursch | talk 04:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. First aware of this editor through Carlton Pearson and was impressed. Continue to be impressed. Philippe 05:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Experienced and trustworthy. —Celithemis 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Yeah, I'm late on this one, but I think he deserves more support anyway. Great editor. Rockstar915 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support → Not have found a reason why not! He'll be a good admin. (We need more) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Very good editor, sound ideas. Bubba hotep 07:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Baristarim 09:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Coelacan understands policy, is thoughtful in his posts, and shows strong evidence of thought behind his posts. Coelacan will be a welcome addition to Wikipedia's admins. -- Jreferee 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - seems like a good candidate. VK35 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. (edit conflict) We've crossed paths a number of times and we've usually agreed. Then there are those times we've disagreed. Based on the manner of our disagreements and the likelihood that we'll disagree in the future, I strongly support the candidacy of an excellent editor. ;) Cheers, Black Falcon 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. Superb user, will make a great admin. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Thoughtful editor, will wield a Jeffersonian mop wisely. KrakatoaKatie 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support (edit conflict) Despite the high tally and the concerns about vote-stacking, I support this candidate to support this candidate. Great at Afd, always thoughtful and well-versed in policy. --Tractorkingsfan 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support based upon impressive ommunication skills and contributions. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 08:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Excellent candidate. Answers clearly denote experience.--Húsönd 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. SUPPORT. Rah, Rah, Sis Coom Bah! Make Coelacan an admin THIS INSTANT! Just the needed change to make this a better place. Jeffpw 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Good impression of his reasonableness and civility. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Naconkantari 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Terence 06:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - Everything but over qualified - No FA, but made up for it by sheer amount of edits. Spawn Man 09:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Rather weak support Interiot tool [[1]] shows mainly active in last six months, and as his answer at the top says, he has not much experience in adding to or creating articles, which I think often shows in his CfD contributions. But argues his case when needed, & is more thoughtful than many on CfD. Johnbod 15:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, trustworthy. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. support ↔ tz (talk • contribs • autographs) 06:01:04, Saturday, April 14, 2007 (UTC)
  115. Support Majorly (hot!) 18:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Excellent candidate. --Duke of Duchess Street 21:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Coelacan has demonstrated knowledge of policy and has done extensive work with the encyclopedia. I have no doubts that he/she will do well as an administrator. Nishkid64 23:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support I am loathe to pile-on at RfA, but, inasmuch as this is a candidate on whose RfA I have long been waiting and whom I think to be exceedingly qualified, my disagreement with him apropos of his rather strict construction of NLT and BAN vis-à-vis Rbj notwithstanding, I must offer my unnecessary support. Joe 04:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose pointless vote stacking, why do you vote when the tally is 50 to 0? Are you trying to make friends? -Lapinmies 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that show the candidate is wrong for adminship? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Not jumping on this bandwagon. Here is a reason this candidate is wrong for adminship: not particularly honest and not particularly friendly to editors that oppose his/ POV. Coelacan is part of a block of editors that want to make sure that Wikipedia articles do not violate the pro-gay or same-sex-marriage POVs. when this group is opposed, one thing they like to do is silence critics simply by censoring them. when i undeleted these censored comments (of someone else they were silencing) from my very own talk page, Coelacan falsely accused me of making threats on Wikipedia that resulted (because of an inexperienced new admin who now realizes it as a mistake) in me being blocked indefinitely even though i threaten no one at any time (and said so). because it was an indefinite block based on a false premise (how does one agree to stop making threats they never made?), i had no choice other than take this to Jimbo who immediately agreed that i made no threats and unblocked me himself. you can look at my talk page and see post after post of dishonest representation (that, until much later when i was just fed up, i responded to as politely as one can when i know someone is not being truthful to me). Jimbo made this clear to the blocking admin (that Coelacan temporarily successfully duped) that "I don't agree that Rbj restoring a deleted comment of someone else (who made a legal threat) to his own user talk page is the same thing as him making a legal threat himself. Far from it. --Jimbo Wales 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)" to which Coelacan whined: "Jimbo, then what is WP:BAN supposed to mean?: .... Rbj is fighting to ensure that legal threats remain on Wikipedia...." Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. so Coelacan has to respect user talk pages to the point where he/she cannot delete notes on them before the user gets around to reading it. someone should go to Coelacan's voice-mail and delete all of the unheard messages before he/she gets around to hearing them. even the blocking admin recognized (after Jimbo's admonition) that he goofed up ("so clearly my take on the situation wasn't as evident as I had thought."), but not Coelacan. r b-j[reply]
    that speaks to integrity and there is little reason to believe that Coelacan will be more honest or less abusive with admin tools that before without them. it would be nice if we could rely on integrity from admins rather than see the mean such commodity diluted by use of the bandwagon. i've cited everything. i hope i'm clear and that folks can see through the inevitable retaliation and misrepresentation that will follow. I can cite another episode where i miscounted reverts and posted a 4th about 231⁄2 hours after the first and Coelacan falsely called that "8 reverts" in reporting it. exaggerating really is dishonest, but it was 4 reverts in slightly less than 24 hours, so i didn't make a stink about it then (i have finite energy for such bullshit). after that, it gets more difficult to cite the blow-by-blow at Talk:Marriage so i would invite taking a look at the history or archive from around and preceding that same time (ca. Feb 20). r b-j 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Rbj. I see the situation differently. That user was banned, banned users cannot edit Wikipedia, and you were fighting to keep his "calling counsel" threats on Wikipedia. You had previously restored some of that user's other edits while explicitly stating that you "take ownership of them". I believe the policy is pretty clear on this. WP:BAN says "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing", and WP:NLT says "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." You took responsibility for legal threats, you would not let them be removed from your talk page, and legal threats cannot be left sitting around on Wikipedia. It seems reasonable to me for you to have been blocked until you removed them (which you still could have done, since blocked users can edit their talk pages). I would not personally have blocked you, since I was in the midst of a dispute with you, but from what I could see regarding your reversions, I believe the block was reasonable and appropriate. Your email to Jimbo convinced him otherwise, and that's fine; Jimbo runs the place and if he wants legal threats sitting around on Wikipedia, that's his prerogative. I did ask him how else WP:BAN and WP:NLT are supposed to be interpreted, and as far as I know, he did not answer. I'm still open to having another interpretation explained to me, but on my current readings of those policies, I defend the initial decision to block.
    You say I made false accusations against you on ANI, and I'd be grateful if someone else could explain what exactly was false there. The 3RR report you referenced is right here if anyone would like to review it. As the report notes, you were explicitly gaming the system by trying to pair up your "quota of reverts" with another user. As the report also notes, they are not all the same reverts, but I believe they are all reverts, and complex reversions are also reportable at WP:AN3. Anyone can review that report and decide if they come to the same conclusion as the blocking admin. I welcome any related input, here or on my talk page. As to the discussion at Talk:Marriage, a review of the archives and the current talk page might indeed be instructive. I don't know what you expect people to find there, but if you're just asking for a de facto RFC on that page, that'd be most welcome.
    Anyway, I'm glad your concerns have been raised here. I think you are reading "censorship" where there is none, but in the future if you do not feel that you are receiving a fair hearing, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is always open to you. — coelacan — 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I join Coelacan's interpretation at the time, and still hold that interpretation (yes, I disputed Jimbo's analysis, but did not do anything). Those legal threats against me were first made by Nkras, and when you reposted them, alleging censorship where none exists, you effectively took responsibility for the threats. No more, no less. So to shift responsibility that clearly belonged to you onto someone else entirely is direly reprehensible. —210physicq (c) 21:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral; no obvious problems and seems like a reasonable candidate; would support if endorsed by a WikiProject. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, because I'd oppose for anything like endorsement by a Wikiproject. Seriously, what? -Amarkov moo! 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what this means. I'd like to point out though, that Coel is also a regular contributor to WP:LGBT and has extensive work done there - Alison☺ 15:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know any WikiProject would "endorse" a specific RfA candidate. Wikipedia is not a political arena. WooyiTalk, Editor review 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on guys, lets not shoot the opposer, actually, she's not even opposing the candidate. I think what Kelly's getting at it evidence of article writing. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No shooting here, Ryan. I'm just genuinely confused. - Alison☺ 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think several of the regulars from WikiProject LGBT studies are here to support (as individuals) because of the work they've seen me do there. That said, I will not seek any kind of organized endorsement from that project, and I think we should discourage WikiProjects (as groups) from what may be seen as politicking. I agree with your rationale, "to create, improve, maintain, or manage encyclopedic content", but to be honest I don't want to see WikiProjects get involved in RFA. — coelacan — 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your position, and regret that I am unable to support your candidacy as a result. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm...by this I take it you mean a vote count taken on the wikiproject talk page or something similar? How does this work if there are only a couple of people on the wikiproject and one endorses the other? (eg Wikiproject Fungi at the moment which is pretty quiet.). I do like the idea of promoting wikiprojects for more streamlined collaboration just not sure if this is a good platform for it.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never seen a Wikiproject endorsing a candidate, and if it happened, chances are that it would be seen as a kind of canvassing and generate its own opposes. One of the more bizarre reasons for not supporting a candidate you consider reasonable, and one of those things that make people complain that RfA is broken... Fram 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly Martin is actually trying to fix some perceived problems with RFA. A full read of the recent discussion at User talk:Kelly Martin should help you understand the rationale. I disagree with the particular goal, but as a means of spurring that discussion, this is merely a bold beginning. If these neutrals were voiced as opposes, it might be a little POINTy, but as it is this is not disruption and I believe it is well within Kelly Martin's reasonable discretion to bring this up on RFAs. — coelacan — 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it is within her discretion, but if she starts the discussion, it is within my discretion to disagree with it here as well. I don't think proposing a new idea by using it on some testcases is the best way to proceed, but then again, I have recently done enough bold edits where a bunch of other people disagreed that it was the best way to proceed as well... Fram 08:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pure shrubbery. To the bet of my knowledge, no WikiProject has ever endorsed an RfA nomination. How would that even happen? No single individual has the right to declare that a WikiProject endorses a candidate and if there was a concerted effort to designate an RfA candidate, say through a project talk page, we'd see outraged cries of canvassing. Pascal.Tesson 15:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Pascal (and for the first time, Radiant), I would ask you to refrain from using such insulting terms to comment on my RFA support policy. If you wish to discuss my intentions, you may do so on my talk page, although I suspect you will find most of your questions already answered there. And my compliments to Coelacan, who is willing to disagree amicably; if only all Wikipedians were so civil and sensible about such matters. I am tempted to support you, notwithstanding the lack of an endorsement, merely because you seem so much more civil than the usual rabble that inhabits these slithy wabes, but I have made a pledge and I intend to keep to it. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good on ya, if you made it you keep it. I made a sledge once, it broke. The Boy that time forgot 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes, the word "shrubbery" is incivil but the term "usual rabble" is not. Glad to see you still have your sense of humor. It's kind of ironic how, in apparent dislike of 1FA, you make up a criterion that's equally arbitrary. >Radiant< 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral because of the use of a fair use image used in their userspace which I just removed and has been there for just over 2 months. Normally I would oppose for such things, but the article was copied there by another user, and although Coelacan was aware of this, making two edits after the creation and commenting out other items, I'm just not certain that this is a willful violation because of the other user involved and the lack of edits since. Though this certainly is a clear violation of the fair use policy/criteria for which I expect an admin to know and enforce. MECU˜talk 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good find. I do not believe that was a violation of fair use, though, because that subpage is an article that has been userfied. In the context of that page, the image did satisfy the requirement of ((web-screenshot)) that the image be "for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question". So as a legal matter, and on wikipedia:fair use policy, there was no problem. As a practical matter, there is an expectation that userfied articles will not sit around forever in userspace. This article needs to be finished and go back into the wild (and submitted to AFD again to see if it passes this time). I will begin working on this immediately. — coelacan — 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Backpedaling. Fair use really needs to ignore the distinction of "article in userspace". I just ran the thought experiment of how many excuses and how much wikilawyering this would amount to, for no real benefit to the encyclopedia. While this particular instance was legally in the clear, it needs to fall under a blanket disallow for those reasons. Thank you, MECU, for bringing this to my attention. You're quite right. — coelacan — 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category