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

Coredesat[edit]

Final (75/0/1) Ended Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:43 UTC

Coredesat (talk · contribs) – Cordesat has been a tireless and dedicated reviewer at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion since the start of this year with over 4200 edits to the Wikipedia namespace alone. More recently he has also turned to vandal fighting and somehow also manages to pen significant contributions (including GA/FA-classed articles) for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. This user can definitely be trusted with the mop and bucket. --  Netsnipe   ►  07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just got edit conflicted while NOMINATING him!
Let's see here, where to begin?

Personally, I've found Coredesat to be helpful, communicative, and friendly, both onwiki and on IRC. Overall, a good user. – Chacor 07:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. --Coredesat (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I've done a great deal of vandal fighting, RC patrol, and XFD, so my primary concern would be taking care of related backlogs:
I would also perform page moves on WP:RM and help close deletion reviews, and help out on the various administrators' noticeboard in ways that standard users can't, such as blocking a problematic user if such a consensus is reached after discussion and investigation.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Seeing as it is a featured article, I am most pleased with Hurricane Esther (1961). That particular article was one I found earlier on in my days of participating in WikiProject Tropical cyclones, and I spent several weeks doing extensive research (not much information is available for a storm from 45 years ago), cleanup, and additions. It went from a short article about to be merged, to a featured article in about seven weeks.
Aside from Esther, I am also very pleased with Tropical Storm Bilis (2006), which is an article that I mostly wrote and handled myself. I've also written Typhoon Saomai (2006) and Typhoon Xangsane (2006) (with help from Chacor and others) and heavily cleaned up and expanded Hurricane Marty (2003) (another storm for which not much information is available), and got Saomai, Bilis, and Marty to GA status. I have also done some cleanup work and updating to various other articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've had a few conflicts, mainly stemming from AFDs and vandal patrol, but I have a reputation of keeping my cool. The best example of this is the User:Acadamenorth conflict, which stemmed from this AFD discussion. Despite quite a few personal attacks against me and other users, I kept my cool and reported it to WP:ANI, and was able to get assistance that led to his indefinite block. I also don't lash out against users who vandalize my user or user talk pages (or leave incivil comments or personal attacks), which is a common occurrence in RC patrol/vandalfighting.

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policies WP:IAR and WP:SNOW mean to you?
A: To me, WP:IAR means that ignoring rules is justified if the integrity of the encyclopedia is at stake (policies can be wrong at times), or if the outcome of a process appears to be obvious (see later). However, I don't feel that ignoring the rules is always a good idea without consensus, because as "ignore all rules" might imply, there could be some serious consequences (especially if it was a controversial) and I think it's generally a good idea to make sure ignoring (rule) was also a good idea, for example through consensus (several of the comments on Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules are a good explanation of this). However, it's a very bad idea to invoke IAR completely at will and without any consensus or agreement, because then it would potentially be a WP:POINT issue.
As for WP:SNOW, it's not a policy or guideline, but an essay. It's simply an attempt to apply IAR to uncontroversial processes. While I do think that process is important, there are those times where, say, letting an AFD debate go the whole five days when there are 12 delete arguments and no keep arguments (and none of the deletes are socks or votes without explanation) would be pointless - in this case, the unanimity of the votes would show a lack of controversy and a clear consensus, and one could invoke IAR and close the discussion early. However, I think WP:SNOW, if used at all, should only apply to those processes that have absolutely no debate or opposition (as the essay itself states; and even then, it shouldn't be cited, as it's an essay - cite IAR instead), because even if there is only one opposing argument, it may be a strong one, and it could change the minds of the other participants. Invoking IAR here would probably not go over well with people. In the case of the hypothetical AFD, it would not be a good idea to invoke IAR if a strong keep argument appeared. Coredesat 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Early on, while gaining experience as an admin, I would more than likely defer to more experienced admins to decide whether blocking a user is a good idea (or at least consult with them). Later, I would block a user if and only if they violated policies that would result in them getting blocked - threats, ArbCom or AN decisions (for those special cases like repeated insertions of libelous remarks), 3RR violations, repeated personal attacks and vandalism, confirmed sockpuppetry, etc. I would never block any user for trivial reasons (such as "I just felt like it", or "you're annoying"). No user would receive preferential treatment over any other user (unless the user in question happened to be Jimbo or Danny, but I highly doubt that would be the case).
In short, I would adhere to the blocking policy, and assume good faith above all else unless it's clearly obvious to the community that the user's behavior is not in good faith. Coredesat 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Mangojuicetalk:

6. What is your favorite Wikipedia guideline or policy, and why?
A: It's fairly hard to say what my favorite guideline or policy is. If I had to pick one, I would have to go with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, as it is one of the central tenets of Wikipedia (it's actually one of the five pillars). This policy lays the foundation for everything else - the vast majority of the other policies and guidelines stem from this one. For instance, WP:SPAM stems from "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not a repository of links". Also, WP:NOT covers everything on Wikipedia (not just articles) with its extensions (what the Wikipedia community is not, what your user page is not). In a nutshell, it states what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia and a community centered on building that encyclopedia - by stating what it is not, and without it, things would definitely be different around here (and more than likely not in a good way). Needless to say, it's a good policy to have around. Coredesat 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. What is your least favorite, and why?
A: Again, difficult question. It's quite hard to say what policies or guidelines I don't like. However, I do have a very minor problem with the protection policy - it doesn't allow for even the semi-protection of featured articles on the main page. Vandalism to such articles sometimes occurs too quickly for bots and users to keep up with it, and by the time the article is gone from the main page, it may still contain mis-reverted or uncaught vandalism. I personally think it would be a good idea to at least semi-protect those articles, since they are featured articles, after all, and they are supposed to reflect the best Wikipedia has to offer. Again, this is just a minor issue, and not really something I lose sleep over - just something that made me think for a little bit. Coredesat 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support - I trust the nominators judgements, and the user looks like a valuable wikipedian, A* admin material -- much needed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support yes, looks great. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 14:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Looks like an honest, hardworking user. NauticaShades 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As co-nominator. – Chacor 15:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I've seen nothing but level-headed, well thought out reasoning from him in AFD, showing an excellent grasp of policies and their applications (and his work on hurricanes/storms/bad weather/whatever is top-notch). Yomanganitalk 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Excellent user, will make a fine admin.--Húsönd 15:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, contributions speak for themselves. Has a great attitude and is always willing to help out. - SpLoT 15:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. Michael 15:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Happy to support in spite of that 1FA stuff. :) --Aaron 15:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, clarification please? In spite of what 1FA stuff? If you mean my nomination, I was referring to the fact that he does indeed meet that criterion for people who choose to enforce it. – Chacor 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a tiny joke regarding my mild dislike of 1FA as an admin criteria in general. I did vote for Coredesat, after all! --Aaron 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Amazing cliche moment -- obviously great candidate! Xoloz 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support One of the best editors here. Will be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Doctor Bruno  16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Hell fuzzy yes, I've been waiting for this one. Strong presence at AfD and constantly running into him during RCP, which are surely two of the main areas admins hang out in. Should be a fantastic asset to the project. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 17:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support on wheels. This guy does a lot on AfD and no matter his opinion, he is invaluable to the AfD community. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, excellent candidate. NawlinWiki 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support ~ trialsanderrors 18:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Solid candidate. Will make a great admin. Nephron  T|C 18:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support Terrific candidate with great answers to the questions, will make a magnificent administrator. Hello32020 19:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Good contributions and answers to questions; would do well to assist with the backlog. (aeropagitica) 19:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I've seen this user around quite a bit and have seen nothing but good things. He strikes me as a dedicated Wikipedian who will use the extra buttons to further help the project as well as enhance his own productivity. A no brainer hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Solid Support - A very good candidate indeed. Give-em-the-mopTM JungleCat talk/contrib 20:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ~crazytales56297 O rly? 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. WP:100 support. Well, okay, WP:25 support. Or thereabouts. >Radiant< 20:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. John Anderson 21:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I think this is an "Are you f***ing kidding me? Of course!" strong support. -- Kicking222 21:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, now can you do something about the weather for me? :)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I was thinking of nominating him, but now there's no need. :) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Absolutely in every sense of the word Support. Nothing else needs to be said. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support - I've seen this user in different parts of Wikipedia, and I can only say good things about him. —Khoikhoi 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I-thought-you-were-already-an-admin Support Have seen this user every so often. Sensible and definitely worthy of adminship. --210physicq (c) 01:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support—Since I incline toward inclusionism (I thought I was a devout inclusionist until I started AfD & RC Patrols and discovered how bad the nonsense and vandalism can get), gave this nomination a little better than average look. Sane and reasonable in the AfD column. We can trust Coredesat to button & unbutton with good sense. Do it - Williamborg (Bill) 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support good answers, and good performance on GA/FA lead me to believe this will be a good admin, TewfikTalk 03:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Passes my criteria †he Bread 04:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Excellent contibutions to AfD, other edits are solid as well. I have no doubt that Coredesat will be a capable and trustworthy admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. [Expletive] Yes! - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-11 07:10Z
  41. Support. One of the most valuable people at AfD's. Very level-headed. Fram 07:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Merovingian ※ Talk 09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. LOL. RaNdOm26 09:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, seen him around AfD/DRV, tends to do a good job. My minor concern over question 4 is quelled a bit due to my experiences with him thus far. Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support -- Lost(talk) 12:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support. I'm confident that candidate will use the tools and use them wisely. Per nomination, "tireless and dedicated", especially in WP-namespace (with all the backlogs we have) is a good description of exactly what an admin should be. --Storkk 12:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Great contributor to AfDs and the mainspace.-- danntm T C 14:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. We need more people at XfD. + a great editor, nice candidate. NCurse work 16:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support What you mean he's not a admin already?!? Whispering(talk/c) 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support. This could be listed as a textbook example of a "ready-for-admin-duties" nominee. Themindset 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support. What's with all the expletives in the supports nowadays? Nishkid64 23:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support will use the tools well. --Alf melmac 23:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. T REXspeak 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support :) Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Titoxd(?!?) 07:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong support. utcursch | talk 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support-- Mustafa Akalp 14:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Duh. Alphachimp 15:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Pick your favorite support cliche. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support on behalf of Esperanza. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Sufficient edits? check. Good answers? check. Barnstars from Ste4k? check. Satisfies all my requirements. Addhoc 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Looks like he'll make positive contributions as an admin. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops almost missed this RfA! - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC) heheh nevermind, got here before. - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Per Chacor (Chacor got edit conflicted while NOMINATING him!). Charlie MacKenzie 08:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Seen this user around, will make a great admin, and I like the answers to my questions. Mangojuicetalk 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Adminship is not a big deal. -- RM 14:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, user has already shown to me his familiarity with Wikipedia processes and willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, great contributor at XfD --- Deville (Talk) 14:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Definite support - Seen him around regularly in AfD debates. Other edits have been solid and would be definitely be useful with the mop. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support not an admin already? hmph. Wikipediarules2221 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, of course. —AySz88\^-^ 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support --Ajm81 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  2. Neutral Seems to be a flawless user and I would support his RfA, if there was anything more special to recommend him, other than a perfect wikivita. WP needs greater diversity on its admin level and Coredsat seems to blend almost too perfectly into the bulk of admins. Subversive 22:27, 16 October 2006 (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