Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) →Discussion: comment |
→Discussion: ??? |
||
Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
#'''Oppose''' - I think a user who has been here for less than 6 months is too new to become an admon. [[User:Od Mishehu|Od]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Mishehu]] 21:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' - I think a user who has been here for less than 6 months is too new to become an admon. [[User:Od Mishehu|Od]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Mishehu]] 21:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
#:With all due respect, Od Mishehu, don't you think that a person's experience and intentions should be based on the edits rather than the time he or she has been editing? <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">[[User:Cremepuff222|<font color="#000000">*Cremepuff</font>]][[User talk:Cremepuff222|<font color="#696969">222*</font>]]</span> 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
#:With all due respect, Od Mishehu, don't you think that a person's experience and intentions should be based on the edits rather than the time he or she has been editing? <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">[[User:Cremepuff222|<font color="#000000">*Cremepuff</font>]][[User talk:Cremepuff222|<font color="#696969">222*</font>]]</span> 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
#::What's an "admon"? --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]][[User:Agüeybaná/Puerto Rico|<font color="#1E90FF">ü</font>]][[WP:LOVE|<font color="Green">eybaná</font>]]''' 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
'''Neutral''' |
'''Neutral''' |
||
#'''Netural''' Cobi's a good user, but still a bit new, I suggest you diversify a bit more. -<span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:Chris G|<b><font style="color:Red;">Chris</font></b>]] [[User_talk:Chris G|<font style="color:White;background:Red;"> G </font>]] </span> 06:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
#'''Netural''' Cobi's a good user, but still a bit new, I suggest you diversify a bit more. -<span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:Chris G|<b><font style="color:Red;">Chris</font></b>]] [[User_talk:Chris G|<font style="color:White;background:Red;"> G </font>]] </span> 06:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:55, 4 October 2007
Cobi
(talk page) (38/15/9); Scheduled to end 04:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Cobi (talk · contribs) - I do hereby nominate my master, Cobi, for administratorship on the English Wikipedia. My master could greatly benefit Wikipedia with the extra buttons. He has been described as "the most level-headed person I know" by his friends and I think he would make a great administrator of Wikipedia. ClueBot 04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept :) -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 05:08, 3 October 2007 (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: There are several areas where I have experience working in as a user and bot master. First, I am a verified open proxy checker at WP:OP, so I will be helping out in that regard with the ability to actually block the open proxies as opposed to simply noting that they are open proxies. Second, I plan on working at WP:AIV, as I have had experience reporting vandals there. My bot also reports a lot of vandals there. I also plan on helping out at WP:UAA and WP:SCV.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I would have to say that my best contribution to Wikipedia has been User:ClueBot and the other ClueBots. ClueBot reverts a lot of vandalism every day and the other ClueBots do other work around Wikipedia, such as clerking WP:OP (IV), talk page archival (III), redlink removal at WP:SCV (II), and tagging inactive WikiProjects (II).
- 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: The only "conflicts" that I have been involved with have been in relation to false positives reported about my bot. Such false positives are inevitable, but users can often get very indignant when this happens. This has not caused me stress. My approach has always been to gently explain the computation behind the false positive and try to fix this from happening again. My approach as an administrator would be very similar, in that I would quickly find the problem, make a judgment on its correctness, and "fix" the problem, while making sure all involved parties have as little discontent as possible.
- Optional question by AntiVMan: What are you opinions of COI, and what do you think it should be applied to?
- A: I believe that people who are related to or have a strong bias about a particular topic should either 1) not edit articles relating to that topic or 2) use extreme caution when doing so.
- Seemingly Optional question by SQL: I figured I'd get this one out of the way early on. What are your thoughts on Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Should this RFA pass, would you add yourself to this category? Why / Why not?
- A: It seems like everyone has a slightly different method of implementing this, but I will because I think there should be an easier way to desysop administrators if the community no longer wishes them to be an administrator without the long and drawn out process of ArbCom and because administrators should be accountable for their actions. I am not exactly sure how I will implement it, yet, but I will list myself in that category.
6. Question from JayHenry
- I'm having trouble figuring out your editing background from your contribs. It looks like you made a few edits and then, as about your 8th edit, started operating ClueBot. Most people don't start operating bots on their 8th edit. Two and a 1/2 months later, you're applying for adminship. That's a very accelerated path through Wikipedia. Is there more to the story here? --JayHenry 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- A: It is true that new users don't generally start operating bots, however, prior to my joining Wikipedia I have run many, many bots on IRC and elsewhere. Most of which, I coded my self. I saw a need and I made an automated program to fill that need. And, I realize that I am relatively new here, but I have read and understand Wikipedia's policies and I have operated several MediaWiki installations before.
7. Question from Fiddle Faddle
- Sometimes we "meet" other editors whose concept of editing Wikipedia differs so radically from our own perception of what we believe WP is that they can seem to us to be any of: obstructive, obnoxious, willful, stupid (list any pejorative adjectives you please here). It can feel important "for the good of Wikipedia" to show them where they are in error. Such situations can become combative, and require assistance to reach some form of resolution. Assuming no formal mediation or arbitration processes were available, thus the problem could not be delegated, what would your approach be, both with yourself as one of the "combatants" (I use the term particularly) and as an impartial editor (not as an admin, just as an editor) who has observed the tension and wishes to see it resolved?
- A: Well, unless the editor is going against policy, I generally don't confront them or I do so gently. If they are going against policy, then I will give them a warning stating that they are going against policy. If they continue going against policy, then I generally notify administrators via IRC or the appropriate noticeboard. If I am an impartial editor who wants to see a heated conflict resolved, I generally ask both parties if they can try to resolve the conflict. If it continues, I usually notify an administrator via IRC.
General comments
- See Cobi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cobi before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- If this nom doesn't succeed, don't be disheartened. Trust and clue is all you need for an administrator. This user has my trust, and is clueful to the policies of Wikipedia. --DarkFalls talk 06:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- A helpful user, and a fantastic bot. Lots of good work. AntiVMan 06:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Good vandal-fighter and clearly a trustworthy user, although I'd like to see more participation in mainspace content creation and in XfDs. Nonetheless, the candidate will not abuse the tools. WaltonOne 07:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I trust you man, I trust you. That's what it comes down to, after all. I don't think you're gonna go psycho, and block everyone, I don't think you're gonna delete everything. In fact, I think you'll be an asset to the encyclopedia. SQL(Query Me!) 07:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Why not honestly? Jmlk17 08:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support per SQL and Jmlk17. Heck, if this guy was here to harm Wikipedia he wouldn't spend hours writing bots that help out would he? Plus, as opposed to Jeffery below, I liked the introduction to this RfA. If we can't have a bit of fun here whilst creating a serious work lets just pack it all up and go home. I don't want to give up my valuable time for a worthwhile project if I can't have a bit of light hearted humour occasionaly. Pedro : Chat 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support, tending slightly to the weak side of the spectrum (only a little) per Walton. But a clear support nonetheless. Daniel 08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support good bot-op, wouldn't abuse the tools. Trust him. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Very Weak Support on experience concerns, but your dedication and help to wikipedia is much appreciated. Good luck - although I doubt this rfa will succeed --Benchat 08:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tentative support from what I've seen, a level-headed and sensible user. Half an hour of going through contribs didn't turn up anything but I might change my opinion if any skeletons are found later on. :) Oh, and like Pedro, I too like the self nom statement. - TwoOars (Rev) 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support A good editor; his bot is one of the best. No reason to oppose. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom. LOL. Yes I know Cluebot is a bot. I've warned and reverted some of the same vandals. No bot is perfect, and Cluebot helps clean out the ocean of vandalism. Anyone with the this sort of sense of humor is not likely to go nutter and destroy Wikipedia with the buttons. I imagine the comparably low edit count will sink this, so hope to see you back in about 3,000 edits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose has a sense of humour, and concentrates too much on mundane project maintenance tasks. Probably unsuited for clearing backlogs and dealing with wackos. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Riana. — Dorftrottel, was: AldeBaer 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think these were serious opposes. --JayHenry 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Have moved these two oppose votes here as they don't appear to be serious, and were first placed in "support" by their creators. Thedreamdied 18:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because they were supports. Please send a search party out for your sense of humour :p ~ Riana ⁂ 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- It helps to read the comments before you move them; why would someone oppose beacuse the candidate "has a sense of humour" and how is someone who " concentrates too much on mundane project maintenance tasks" be "unsuited for clearing backlogs". I think it is fairly obvious what the intent of these comments are but don't worry we all have off-moments ;) GDonato (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your sanctimonious comments, I'd like to point out that i moved them out of the oppose section that someone had put them in. Also, knowing the kind of moron that regularly edits wikipedia, "a sense of humour" seemed as normal a reason as any for opposing this nomination. Thedreamdied 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- True. GDonato (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your sanctimonious comments, I'd like to point out that i moved them out of the oppose section that someone had put them in. Also, knowing the kind of moron that regularly edits wikipedia, "a sense of humour" seemed as normal a reason as any for opposing this nomination. Thedreamdied 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- It helps to read the comments before you move them; why would someone oppose beacuse the candidate "has a sense of humour" and how is someone who " concentrates too much on mundane project maintenance tasks" be "unsuited for clearing backlogs". I think it is fairly obvious what the intent of these comments are but don't worry we all have off-moments ;) GDonato (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because they were supports. Please send a search party out for your sense of humour :p ~ Riana ⁂ 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Have moved these two oppose votes here as they don't appear to be serious, and were first placed in "support" by their creators. Thedreamdied 18:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think these were serious opposes. --JayHenry 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support or at least I think so since I can't work out which section this is now The fact that this user operates ClueBot clearly shows that Cobi will not harm the project and understands important content policies. GDonato (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support: the nomination is a cheeky breath of fresh air, and Cobi is helpful and responsive, and can explain things in a way even atechno-turkey like me canunderstand. The bots work well, and I can't see how one needs to perform a powerful lot of personal edits one's self in order to qualify as a competent admin. Seems to me that all the relevant buttons are pressed here. Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Appears to have good knowledge of policy, and is experienced with technical matters. Has a sense of humor as well, which, as I stated in Alison's RfA those many months ago, is a quality more admins need to have. Acalamari 17:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -Sense of Humour...HA !. He is an editor who is hell-bent on destroying vandalism and that is not what we expect of an admin, his bot has made many people cry..which is mean ( :P ).. he will make a terrible admin..but seeing that he was nominated by a bot :O scares me..his bots are trying to take over wikipedia..fleeee.. :S ..--Cometstyles 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support This editor knows what they are doing, and I couldn't find anything in the contribs to suggest a lack of judgment. [1] edits such as this also lead me to believe you are accountable, and respond to the needs of your fellow Wikipedians. Hiberniantears 19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- I don't see any evidence that this user will abuse the tools. --Haemo 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Blocking open proxies sounds good to me, that doesn't require experience in articlespace at all, and having a popular anti-vandal bot in use sounds like this user must already be very experienced with Wikipedia despite the short time span. Homestarmy 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. The user's mainspace contributions seem a bit on the thin side, but all in all this user appears to know what is going on and seems trustworthy - there's a lot of havoc a bot operator can unleash on the 'pedia even without the admin bit. I believe sysopping this user would be a net benefit to the project. The self-nom via bot thing was funny, for the record :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- CO2 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- SupportPer Pedro, I believe this user will definately be able to contribute more to Wikipedia through his getting of the tools. Plus, I've encounted his bot/s countless times. Phgao 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I understand the concerns about article writing, but I believe despite the lack of it, he is dedicated to building this encyclopedia. His way of building the encyclopedia is protecting it from the bad guys, so that the users who our good at article writing can write and not be distracted by vandals and trolls. I feel that this is perfectly legitimate. --Mschel 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support That is about trust, you have my trust. Just do not try to experiment in the areas which you have not experience. Good luck. Carlosguitar 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support. Cobi's a really friendly guy with a sense of humour. That's of utmost importance in an admin to avoid burnout. I don't have a concern about the edit count because I know he's dedicated to helping the wiki, and his bots have over 50 thousand edits total. Cobi is also a great boon to WP:OP. —Crazytales talk/desk 00:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support (or is it oppose?) Per Riana. —[[Animum | talk]] 01:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Oppose votes just don't convince me. By the way, loved the 'bot nomination.' Very funny. Yahel Guhan 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support No reason to oppose this user. And I wonder how ClueBot nominated Cobi. NHRHS2010 Talk 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- He logged in as the bot, maybe? :) Carbon Monoxide 03:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a trustworthy user. Pax:Vobiscum 02:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support While it would be nice if Cobi had more mainspace edits, his contributions suggest a strong understanding of the rules that make wikipedia work. I think he'd be a productive editor in many areas outside of mainspace (and maybe there too), and will be a valuable admin. --Bfigura (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support This user would not abuse the admin tools given to him. Happy to give my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support The main reason for opposition appears to be that this user does not have enough "experience" or has not made enough edits. Cobi has had a huge amount of experience both as a general administrator (he is a chief administrator of the successful ClueNet network) and with Wikipedia in particular. He has obviously researched the policies of Wikipedia in great detail and is very knowledgeable of its workings. Cobi's writing of ClueBot is an example of this knowledge, but he has also even delved deeply into the MediaWiki code itself to make modifications for personal wikis and has experience as a wiki admin in the same regard. It is obvious that he would not harm Wikipedia in any way - his dedication is apparent. His ability to write a complex piece of software to automatically analyze pages demonstrates his general ability as well as desire to help. Opposition on the sole grounds of "not enough edits!" is illogical, because the purpose of an administrator is not to spend time improving the content of pages - it is to handle much larger issues regarding the overall health of the encyclopedia, its users, and its specific pages, a task for which Cobi is certainly more than adequate. I believe he is and will continue to be a great asset to Wikipedia. This user has my full support. Crispy1989 05:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- Support A sense of humor and slight disregard for How Things Are Supposed To Happen make for an ideal administrator, someone who understands what ignore all rules is all about and when it's appropriate to ignore them, yet won't make a mess of things by ignoring them when it's not appropriate. I have high hopes for this user. kmccoy (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yes, the "oppose lack of experience" arguments are valid, but from their history I trust this editor not to do things they're not confident in — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support I believe this user will make good use of the tools, and that he has sufficiently earned the trust of the community. JavaTenor 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support, it saddens me that some of the oppose reasons brought up below are for "lack of experience". You can't be serious! I can't possibly imagine how difficult it must be to construct a good, working bot like the one he has! Cobi definitely possesses the knowledge to edit protected templates, which would be of great benefit to the community. And if I'm proven wrong and Cobi does abuse the tools (something I seriously doubt), he'll be listed for recall. So what is there to lose? *Cremepuff222* 21:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose, if its a joke nomination. If it isn't, oppose because its written like one. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a joke nomination, but essentially a self-nomination. Thanks. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 06:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very poor reason to oppose. RfA is often far too serious, and I don't see that this candidate's done anything wrong. WaltonOne 07:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Walton, but you have to admit that 'having done nothing wrong' isn't a sufficient reason to support adminship, or don't you? If this would be an argument, Editors who shied away from any controversial articles would actually have an advantage over those who tried to solve real problems. A candidate can have made mistakes, what's important is he learned from them and developed the necessary experience we need in our admins. Just my two eurocent. Gray62 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ehm, that was not Walton's reason to support, he said Jeffrey shouldn't oppose since the candidate had done nothing wrong. Melsaran (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I shall support or oppose for whatever reason I see fit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do you expect the closing 'crat to appreciate this comment of yours as much as the joke of not forcing you through RfA again may imply? — Dorftrottel, was: AldeBaer 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I shall support or oppose for whatever reason I see fit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ehm, that was not Walton's reason to support, he said Jeffrey shouldn't oppose since the candidate had done nothing wrong. Melsaran (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Walton, but you have to admit that 'having done nothing wrong' isn't a sufficient reason to support adminship, or don't you? If this would be an argument, Editors who shied away from any controversial articles would actually have an advantage over those who tried to solve real problems. A candidate can have made mistakes, what's important is he learned from them and developed the necessary experience we need in our admins. Just my two eurocent. Gray62 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - The bot is good, but I really don't think you have enough experience, mainspace wise. I.E. creating articles. Also, IMHO, I think you are too new. Miranda 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Trustworthy user, but not enough experience. east.718 at 07:24, October 3, 2007
- Oppose 200 Main space edits is too low to demonstrate appropriate knowledge of how the encyclopedia is built. But please try again after you have more experience. Ronnotel 11:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose — your mainspace contribs do not demonstrate that you have the ability to work collaboratively, or that you are clear on what our goal is here, since they are basically all automated vandalism reversions. To those opposing above me, stop counting edits. --Agüeybaná 12:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Vandal fighter ---> admin. Cobi isn't going to be the one to close an AfD like Daniel Brandt's, he isn't going to fix the conflicts over articles like Global Warming, and he probably won't solve articles' BLP issues. Will he be able to block the everyday school kid vandal, deal with the inappropriate usernames, delete the non sense pages, and protect the pages hit heavily with vandalism? Yes, and he will be able to do it quite well. Yes, content writing helps make a well rounded admin, but that's not everyone's niche. Honestly Agueybana, your standards are getting quite high. CO2 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- And I'm getting tired of your constant assumption of bad faith. --Agüeybaná 10:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Vandal fighter ---> admin. Cobi isn't going to be the one to close an AfD like Daniel Brandt's, he isn't going to fix the conflicts over articles like Global Warming, and he probably won't solve articles' BLP issues. Will he be able to block the everyday school kid vandal, deal with the inappropriate usernames, delete the non sense pages, and protect the pages hit heavily with vandalism? Yes, and he will be able to do it quite well. Yes, content writing helps make a well rounded admin, but that's not everyone's niche. Honestly Agueybana, your standards are getting quite high. CO2 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The candidate working here for a whopping four months isn't really enough to build a positive vote on. Also, his interaction with other users mostly seems to be limited to appologizing for his bot's mistakes
(this begs some questions about thew usefulness of his bot, too, imho). Not much real edit work, as far as I can see in the diffs, and thus no experience in solving real conflicts. And the candidate didn't make a compelling case why he needs admin powers for the anti-vandalism stuff. He seemed to get along just fine without it. So, what shall we base a positive vote on? Wishful thinking? Sry, this might be a promising candidate next year, but this is much too early yet. Gray62 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)- Edited. After reading a bit more about AV bots, i see that a number of false positives can't be avoided. 'Cluebot' at least is superior to its 'ancestors', and apologizing for its errors is actually a nice move by Cobi. I don't want to discourage this productive and valuable user. I just think it's a bit early for adminship. Gray62 18:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Miranda. Majoreditor 13:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, Cobi. I have no doubt that you are a good user, but with so few edits to the article talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk spaces, I can't accurately judge your ability to interact with the community and deal with arguments, indecision, etc. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - you have been so very useful to Wikipedia with what you've done so far, and the bot you created is magnificent - it even drove the previously unstoppable MartinBot into extinction! But, as a Wikipedian under Cobi, there needs to be much more experience in all areas. But, don't get me wrong, what you've done so far is great. :-) Lradrama 17:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- First I want to say that ClueBot does really, really great work. But is it's work so incredible that I feel comfortable supporting a candidate who's been active for two months, has made several edits to only three articles, and has minimal interaction with the community? I'm sorry, Cobi, but I don't think there's any bot that could allay those concerns. I would definitely support in the future if you continue on your track and interact more with the community. It wouldn't hurt in my opinion to maybe put some serious work into an article or two, in order to understand the encyclopedia-building aspect of the project. --JayHenry 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose you only have 12 mainspace edits that aren't reverting vandalism. T Rex | talk 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Miranda. Sorry buddy. ScarianTalk 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I would support you becoming a WP:BAG member, but frankly, you have absolutely zero record of editing, no talk edits, minimal interaction, nothing that I see. Almost all of your edits are either editing your userspace, bot requests or reverting User:AlptaBot. In my mind, this is not even a situation of coming back in a few months. Despite the fact that you may be a good bot editor, you are far away from demonstrating the skill necessary to become an admin. --After Midnight 0001 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. With little evidence of encyclopedia building or of non-trivial interactions with other users, I can't evaluate this editor's suitability for adminship at this time. Espresso Addict 07:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Your bot is good, but I really don't think that you have enough articlewriting experience. -Lemonflash(O_o) 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think a user who has been here for less than 6 months is too new to become an admon. Od Mishehu 21:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Od Mishehu, don't you think that a person's experience and intentions should be based on the edits rather than the time he or she has been editing? *Cremepuff222* 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- What's an "admon"? --Agüeybaná 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Od Mishehu, don't you think that a person's experience and intentions should be based on the edits rather than the time he or she has been editing? *Cremepuff222* 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
- Netural Cobi's a good user, but still a bit new, I suggest you diversify a bit more. -Chris G 06:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral You have my trust, but you don't have enough experience in other aspects of the encyclopedia. Pursey Talk | Contribs 07:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral ClueBot certainly is a most valuable addition for Wikipedia, but I feel that you've concentrated on that area specifically, and have not really had a chance yet to dig into some of the most fundamental areas that you'd need to be familiar with to be an effective administrator. (And if you are familiar with those areas, I apologize, but going from your edits, there is little or no history of AIV, UAA, AFD, XfD, participation, etc.) I'm sure this will come with time, but at this point, with less than 300 mainspace edits, I just don't feel that you're fully aware of the entire scope of the project and the depth of the areas an administrator would be dealing with. All that being said, I would like to thank you for your creation of ClueBot, as I've been beaten by the bot too many times to count, he's quick on that trigger! Good job! And in the future, if you diversify as suggested, I'm sure you'll be ready for another RfA. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 07:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- My bot reports to AIV quite often, I also know about WP:UAA, but I have not contributed there often because other users tend to beat me when reporting inappropriate usernames. It is true that I have not contributed at WP:AFD and the other "for deletion" areas. This is because most of the articles I come upon which should be deleted are candidates for speedy deletion. I don't vote on them often, but I do read them. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I figured that there's no way you could create your bot without fully understanding AIV, and the reporting process. :o) Your answer to question #3 is short and succinct, but administrators are often called upon to resolve disputes, or end up in conflict simply due to the nature of their mop duties, and I just wasn't able to find much interaction between you and other editors outside of RC patrol, or coding and bot issues. I'm not saying you don't know what you're doing, but merely that your focus seems (by your contribution history) to be quite confined. I'll dig deeper into contributions, and please know that I in no way think you'd abuse the tools, and I think you'd be effective with AIV, but Wikipedia is so much more than that, I'd just personally like to see a bit more diversity, for instance, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, WP:AER, or WP:SSP, I'm unsure how familiar you are with these areas, as your contribution history shows no activity there. Ariel♥Gold 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- My bot reports to AIV quite often, I also know about WP:UAA, but I have not contributed there often because other users tend to beat me when reporting inappropriate usernames. It is true that I have not contributed at WP:AFD and the other "for deletion" areas. This is because most of the articles I come upon which should be deleted are candidates for speedy deletion. I don't vote on them often, but I do read them. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral. Good user, but his bot violates point 1 of the bot policy – the bot must be "harmless"; it may well do more harm than good, but since it has reverted many legitimate edits and continues to do so, it can hardly be called "harmless". I can't support someone who so willingly violates official policy :) – – Gurch 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't know. I know he's made several bots, but at around 1,100 edits and only a few months at wikipedia.... try again in six months and I might support. (And I saw nothing wrong with the nomination). —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Great work on WP and you have some good experience... but a little more experience, in areas such as WP:AIV, will benefit your next RfA. κaτaʟavenoTC 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutral for now, per above. However, Great ClueBot operator. NHRHS2010 Talk 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)changed to support NHRHS2010 Talk 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral leaning towards support I usually ask myself would I trust this user with the ability to block, delete, protect, as well as can they handle the usual "Why did you block me, you suck", "Why did you delete my article, you penis, etc, etc, that admins that are vandal fighters have to deal with. If I answer yes I usually support. However, this is an encyclopedia built by volunteers, and I would like to see some significant article building. Now since we are nearly all volunteers, I have no problem with people who spend the majority of their time reverting and fighting vandals, trolls, and other disruptive users. With that being said, the only thing keeping this from a full support is the lack of article writing. If Cobi can show some examples of creating/expanding an article then I will fully support. KOS | talk 08:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral leaning towards support - I second the above. All you'd need to do to satisfy me is at least a little bit of article writing - a GA?, some DYK? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral. Without more substantive edits or talk, I can not evaluate this user. Sorry. Good work on reverting vandalism, e.g., RuPaul. Bearian 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)