Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cberlet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Cberlet
Voice your opinion. (0/1/0) Ending 05:56:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Cberlet (talk • contribs) – Pretty much everyone who has edited topics on heated political issues affecting the United States (and other countries) has run into Cberlet at one time. Despite his strong interest in controversial topics, and his own political views being very clear from talk-page discussions, every edit I've seen from him going back many months is done with an eye towards restoring neutral language and reduce slanted prose, rather than adding his own beliefs as fact. He approaches these matters with the professionalism of an experienced journalist. Even in discussions involving angry users with an agenda to push, he tries to throw water on the fire, responding by patiently citing facts and working out compromises. And although he has his own article, he has refrained from editing it going on more than a year, except for 3-4 minor edits. He has an extraordinarily good knowledge of Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines, and I have never seen him violate them. To those who insist that a nominee needs a featured article to be an admin, I would like you to look over the work Cberlet has done on dozens of highly controversial and highly visible topics, and ask whether getting Gandalf up to featured status would really be a bigger contribution to the encyclopedia. The LaRouche supporters, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and Holocaust revisionists may not like him, but I know I'm glad he dedicates so much time to the project.
Cberlet has also won the respect of other admins besides myself. In a recent arbitration case, Jmabel said of him, "I'd be hard pressed to name a more honest and aboveboard participant in the Wikipedia." Longer ago, SlimVirgin gave him the "Defender of the Wiki" barnstar for undoing the damage done by dedicated political-fringe activists.
I think giving Cberlet the ability to rollback vandalism, protect or unprotect in the case of heavy disputes, and block 3RR violators will allow him to make more efficient use of his time on Wikipedia and improve the quality of articles on controversial topics. Andrew Levine 05:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: [Candidate has declined nomination: [1]]
- 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, if any, would 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:
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A:
- 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:
- Comments
Discussion
- Oppose Cberlet has argued for including quotes with gratuitous hyperbole that make broad, poorly supported charges in the Christian Reconstruction page. In the discussion he was asked to be civil to other editors, for making insulting remarks that were considered unacceptable. Although Cberlet has technical skills and does good work eliminating 9/11 conspiracy input, the additional priviledges of adminship would allow Cberlet more access to promote slanderous, non-informative quotes against specific views that he disagrees with. Merely questioning his source led to a dismissive remark "Your personal opinion is not of interest on the actual entry page." It is reasonable to interpret this remark as coming from someone who intends to use admin authority to censor content that does not match his funded POV. --Reconguy 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
