Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

1 Cobi

[edit] Cobi

(129/48/9); Ended 16:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobi (talk · contribs) - This is Cobi's third RfA, and I think this might be the one. Three people want to co-nom this. Cobi has been around since the end of June, and has almost 3000 edits (likely 3000 by the end of this RfA). I think everyone knows that he runs the ClueBots, but that's not all he does. He has a great grasp on open proxies, one important part of Wikipedia. He also knows his vandal stuff. I think many of the last stuff has been cleared since his last RfA, and would make a great admin. Soxred93 | talk bot 23:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Compwhizii: Cobi. This is a user who has very good grasp on Wikipedia polices and protocols. He shows this through his work here and even when hes not here, with his amazing bots. He is a well mannered and civil wikipedian. I have known him to be a great friend and now he will make an excellent administrator. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by –Crazytales talk: Cobi is well-versed in Wikipedia policy and his excellent bots have been very useful. He also helps out a lot at the open proxy Wikiproject and always displays civility and friendliness, both on and off-wiki. I definitely think he's ready to be an admin now, and I still think he was at the time of his second RFA, even though that didn't go so well. –Crazytales talk 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by SQL ^{Query me!}: I believe that Cobi has addressed the concerns from his previous RfA, and, as last time, he still has a good grasp on our policies. Cobi's always seemed very level-headed, smart, civil, and resourceful to me. I firmly believe, as last time, that Cobi would make a great administrator. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept these great nominations by Soxred93, Compwhizii, Crazytales, and SQL. Thank you :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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: I intend to help out specifically at WP:OP as I am a verified open proxy check. I also intend to help out at WP:AIV, WP:CSD, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP as they are directly related to anti-vandalism, which is my forte. Furthermore, I will help out wherever necessary/requested, provided that I know all the policies and protocols relating to, and am familiar with how things are done with, that specific task.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Many of you are familiar with ClueBot and its siblings. I would have to say that the ClueBots, specifically the original ClueBot, are my best contributions to Wikipedia. The ClueBots aside, I have also checked hundreds of IPs at WP:OP (most are in huge edits, instead of several small edits).

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.

4. Will you list yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open for recall?

A: Yes, under revision #194189912 of Lar's criteria. (This will be posted on my user page and updated as I see fit, in accordance with the grace period).

5. Will you eventually branch out into new admin areas?

A: Yes, but only after I have observed the process, read and understood all relating policies and protocols, and feel confident that I understand how things are done in that area.

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC !?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Benon, Tiptoey, and everyone else.

6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A: Remove some of the workload from article writers so that they may concentrate more on writing articles, instead of having to waste their valuable time fighting vandals, and worrying about Wikipedia's internal processes.

7. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? When would the "snowball clause" apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?

A: WP:IAR is used when a policy or rule gets in the way of building and improving the encyclopedia. It also means that anyone can contribute in good faith before reading the rules. We should not let rules and policies get in the way of our goal, which is to build an encyclopedia. The snowball clause is designed to reduce people wasting others' time by allowing processes for which the outcome is virtually guaranteed to be skipped.

8. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behavior?

A: Yes. I do not succumb to stress very easily. I am not overly emotional, and do not let others' comments to get under my skin, so to speak. And even if I were stressed out, I would walk away from the computer for several minutes until I had calmed down and regained my cool.

Optional question from Dweller

9. You have failed two previous RfAs, one of which closed pretty recently (<3 months ago if I can trust my dodgy maths). How would you summarise the reasons for the failure of your previous RfAs? What has changed since then that would make a hypothetical user who opposed in the past support this attempt? --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A: First off, I had planned on waiting a couple of weeks (to put me past the "magic" 3 months mark), but then this amazing nomination came, and it was obvious that some people thought that now is a good time. As for the first RfA, I would have to say the reason that it failed was because it was too soon, and because of lack of experience. The second RfA failed because of the stupid stunt I did with ClueBot and its edit summary. There were also concerns about Wikipedia namespace edits and main namespace edits. I have increased my Wikipedia namespace edits, and I have increased my main namespace edits. Furthermore, I have tried to write/improve upon articles, but I am not a writer, and never been very good at it. What has changed? Experience, the ClueBot incident is no longer a current issue, etc. Why have I not written any more articles? Plain and simple, I am not very good at it. I don't really enjoy writing articles. Furthermore, if I can spend 30 minutes and the results of my work may, over time, turn into 100,000 vandalism-reverts. However, if I spent 30 minutes improving an article, I may find a reference or two (or three) for common knowledge (in that specific field), yet there doesn't seem to be any documentation when looking; I might create a stub to which nothing has been changed; or I might notice that an article had three exclamation marks and try to fix it. I hope you see, now, why I would rather work on ClueBot.

Optional questions from Malinaccier

10. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A. A block is a technical feature of MediaWiki used to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. A ban is when the community formally decides to partially or completely revoke a user's right to edit. A block can be used to enforce a ban.

11. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?

A. A POV fork is when a user, after seeing that they can not push their POV in the main article, creates another article on the same topic to represent their POV. As for how I would deal with it, unless it is blatant vandalism/advertising (in which case, it is a CSD), I would bring it to the attention of a more experienced article writer/admin, as this is outside the scope of admin duties which I am comfortable doing (see question 1 and question 5).

12. In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to the Simple English Wikipedia and vice-versa? Why or why not? (See this for a discussion on the simple english Wikipedia. It's a pretty long mess, but if you want to comb through it, go ahead). Thanks for taking the time to answer these. Malinaccier Public (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A. As I do not participate at Simple English, I do not think I should be interfering with something that their community should decide. If the Simple English Wikipedia community wants the bans to transfer over, I don't have a problem with it. Likewise, if they decide otherwise, I don't have a problem with it. However, I do think it is something for the consideration of the Simple English Wikipedia community, of which, I am not one.

Optional questions from Gimmetrow

13. When should an admin block a bot or a bot operator who appears to be testing a new feature, but is making some mistakes? Does it matter if the edits are not in namespace 0, or if the operator is responding to a task request? Any other factors to consider? Gimmetrow 18:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A. An admin should block an approved bot when it starts damaging the encyclopedia. An admin should block unapproved bots on sight, if it is not operating solely in the bot's/bot op's userspace. In either case, unless the bot operator is circumventing the bot's block or breaking other rules, there is no reason to block the operator. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. After the issue is settled (for approved bots, after the bot has been fixed, for unapproved bots, after the operator gets approval from the BAG), the bot should be promptly unblocked. Furthermore, if a bot screwed up, but seems to be offline, the bot operator is likely fixing it, and it shouldn't be blocked unless it continues its disruption upon coming back online. Any issues should also be mentioned to the operator's talk page. If the bot is currently being trialled, then any issues should also be mentioned on the BRFA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobi (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Chris

14. What other admin areas do you plan on branching out into?

A. I am not sure. Though, I am sure I will find some other places to help out besides those listed in Q1. Q5 and A5 are really there so that when I do, people will not be like "zOMG he said he would only work in certain places and now he is outside those places!", and to assure people that I will be cautious when branching out into new areas.

15. Any ideas for the next clue bot?

A. I do not have any ideas for ClueBot VI yet. If you have an idea (or any one else for that matter), bring it up on my or my bots' talk page.

16. What is your opinion on bot generated articles and how would you treat them in accordance with speedy deletion criteria(specifically A3 and A7)?

A. Well, there are several bots which have been approved in the past to generate thousands of stubs from a database. CSD does not often apply to such stubs. If you are referring to vandal-bot generated articles, then, sure, they need to be deleted. If I have misunderstood your question, please elaborate.

Let me rephrase that, what would you do if you found a bot generated stub(the bot has been approved) that you felt came under speedy deletion criteria(specifically A3 and A7)? --Chris 08:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, first I would check the bot's WP:BRFA, to ensure that it was operating as it should. If it really had no content or the subject was not notable, then the bot should not be operating. If it was a singular instance (a mistake, if you will, on the part of the bot's database compiler), then I see no reason not to just simply delete it and let the owner know about the problem. However, if it is creating such stubs en masse, then something needs to be done about the bot. Blocking or turning it off (if it has the ability to turn it off without blocking), then letting the owner know about the problem and possibly get some discussion on one of the noticeboards about whether these stubs are notable, and whether or not the bot should be creating them. Though, I would hope that such a bot would be questioned, and stopped, if necessary, at WP:BRFA prior to getting approval to create these stubs. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly

17. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A. There are two ways of looking at this. On the one hand, irrelevant questions give the candidate the chance to be creative with their response. Especially since most candidates know which questions to expect, and the accepted answers, irrelevant questions make the candidate think of a good and creative response to the question. On the other hand, irrelevant questions are extra work on the candidate, especially if they have a bunch of good questions which require well-thought out answers. And, if they choose to take their time to answer the good questions, and ignore the irrelevant questions, even though most often they are marked "optional", people will oppose based on the fact that they didn't answer all the questions. In either case, I wouldn't call the questions "stupid", perhaps "illogical" or "unnecessary", but not "stupid".

18. Why do you think that?

A. I think that because, after logically thinking about it, I have come to two conclusions, both explained in detail in question #17.

19. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. I have in the past. However, I do not think I am particularly biased about the violin, and so I wouldn't say that I would strive not to ever edit Violin. However, that said, I have not ever edited Violin, neither do I intend to, as musical instruments is not my area of expertise. Playing the Violin was just a hobby, something to do when bored. I am much more knowledgeable and interested in computers and topics related to that, and more likely to edit in that area.

Question from Ssbohio

20. In the discussion below, you note that you are a regular reader of the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents. What do you make of the recent kerfuffle over the adult-child sex article and its later incarnations as userpage drafts? Do you have any thoughts based on your philosophy and experience as to how this issue (or the issues surrounding this subject area) could reach a resolution tolerable for all? I ask this because I've seen that admins are often in the position of trying to resolve conflicts, rather than simply using their mop & bucket, and I'd like to know your thinking on a contentious topic area like this one.

A. Well, first off, I remember reading about it originally on WP:ANI, but as I generally try to stay away from content disputes, I hadn't followed up on it. After reading the discussion on your user talk subpage, and some of the other discussion surrounding it, I think that all parties involved should take a break from that particular topic for a few days (there is no rush, the world will not end tomorrow), cool down, then approach it logically together to create a neutral, notable, and verifiable article that everyone is happy with. If it is not possible to resolve the conflict, then there needs to be some mediation, or ultimately an arbitration.

[edit] General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

Requests for adminship/Cobi

Requests for adminship/Cobi 2

Requests for adminship/Cobi 3

Links for Cobi: Cobi (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cobi before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

Support Knows his stuff. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support as one of the noms. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - knowing him through ClueBot and WP:OP, i'm certain he can be trusted Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support - for excellent WP knowledge. ArcAngel (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks good. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Co-nominator support. –Crazytales talk 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - "Knows his stuff" sums it up pretty well. He's definitely learned from his first two RfAs. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - There is a reason I nominated... Soxred93 | talk bot 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Valtoras (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Good user. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Cobi is level headed and resourceful. He's worked extensively with MediaWiki (including adding reversions to wikipedia and the software link one, link two. ) and will be a great help to the "tech" side of the +sysop flag. Mønobi 03:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support for the second or third time. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support, come along and join the team :) — E ^talk 03:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Why, yes! bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Because I've been wondering why this takes so long to happen. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Supported on last one, will do so again. Ronnotel (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. You answered the questions very well. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support As last time. I would point the opposers to question 1, where Cobi clearly says that his main admin activities will be in the areas that he has proven to be very knowledgable in, and that he will not engage in areas where he does not feel comfortable. GlassCobra 04:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How do we know he wont, we are discussing issuing a user all of the tools, not just some. Tiptoety ^talk 07:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How do we know? Ah, I guess we don't. But the point is that I trust Cobi enough to give him these tools and to stick to his word. Is that not what RfA is about? GlassCobra 03:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Mr.Z-man 04:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support It happens that I supported the first (consistent then, in fact, with the very point GlassCobra makes above, one that ought well to be considered) and the second, and I see nothing to suggest that my previous judgments erroneous. Joe 04:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support (again). --jonny-m t 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
He really should stop pestering me to block the proxies... :) —Dark ^(talk) 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant Support Would usually oppose for lack of experience in the area of article building but have been swayed by the cool head he kept at his request for bot-rollback. I know haw hard it is to keep WP:COOL when your bot is insulted, and Cobi made an excellent effort to argue both reasonably and civilly. Excellent Admin material. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support, editcountitis, including wherearetheeditscountitis, is bad, and I don't see any reason to believe the candidate will be abusive or misuse the tools. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I do trust this user's judgment and that's enough for me to support. I do value article editing very much but I don't see why Cobi couldn't appreciate its pleasures in the futures. Actually, adminship may very well stimulate him to contribute in the mainspace. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not every admin has to be an article writer. EJF (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support is strengthened by his helping create the asteroid stubs. He clearly does want to help, and I don't buy into the power hunger rationale of Mr Weber. EJF (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support, good editor that I've seen around enough to earn my trust. Good luck! Dfrg_msc 08:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support His work on open proxies looks good to me. Having the tools would benefit this user, and the Wikipedia as a whole. He does not edit mainspace much, and I see the concern there. Not having much mainspace edits may mean that an admin does not properly know the mores of the "work floor" of Wikipedia. The answers the candidate provides however show that the areas he will be using his admin tools do not require such an extensive entrenchment on the floor. This is not a request for delicate dispute resolution, but for a mop and bucket. If he wants to mop, and the floor gets clean, everone is happy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support People bring different skills to Wikipedia - not everyone is a great article writer, but that is no reason to exclude them. Cobi can obviously be trusted with the tools. — Tivedshambo _(t|c) 09:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - clearly isn't mental. What more is required? Neıl ☎ 09:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As Before. Pedro : Chat 10:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Great commitment to wikipedia.Has contributed a lot.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
He seems like a bright, reasonable guy with a good understanding of Wikipedia and a commitment to its goals. He may not do everything the way we usually see at RfA (witness his post below, explaining how he uses a separate account to report to AIV and makes RPP requests on IRC) but I still think he would make a perfectly fine admin. Avruch ^T 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - (sigh) I was going to oppose given he hasn't written anything..but then I thought, hey, he's been around awhile so I guess the length of time does build up a certain amount of trust. ok then... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support No problems here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support for my reasons elaborated before. No canvassing issues this time. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - been here long enough to be able to be trusted with the tools and assume that he is not going to abuse them. Good luck, Poeloq (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - Won't abuse the tools. So why not? --Abrech (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have in fact been in contact with Cobi before, but unfortunately for me, only to a limited extent. He appears as a reasonable, polite and communicative editor (although as Dweller points out below, more actual discussions on talk page may be a large positive) with respect for the community around him, especially in fact, that he complied with the unwritten golden rule that failed RFA candidates should wait for an extended period of a round three months until the next individual discussion can set forth. I'm going to copy Gracenotes's support (#48) from last time, and hopefully utilise it to some effect. "..[Support] for familiarity with technical processes, policies, and common sense in general. As an admin, however, do realize: Wikipedians are humans, and a technical solution doesn't exist for every problem". And this is a very important point raised: for Cobi it's nothing more than a support from last time's attempt but for use now, it makes for no better (or appropriate) value. Where I see the opposes I below, I can understand their reasoning and I am partially in agreement with them on some points (the relatively correct comments mostly coming from Dweller, as always) but I do however, disagree with the remaining issues flagged up. I see that Cobi could be seen as 'non-human' or 'bot like', and I generally disapprove of RFA candidates that fit that quota, but I do feel that Cobi does have a general experience, good knowledge and possibly some other skills we've not yet determined waiting to be released. An 'application' to become an administrator is nothing more than a discussion, and we should recognise that - by focusing on a lack of Wikipedia edits (which are greatly swayed by the involvement with the ClueBot) the opposers are detracting from the 8-month period from which he has had the time and opportunity to receive feedback from the community on his actions (none of which have been flagged at previous RFAs I don't think) and to look at the 'pedia as a whole. I personally believe that Cobi is an extremely capable editor who has no expression of desire to work in other areas other than that where the usual maintenance is engaged with (even though Cobi has a relatively low count in other areas apart from AIV) and his other skills are first rate. Adminship is no big deal and is no more than a 'janitor job' (to use the commonly expressed metaphor) after all, and the candidate has expressed no wish to venture out of their comfort zones (maybe something that could be opposed on at a RFB, but certainly not an RFA) so I am content with support this user in their quest to receive adminship. Rudget . 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - His ClueBots are a massive help in the fight against vandalism. For this, i believe he should be an administrator. TheProf | 2007 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. Meets my standards now. I was one of the folk who opposed Cobi on the first RfA, and changed to Support on the 2nd RfA. Besides being an active member of the community, having created ClueBot is a great addition to English WP. Ready now more than ever. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - I supported his 1st Rfa, then his Second RfA and I will also support his third RfA cause as Rudget pointed out above, Cobi is human and to human is to err, so what if he is the mastermind of a bot that we all love (right :p), and that his edit count is low ..urgh Editcountitis is a problem for most editors and well above all that, he is a trustworthy/capable/hardworking and an excellent editor and above all, he is wholeheartedly committed to this project and thats all I want in an admin....--Comet styles 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support per the reason I failed my RfB ;) Aka article writing is a lackluster reason to oppose in my opinion. Wizardman 17:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong support for the 3rd time! per my support in Cobi's previous RfAs. PLEASE, let's hope that this RfA is successful. NHRHS 2010 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Very Weak support. The answers to my questions were ok at best, and I have concerns about his experience in the projectspace, as well as in article writing. Nevertheless, Cobi wouldn't knowingly abuse the tools, and thus would be an ok admin. Malinaccier Public (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - As per my last time! The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - friendly, helpful, and knowledgeable about the policies that regard to where he intends to be active. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
(jumps happily) MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that the mop will help you in your never ending quest to destroy the forces of evil! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Kwsn (Ni!) 19:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support! Go Cobi! ≈ MindstormsKid 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Solid editor and very much liked the attitude displayed in his answer to question 6. siarach (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support good editor, knows what he's doing, and I see no need to nitpick edits in every different space.-- danntm ^T _C
Support. I saw this RFA and came to oppose based on your involvement of the railroading through of the "Non-Free Content Compliance Bot". I went to find some diffs and see that you've backpedaled from that position, to my pleasant surprise. Everyone makes mistakes, but alarmingly few people around here admit it. Willingless to correct one's own errors is one of the most important qualities of an admin. ➪HiDrNick! 19:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support- said the co-nom CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - I don't usually participate in RFAs, but I have watched this user since December, and he demonstrates a good understanding of the project and consistent civility. Back in 12/07, one of his bots mistakenly reverted an edit by one of my IPs, and he was quick to address the issue - polite, thoughtful, and with no prejudice against an anonymous user; it was textbook AGF, which is all-important in a vandal fighter. Though I usually prefer a strong percentage of mainspace edits, I believe there is clearly room at the encyclopedia for a vandal fighter this innovative and this good, and that conferring the tools on such a person can only lead to good things. Mr. IP (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support You're not a sysop already? Spencer^T♦^C 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support: There's nothing that makes me think he wouldn't use the tools in a sensible fashion, writing articles is all well and good, but it's not everybody's cup of tea. There's certainly vast areas in which Cobi knows his stuff and can apply that to administering WP. Nick (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support I agree that not every admin needs to be an article writer, although I prefer our admins to be cognizant of the various areas to which they will be called. I also see that the preponderance of User:talk edits are templates or bot related, but I came across a few in which the user is having a dialogue with other editors, and I did not see anything that stood out as egregious. The user has helped the project in a large way due to his maintenance work regarding bots, and maintenance work is mainly what a sysop does. While I would prefer to have been able to see more directly, based on the user's answers here and my own investigation, I can be reasonably confident that the user will use, and not abuse, the tools and can have the community's trust extended to him. -- Avi (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
per nom statements and this should be a net positive We can't all be great article builders. The candidate's answers convince me that will use constructively and will not misuse them. Seems careful and thoughtful enough to not stumble into mistakes. Dloh cierekim 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. I don't see any major flaws here. Notwithstanding the canvass issue from RFA2, Cobi likely would've passed then. No canvassing this time around. Good editor, unbelievably good technical abilities, civil, and clearly states that he will tread slowly in unfamiliar areas of adminship. What else is there? I support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support I trust Cobi to not abuse the tools. нмŵוτн τ 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - I feel that Cobi is experienced and capable enough to be trusted with the administrative tools. I have no problem with the lack of article contributions, I feel that his experience there is enough. Finally, he definitely has the clue necessary to be an excellent admin. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - I support Cobi and appreciate his dedication to the community with his fantastic bots!! You rock, Cobi! PseudoOne 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not think this user will abuse the tools, so why the hell not? Ral315 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Normally I would oppose a user with this little experience and in fact I've opposed Cobi in the past. I've decided to support here and I hope some of the opposes consider this reasoning. I think Cobi is extremely sincere in wanting to help with behind-the-scenes tools, like the incredibly useful ClueBot, because of a genuine desire to free up time for article writing and all the other activities that go on here. While many, and possibly even most, admins who eschew article work are a net negative for the project, I do believe Cobi to be one of those exceptions. I would encourage people with doubts to read his paper on ClueBot, although the link is not currently working for me. --JayHenry (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, yeah, thanks for reminding me about that link ... My IP has changed recently and I have been going around updating all of the links. The reason I hardcoded my IP instead of a domain name is because my IP hadn't changed for near about a year. Anyway, the good link is http://24.40.131.153/ClueBot.pdf. I will update it on my userpage as well. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support; the Time has Come. — Coren ^(talk) 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - Cobi has enough experience and enough trust from the community in order to be trusted with the admin tools. His work in fighting vandalism has definitely benefitted Wikipedia. LordKenTheGreat (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - definitely a great candidate for the mop, especially with his experiences with bots and open proxies. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - no problems here at all. Good luck! - Alison ^❤ 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. GHe (Talk) 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Very trustworthy user. I wish I was earlier, I would have co-nomed Alexfusco⁵ 02:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we already had 4 noms, I think that's enough. Of course, the more noms the better! Soxred93 | talk bot 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - He knows what he does and wants to contribute to Wikipedia and how to fight against vandalims.--Appletrees (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Will do fine with the mop. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
As I have always done. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously cares a lot about Wikipedia and has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 15:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support per above. The candidate is a good user, unlikely to abuse the trust of the community. I join my colleagues in encouraging Cobi to contribute in some manner to the mainspace (that being the whole point of this project, after all), but will not disqualify him in the meantime. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support As first and second nomination. I still trust in him with the tools. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the big deal? I trust this user not to inadvertently or deliberately misuse the tools, period. Dorftrottel (harass) 16:36, March 7, 2008

Changing to oppose. I want to see that CRAT CHAT! Dorftrottel (bait) 02:46, March 13, 2008
I supported the last two RfAs of Cobi. I didn't think he'd make a bad admin then, I don't think he'd make a bad admin now. Acalamari 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support I trust him with the tools ~ Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support I am going to lean on WP:NBD here and say that while there may be few edits here, I think he has grasped a majority of the policies and will not misuse the tools. I feel that some people below here are being nitty-picky here and making a big deal out of nothing. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - Cobi has a brain in his head, which is ever-so-firmly mounted on his shoulders. While he's not edited the encyclopedia much, that's largely not what the tools are about. Having been around the block more than once, he knows the policies, and I'm confident he'll use the admin buttons to benefit the project. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Support My reasons still have not changed, he definitely deserves it. --Charitwo ^talk 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This has been a very tough RfA for me to make a decision. My personal philosophy says that a good admin candidate is an article writer, but also works on maintenance tasks. This makes sort of a conflict of indecision - Cobi's not really an article writer, but his contributions to the upkeep of the 'pedia are outtanding. I try to not set arbitrary standards to decide whether I trust a user to b ea good admin. Now, to comment more in depth on the candidate here. Cobi's contributions to Wikipedia are exceptional - he's created ClueBot, an anti-vandal bot that has made something like half-a-million edits to Wikipedia. He also has even contributed many more other ClueBots, even having a special ClueBot Commons account to help organize all the other accounts. On the other hand, Cobi's contributions to the mainspace are a bit lacking. I do, however, commend him for making some effort to edit content; he created around 50 asteroid stubs. My view on really short articles are frankly, mine, and shouldn't be a reflection on the candidate, but I suggest looking at contribution to quality content. (Stuff like WP:GA, WP:FC, and WP:DYK) So when presented these two main points, it becomes a very tough decision. I think that we can certainly trust Cobi to not go rogue - we trust Cobi to run many different bots. Is Cobi experienced enough to be a good admin? I think the answer to this question is yes, as well. Cobi seems to be more of an observer than a do-er. He has the sense to be trusted to run bots in different areas of maintenance, and I think he knows what his doing in relation to admin chores. I think Cobi having the admin tools can make other's lifes easier. His bot frequently nominates pages in its userspace for deletion frequently, and if this simple function could be done through Cobi's sysop account, it'd make life a bit easier for others. I think making Cobi a sysop would a positive for Wikipedia. As for article-writing, I sincerely hope that Cobi takes my concerns and the concerns in the opposes about article-writing seriously and contributes more content. To recap, even though this long-winded statement goes on and on and, however nothing like Gurch's, I think the point that needs to be made here is that Cobi being a sysop would be a net positive for the encyclopedia, however, Cobi should contribute more to content. To make it clear, I support Cobi for adminship. Maxim_(talk) 03:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You will do well as an admin. Not every single admin is a content-building admin. We need more maintenance admins, like myself. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat as Maxim, and so I'm going to AGF and support, as I did in the past. It's hard, but I hope Cobi, if sysopped, doesn't let me down. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Cobi may not be an article writer, but that doesn't mean he can't help the encyclopedia with the tools. Writing a DYK or GA won't make any difference on his ability to use the buttons responsibly. He's clearly qualified for the extra buttons and even the opposers know that. Spellcast (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
While the heart of the encyclopedia is its content, the truth is the flip side of WP:NOTPAPER is that this is an online community. There is place on WP for a specialist admin whose expertise is in online maintenance and vandalism fighting. He has shown he can be trusted, and I assume that Cobi will exercise appropriate discretion in areas with which he is unfamiliar. Xymmax (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Support John254 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
support Yahel Guhan 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Support wiki will obviously benefit from Cobi's ability to block open proxies, block vandals found by his bot, his ability to edit protected pages and see deleted contribuions. There is some risk that having almost no experience nor passion over article writing Cobi would make incorrect decision with regard to passion article writers and editorial conflicts. I think we can take the risk as the potential benefits are quite strong. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What this all comes done to is trust, and I trust Cobi to do the right thing. I therefore Support Cobi in his requests for adminship. I would also like to ask that if you pass please don't put rfa thank you spam on my talk page --Chris 01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - Cobi's been a great guy the whole time I've known him, on Wikipedia and off. He'd make a great admin. // hackmiester (contact) 05:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
One-step-closer-to-WP:100-support! Good luck! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 09:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support pending the answer to question 20 (above). Cobi seems to have a legitimate use for the tools, but adminship is bigger than that, culture-wise. --SSBohio 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Support would make a fine admin. BJ^Talk 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Support I know knothing of him outside his bot, but he seems like a wonderful user. Editor of the wiki 20:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet another one on the pile. Quite a competent user. Миша 13 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Support per above, particularly Nick. There are many areas that Cobi will be valuable asset in with admin tools and his great technical expertise. Will (aka Wimt) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Article writing in the mainspace is kinda why we're here, but it's not everyone's speciality. I don't think anyone can deny that Cobi is an asset to the community, through his immense amount of work with the ClueBots, and as such I seee no problems at all in giving him the mop :). _Talk Islander 12:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support With his technical expertise, he will be a useful admin in many areas, I don't think he will abuse the tools. Cenarium (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support every confidence that he will be an asset Mayalld (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Supporting this time around. However I do not see much change from the last RFA except the lack of canvassing. That said I am waving the AGF flag this round. Although he still seems unexperienced in many areas there is nothing that leads me to believe the user will jump in with admin tools and go crazy. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support User:ClueBot is more productive than any five administrators. Article writing is good. Improving the signal to noise ratio by protecting those well-written articles is also good. There are different ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Cobi has done great things, and I think they can be trusted not to use sysop tools in areas where they might not have the strongest understanding. Every administrator needs to understand their strengths and weaknesses and act accordingly. Jehochman ^Talk 15:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any five, huh? I'd start my list with DerHexer, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, and Rich Farmbrough. Useight (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

DerHexer and CSCWEM has their share of "lack of article-writing experience" opposes as well though. Almost proves our point. Wizardman 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. No question whatsoever that promoting Cobi to sysop is a good step forward for WP. Astral (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. I'm looking at the Opposes and I see "Well maybe if his edit count was higher...". Edit Count Has nothing to do with skills, none-the-less Adminship! Adminship is based on how much someone helps the project. By looking at how Cobi answered the questions, he obiously posses the skills required to be a syops. Also, if Cobi isn't good at article-writing it doesn't mean he is going to be a bad syops. As he said, spending 30 minutes coding a bot that reverts a huge amount of vandalism, is more helpful to the wiki than fixing minor POV and making stub articles that will be AFD'ed or Speedied. Good Luck Cobi :) Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
Support While I think you should spend some time looking at the arcanes of content issues, I think you having the tools would be an asset to the project. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cobi works hard, does good, and is helpful. I see no red flags. Kingturtle (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Dedicated, hard worker - politely answered 20 questions on this RFA - which shows he has good communications skills --Versa geek 19:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Support yeah. jj137 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Support weighing the pros and cons, this seems like the correct move - Modernist (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Support I trust the user will use the tool appropriately. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems worthy of the mop and to have learned and grown from his past. Nice answers to the questions too Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - Cobi's goals are in line with the encyclopedia - his specialization in bot, vandalism, and other technical areas makes up for a noted lack in other areas. Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - there are a variety of ways to contribute to the project, and writing a helpful bot like ClueBot is an excellent one. It takes a good grasp of policy to be able to automate a bot to revert unacceptable edits. Cobi has demonstrated commitment to the project, trustworthiness, common sense and an even-keeled temperament. I would have no worries if he had access to the tools. --MPerel 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. We need bot people...and cobi seems ok. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. I opposed last time, but I think Cobi can be trusted with the tools. He doesn't get stressed and sticks to what he knows. I don't agree with the oppose argument that he doesn't have enough mainspace experience: Cobi has shown a willingness to try writing and improving articles, and it's just not his comparative advantage. Good luck, Cobi. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support As per last time. Jmlk 1 7 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems trustworthy. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support as with previous RfA's. An excellent contributor who has experience in areas related to adminship - he'll be fine with a couple of extra buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. I recognise the concerns raised by the opposing editors, but I offer my support regardless, in the hope that the project will both gain an efficient and effective administrator, and that Cobi will work on those points highlighted. I know he can do a good job, and if he takes the first while slowly, and takes care to develop his contributions to the article-space, then we'll be +1 great sysop. AGK § 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support I am more loath to support now than I have been in the two previous RfAs as I see little difference in the candidate from those RfAs. However, I still think that the community will benefit from Cobi being an admin, so I will still be supporting. If this RfA fails, please work on the things that the opposers suggest before trying again. Captain panda 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support per noms.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support: I have no complaints about this user; who will make a great admin from what I can tell. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
support - per above Niyant (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - I'm confident Cobi wouldn't abuse the tools, although I would hope Cobi would work on some article on a comp.sci. topic he knows well. Gimmetrow 04:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cluebot etc. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 12:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems fine Terra ^{What do you want?} 12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
east.718 at 13:30, March 13, 2008

[edit] Oppose

Weak Oppose - I'm most likely going to be in the minority here, and I hope I don't receive much flack for it, but here's the deal - I am immensely impressed by this user's technical ability. Cluebot and subtypes are fanfreakintastic. With that said, the candidate claims he wants to work at WP:UAA,WP:RFPP, WP:AIV etc..etc.. yet has edited those spaces maybe a half dozen times. Also, where are the mainspace contributions? No article building, no talking? Sorry, I must oppose this given my criteria. Cheers mate. Good luck. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The candidate has done some good work, but needs more experience, per Wisdom89. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I went back through the contribs since December and saw next almost no actual content work. I feel that's it's quite important for admins to have experience there, apart from vandal fighting. In addition, even the policy areas he's commented/worked on have mostly been bot related. There's a really narrow focus on bot and vandal fighting activity (with some proxy stuff throw in) nearly to the exclusion of everything else. I think it's critical for admins to be familiar with the issues and frustrations that the normal everyday editors have. I don't need a bunch of FA's or anything but some work in the mainspace is important. RxS (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Last time there was discussion about the total lack of article contributions apart from machine edits. Well in the 3 months since then, there are about 400 machine edits and less than ten manual edits, all of which were small tweaks. So it seems as though the candidate has spent maybe approximately a total of 5 hours in article space since then. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but the concerns from last time, especially the empty record on article writing or building, has still not been alleviated. It is not necessary to be a prolific writer of featured articles, but there should normally be some experience with locating sources, deciding what is good research, bad research and original research and so on. Administrating an encyclopedia requires some skills in building an encyclopedia. In addition, contributions to *FD, policy page discussions, and so on are also lacking (though none of these are essential by itself). Policing the encyclopedia is something the candidate does well, and he has by no means done anything wrong in doing so, but the administrator tools of "delete" and "protect" are pretty powerful and they cause unintended consequences in the hands of someone without a hands-on experience with articles beyond reverting vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - While I feel that pile on, opposes are anything but constructive or helpful I do not feel Cobi is any where near ready for adminship. I echo what all the above users are saying in the fact that Cobi has little to no edits outside of bot related duties and as such does not have proper experience to use all the tools. After reading over the nominations it appears that every one only stated Cobi’s expertise when it comes to bots, no strong evidence of solid admin related contributions and clearly no need for the tools. When asked whether he eventually branch out into new admin areas, he stated and I quote “Yes, but only after I have observed the process, read and understood all relating policies and protocols, and feel confident that I understand how things are done in that area.” – Adminship is not the time to observe the process and to read up on policies, that needs to be done as a user. Why request the tools and only state that you are planning on using a few of them, and how are we to know that he will only use those few? We are discussing issuing all the tools to this user, and about whether or not we trust this user to use the appropriately. At this point in time I do not trust Cobi to use them appropriately, with only a handful of contributions to AIV, RFPP, ANI ect… how can we see a ability to properly use the tools. Admins need to be well rounded, I am not saying they need to be experts in every part of the project, but well rounded, which Cobi is not. I feel this RfA is more of a popularity contest, due to the fact that Cobi has made a bunch of wikifriends here. Another issue was the use of cluebot to canvass users to !vote in his previous RfA, while that was dealt with it, and was a honest mistake, it really rubbed me the wrong way. If a user is only going to make bot related edits, then use (abuse) it to his gain? I personally do not know Cobi but from the few 2800+ contributions I reviewed, I was not impressed. Tiptoety ^talk 07:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First, maybe I should have been a bit clearer in that sentence, but what I meant is: I realize that there are areas in Wikipedia where I am not well versed (e.g., images and the various xFDs), however, should I wish to become more active in such an area, I would approach it very cautiously, making sure I understand all related policies, protocols, and current practices prior to participating, as opposed to just jumping in. I am sorry if I was unclear. As for how you will know that I will only use the tools in circumstances where I am comfortable doing so, well, apart from my word, you don't. This is where assuming good faith comes in. As for only a handful of edits to WP:AIV, almost everyone uses an automated tool to report there because you edit conflict very often if you don't. I use an automated tool, as well, it just isn't on my main account. As for the concern about little editing to WP:UAA (above): I sit on an IRC channel which posts bad usernames and blocks that follow. As the bot also posts to WP:UAA, and I can't do anything except remove false positives, and false positives are few and far between, there is very little reason for me to edit that page. As for WP:RFPP, likewise, I am on IRC, and whenever I need a page protected, it is far easier, for example, to type !admin Please semi-protect [[Example page]] - very heavy vandalism. than to add a request to WP:RFPP, and, indeed, many will agree with me, for it happens relatively often. As for WP:ANI, I read it almost every day. I only reply to issues when I feel it necessary. As for the canvassing issue, I agree, it was spectacularly poor judgment, however, it was corrected in a few hours, and there was no real damage, except maybe to my reputation. That said, tell me truthfully that you have never made a mistake, and I will withdraw this RfA. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 09:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you have said Cobi, and I was not meaning to come across rude or not assuming good faith. I strongly appreciate all of your bot work, as I am sure everyone else does here, but I do not think that bot work and bot work alone is enough experience for a admin, especially when it is all done with automated tools. You just can not preform every aspect of administrative duties with automated tools, and you especially can not write articles with them, and this is an encyclopedia and all. I admit that I have made mistakes you like said above, and agree we all do, and said that it the canvassing was dealt with in your previous RfA but it just rubbed me the wrong way. I guess I also feel that you have not improved much from your last RfA, which is a big one for me, I like to see users who can take constructive criticism and improve upon it. I hope that you do not take these comments as anything but trying to be constructive, and I wish you best of luck. Tiptoety ^talk 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree that most editors use automated tools to report to AIV. (This is where I come in to brag that all 7000+ edits of mine were completely by hand). Useight (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I supported last time but am concerned that Cobi isn't taking the article writing advice very well (read: not at all, from what I can see). Willing to reconsider if evidence is provided (leave me a note on my talk if yes). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC) — [1] dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose While I could support an editor with negligible mainspace contribs, and possibly one with weak projectspace, I cannot support an uncommunicative editor. The tiny number of Talkspace edits is understandable, given lack of mainspace work, but when I looked at his usertalk contribs ([2]) they're mainly automated notices or vandal reversions. Admins need to discuss their actions, be a human face for our policies and idisyncracies. On the current evidence, you have way too many deficiencies as a candidate - and this one would be sufficient for me to oppose you over on its own. I'm sorry, because you're clearly one of the good guys. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Upped to "strong oppose" only because my judgement of the strength of this issue as a reason to oppose differs from that of some Bureaucrats, per recent debate at WP:BN. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Struck my support after consideration of the low project space edits. While bot work is good, it's not germaine to being an admin. ArcAngel (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - very useful bot, however almost complete lack of article edits. Addhoc (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Really sorry but you really ought to clock up a few more mainspace edits. I will probably back you next time...good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Fairly Strong Oppose. His bot is effective, but if you check my standards list, running a bot is irrelevant in my mind. Not enough mainspace work, his last 500 mainspace contribs goes back to September 16th. Of those 500, 488 are reversions. His last RFA failed because of his lack of mainspace contribs and he hasn't really fixed that (well, he has added about 250 mainspace contribs since then, but almost all are reverts). On a positive note, he's stopped using Twinkle for all of his edits, so that's a definite plus. Another downside is that he has edited no mainspace article more than 5 times. Isn't there some topic of the world that you just really enjoy and would want to edit often; join a WikiProject. And only 29 article talk edits isn't all that impressive. Not to mention that 25% of your edits are to the userspace. You say in Q1 that you want to work at WP:UAA and CAT:CSD, yet I do not see a whole lot of work in those areas. Your last request for speedy deletion was 2 weeks ago, and you only have about 250 of those, anyway. Sorry. You do good work, but I don't think it's in the right place. We're an encyclopedia building community, and I just don't see enough of that. Please see my RFA standards, linked above, if you have any questions. Useight (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am changing to Strongest Possible Oppose due to his mainspace edit count bloating during his RFA. He is now creating stubs alphabetically about astroids, which all looks the same and must have came from information he found on a single site. In fact, he did it in a practically automated way, paying no attention to what he was doing, leaving an article with the date of "Septemberember 23" twice. He's just trying to appease the oppose !voters in the last minute during his RFA. I just see him trying to do the minimum it takes to pass RFA. Useight (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'single site' that you're talking about is the small-body database, a site that is managed by the California Institute of Technology 'in support of the missions and research programs that its Jet Propulsion Laboratory conducts for NASA', a pretty reliable source in my opinion and a source that's used for most of our asteroid articles. There are in my estimate about a thousand of these articles that need to be created (just see red links on these pages: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8). The reason it seems automated is because it is an almost automatic thing - open up the page for the asteroid, type the information into the infobox, hit save. It's a job that someone needs to do but is incredibly boring because there are simply so many of them (I in fact have a link in my sig encouraging people to help, and I know of at least one admin that does too) and if anything Cobi should be commended for doing it. The fact that he made a typo shows that he is doing it by hand, and well the only thing I can say to the criticism for a typo is 'wtf' as I've made tons of typos all over the place and only noticed a while later. If anything Cobi is taking opposers concerns into account, and he's providing content for the encyclopedia in filling up a big gap we have, so I'm not sure why you'd have reason to complain. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My reason for opposing for it instead of commending him for it is because almost everything he does on Wikipedia is something like that. Revert, revert, revert, now copy, paste, copy, paste. The fact that he had "Septemberember" twice seems like he was copying and pasting instead of typing it in himself. I understand that he says he's not a very good writer, but being a writer is a quality I want to see in an admin. However, in light of the point you make regarding the fact that there are tons of articles like this that need to be made, I'll downgrade from Strongest Possible Oppose. Useight (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just created one of those stubs myself, 4535 Adamcarolla. It's is actually much more difficult than I previously thought. I have struck my previous comment and would like to apologize and commend Cobi for his work in this area. Useight (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Grrrr, I hate doing this, and it is the second time I have done so with Cobi, because your bot is fabulous, but I have to admit I do not regard ClueBot as a reason to promote you to an admin. Experience still needs to be attained in many areas, for example, Wikipedia-talk, where the vast majority of edits are to Bot related spaces. Sorry. Lra drama 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Regretfully – To be honest, I was on the fence on this one. However, your answer to the question posed by Dweller (in question 9) was the deciding factor. I disagree with your reasoning. The foundation and principle of Wikipedia is the dissemination of information. If you feel that a stub is below the standards of Wikipedia or below your worth of time to create or edit, what is the purpose of this project? If it was not for editors contributing, and in many times as Stubs, which have grown to FA status, {that brings information to the encyclopedia}, why have Wikipedia at all. I, for one, come back, time after time, after time, to gather information and contribute. Many times creating articles that are classified as stubs. Sorry, just not a true grasp of the project yet. Shoessss | Chat 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that Wikipedia's purpose is the dissemination of information. However, I think you have inferred the wrong idea from my answer. It isn't that it is below me, but, frankly, I do not like writing articles, I am not good at it. I have great respect for those that can write articles, but I am much better with maintenance tasks that administrators and RCPs deal with. That stub that I linked to took about 2 hours to get the way I wanted it. Maybe I should reword or append to my answer. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 21:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cobi, you're an absolutely brilliant bot builder, but I too must agree with the concerns above. Though the ClueBots and such are fantastic, and you are a very capable editor when it comes to maintenance, an administrator, at least in my eyes, must have considerable experience in communicating with others and article writing. I don't think anybody is asking you to go out and write an FA. Article improvement does not even need to mean writing. It can simply be reading a plot summary and pruning out the un-needed details and trivia, or just rewording an awkward sentence written by a person who does not speak good English. I really do not think you are a bad editor, or even deficient, just a very specialist one, and sysops need to be well-versed in all categories. Sorry. Mix ^Sup? 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Blnguyen. --Irpen 22:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Taken alone, your contrib history would not be reason to oppose you. However, combine a history in which your best contribs are via bot (according to you) with some just plain poor answers here, and that makes you untrustworthy. A sysop should have a firm understanding of policy, and your answers here give me serious doubt that you possess the sufficient policy knowledge to be a trustworthy admin. VanTucky 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Which questions ? Nick (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

All of them, but specifically 2, 3 and 7. VanTucky 04:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - User-space contribs outnumber meager mainspace contribs. Sarvagnya 00:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I have had very little interaction with Cobi, though I am sure he is a fine and knowledgeable editor. I would also trust him with the tools. Also, he deserves all the praise he has received and more for ClueBot. My concern is this: on January 14, I asked Cobi a question on his talk page, and never did receive a response. I later realized that as it was a question about his bot, I should have asked the question elsewhere; however, I don't feel that this is an adequate reason to completely ignore a question posed to you. I think we've all ignored the occasional "y did u deleet mah paige??/" message, but I think it is unacceptable to ignore a legitimate question asked by an established user. As an admin, this is something you have to deal with very often, and you can't just not answer people. Furthermore, as great as he is with code, we're writing an encyclopedia here, and to my knowledge Cobi has no article writing experience to speak of. I appreciate that Cobi is not a writer, and don't expect multiple GAs and FAs from him. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to choose a topic he's interested in, join the WikiProject and cleanup a half dozen articles or so, just to show that 1) he can do it and 2) he's willing to act on advice given in his previous two RfAs. faithless (^speak) 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not completely ignore the question. I was a bit busy, and had meant to reply - I could have sworn that I did, I guess that I hit "Show preview" but forgot to actually save, so I guess I owe you an apology. I did consider adding that phrase, but ClueBot doesn't have a per-article blacklist, and I thought that adding it to ClueBot's global blacklist would cause too many false positives. Furthermore, unless there is really heavy vandalism, ClueBot will only revert once per day per user. Anyway, sorry that my reply somehow didn't get posted. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed to weak oppose. Thanks for the explanation; I figured it was something along those lines, and I took no offense. The article I asked about was protected shortly thereafter, so it became a moot issue. I'd still like to see more mainspace contributions. The 'article building' isn't really the point - it isn't necessary for admins to be prolific article writers, IMO, any more than it's important for them to be adding professional-level photographs. Rather, I believe that collaborating on an article is where we really learn how to contribute to the encyclopedia, learn about policies and guidelines (through "real-world" examples, so to speak) and how to work together with our fellow editors. Without a good amount of interaction with others while working on articles, I think it's much more difficult to learn the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia. Like I said, I do trust you with the tools, and believe you would be a fine admin, but I'd like to see you 1) take the advice given to you in your previous RfAs and 2)show us that you can work on articles, even if you don't like doing it. There's nothing wrong with choosing to work "behind the scene;" however the vast majority of us do more work on articles than we do in the project space. Since you're relatively inexperienced in that area, I'm not sure that you've encountered all the usual situations that we've all dealt with time and time again, and therefore don't know if you would respond to such situations appropriately (though I have no doubt that your intentions would be good). Anyway, good luck with this RfA. It might sound weird, but I do hope it is successful, as I do believe that (in the long run, at least) Wikipedia would benefit from it. I just can't support at this time. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 05:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough edits, infact a terribly low number of edits. And not nearly any demonstration that he is familair with the finer points of policies for articles that adminship would need. I also think that RFA's 3 times for a user with just 3,000 edits is a drain on everyone, look at how big the responses have to be to get their point across. Dissapointing behaviour, should have waited longer.--Dacium (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Stronger than average oppose Content shy, minimal experience as a mandarin, three nominations in 9 months. User is gunning for the position and doing the minimum to earn it. No way. Great bot work obviously, but apart from that has shown the community little evidence for obtaining this position other than ambition. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I echo the concerns of the editors who have posted before me in this section; that communication is essential to any editor who requests administrative priveleges. I, and others I am certain, greatly appreciate all the hard-work you have put into Wikipedia but I do not feel you are ready yet to be endowed with the tools. More community interaction - maybe going to areas outside of your - well - favorite areas. Lord knows I hate voting on AFD's _{(...but so often am nominating articles for AFD...?)}, but I try from time to time to make the effort to go and have my say. All I am saying is that I do not think you are a threat to Wikipedia or not worthy in any way, just that at this time I do not feel it would be appropriate of me to support you in this RFA if I was not fully convinced you could handle all of the aspects of being an administrator. --Ozgod (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per the experience concerns and Blnguyen. Sarah 08:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I won't be entering into any discussion about this, or retracting it. Feel free to respond, though. Weak oppose - I have to say, Cobi's description of how s/he behaves when a fault is found with their bot (false positive isn't a terribly honest phrase...) reminds me greatly of how bot-owners can be patronising and defensive of their programing. While I'm sure that "all bots" do suffer from faults, that in itself isn't an explanation. Sorry. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"False positive" is the correct term to use in this instance. It's not a new phrase that Cobi coined, it's the term used to describe any instance where a test falsely classifies an item into a category. And while not all bots necessarily suffer from faults, a bot such as the one in question cannot always be correct due to the complexity (and even subjectivity) of what it is classifying. Crispy1989 (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lololol, you're going to give a ridiculous reason for opposing and then refuse to enter into discussion on it? I guess that means I can be as a rude as I like as you're probably not going to deign to read this, right? This is possibly the stupidest oppose I've ever seen in the two years or so I've been reading over admin discussions on this wiki. Consider (or not, considering you're too ignorant to be interested in learning from the discussion on the matter) the fact that 'false positive' is an incredibly common and accurate phrase to describe what happens when a program that is usually right mistakenly identifies something as a hit when its not. To show you how common it is, check out the 2,500,000 direct google hits for the phrase or better yet, see our very own article on the topic which demonstrates all too clearly that your concept of it being not 'terribly honest' is pathetic to the extreme. As for "While I'm sure that "all bots" do suffer from faults, that in itself isn't an explanation.", well, I'll leave you consider how moronic that sounds. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose- to paraphrase (with slight changes to reflect new RFA) User:Meegs from the last RFA -Some experience working with articles is an absolute must. Nearly all of the people opposing Cobi's previous RfA cited his extreme lack of mainspace contributions, and I'm not at all encouraged by his decision to accept this third nomination without attempting to address those peoples' concerns. - That is how I feel, I agree with yellowmonkey and LRAdrama above. Dureo (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreeing with Blnguyen, I am disappointed that the good advice at the previous RfA has been totally ignored. I would be unable to trust this editor with the power to speedily delete articles because they can demonstrate no significant knowledge of writing them. The asteroids for creation really don't make me feel any better about this aspect. That people would support an RfA because the candidate has demonstrated the ability to write a bot seems odd indeed. I fail to see any connection between these things. I appreciate and applaud Cobi's work on bots, a significant benefit to the project, but being sysopped is absolutely not an extra-super-special barnstar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This is probably the most difficult oppose I've had to make in a very long while, but per Dweller and Fusionmix. I cannot in good coincience support someone to deal with article disputes and other administrative tasks that they have no prior experience in. Sorry, Daniel (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm lead to believe Cobi would focus more on the tech side of things (like the blacklist) instead of getting involved with content disputes. Mønobi 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD and RFPP both involve content disputes. Daniel (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose I generally hate the argument about seeming power hungry, but 3 RfA's in less than 8 months? But I have other concerns, he uses a bot, but has only 3K edits? The most edits he's made to any one article is 5? And the failure to adhere to the advice from previous RfA's. Being an admin is about trust and about showing that you can listen to the expectations of the community as a whole. Yes, that does mean jumping through some hoops, but it is like any job or school, in order to get what you want you sometimes have to do things you don't want to do. Playing with a bot does not endear trust or validate expertise with policies and guidelines.Balloonman (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per the concerns raised by BInguyen and Balloonman. Carom (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but where's the article development experience? All I saw was Bot related, vandal fighting and stub creation. I also echo many of the concerns above — master son^{T - C} 19:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The bot is awesome, but I can't disregard the lack of serious article work (non-machine). I see you've just created a few dozen stubs. That's great, but I would like to see more consistency. Should this RfA fail, I would like to see some more consistent non-machine contributions to the encyclopedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — Three RFAs in less than six months? Nah, not gonna buy it. This guy clearly WANTS to be an admin--which means he's probably totally unsuited. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with "wanting to become an admin?" Isn't this an RFA. Isn't this what RFA's are for "wanting to become an admin." Come on, if you didn't "want" to become an admin you would have said so at the top of the page. So I decide I want to become an admin - which automatically means Im unsuited - no exceptions? What kind of logic is that? So you're saying all the 1,200 admins are all "unsuited?" They clearly wanted to become admins Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose - technically a great asset to the project, but Cobi has disregarded advice given on prior RFAs to do some real content work. Admins need to be trusted to act appropriately outside of their comfort zone, which requires that they have broad experience on the wiki, and have had lots of user interaction on the wiki. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Regretful oppose~~. I really expected to be supporting, but a look through the deleted contributions log concerns me. Cobi has expressed a desire to work CSDs. Five tags back, I see an WP:CSD#A1 tag on Usaseopros, the entire contents of which at the time of tagging were "USA SEO PROS is a Las Vegas Search Engine Optimization company focusing on providing top placements for clients through out the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom." For those who don't do CSD work, A1 is specifically for "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." I can identify the subject of that article easily. The same day, same tag on Im Kwon taek, "A prominent Korean Movie Director. A lot of his films are pro Korean and anti Japanese." In both of these cases, the tag was placed 1 minute after article creation, although WP:CSD says "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." (Tagging an article that seems incomplete that quickly is fairly bitey, in my opinion.) Other misapplications of that tag in the same timeframe include William mennesson (an A7) & Edson Elcock (which read "Edson Elcock is currently a professional soccer player that plays for the kansas city wizards"). Also, two minutes after creation there's a "nonsense" tag on Psychic Power Nanaki. (For those wondering what a Psychic Power Nanaki is, as I did: it's evidently a manga & anime series.) At the time it was tagged, it had been edited twice by its creator, which would suggest intent to continue development, and it consisted of an incomplete table. In those circumstances, I would much prefer to see some effort to communicate with the creator, either to advise how to make the table or to at least ask the plans for the article before tagging for deletion. Overall, these speedy tags lead me to some concern that Cobi needs more time with the policy as a tagger before getting the tools to delete. We have enough admins who delete articles out of process as it is that I think we should reasonably require new admins to demonstrate familiarity. Coupled with the above concerns, this leaves me feeling just unable to support at this time. I would like to say in spite of this oppose that I think Cobi's contribution to Wikipedia is spectacular. I believe he is an extremely valuable member of the community. I do hope that if he gets the tools at this point anyway, he will carefully read over the policies & guidelines before applying them. If he does not get them at this time, I hope to be able to support the next. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I was testing out a script on my account which automated Twinkle's csd button at that time. A script that I have discontinued to use due to those problems, and which I don't intend to ever use again. It was my mistake for using the script though. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving to neutral per reply; see there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Very poor breadth of edits as discussed above, and generally not a huge amount of experience with editing or interacting with other users (has not been editing very long or very heavily). An example is vandal fighting. The nominee's bot may have been heavily involved in reverting and posting to AIV, but the nominee certainly hasn't. Without this hands on experience of dealing with vandals, I don't think they are ready - and vandalism seems to be the main thing they have experience of. Outside of vandalism, there is even less experience of editing and interaction. Writing bots may have made Cobi an expert at programmatically identifying vandalism but, when it comes to being an admin, it is no substitute for interacting with vandals or other users. Need to do something to show he understand key policies and also demonstrate how he interacts with others. TigerShark (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. As per Wisdom, I do not agree with Kurt whatsoever. But I think 3000 is too low for me. I dont think you're "power hungry" or as Kurt likes to describe people who "want" to become an admin but come back when you clock 10,000 with at least 2-3000 mainspace. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've really got better things to do right now, and, it's a pain to get the internet right this second, but, I can't let this one go uncommented-on. Your criteria here, are INSANELY high. I'd bet (and may do the SQL Query later, to back it up), that 75-80% of our admins wouldn't pass your criteria. Counting edits, isn't a good way to assess someone's character, or, stability. I should note, that, while I won't name names at all, I know people with 10,000+ edits, and, 3,000+ mainspace, that would still probably blow things up, and drive users off, if they were to get the tools. Congrats, on taking editcountitis to a whole new level. SQL ^{Query me!} 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I only have 7000+ edits and under 2000 are in mainspace. Under your criteria, you would have opposed my RfA. But guess what? Nobody did. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have 7000+ edits, but I have over 3000 to the mainspace. I think about half of an editor's edits should be mainspace. And don't badger him about his RFA criteria, it can be whatever he wants. Useight (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, I was a bit to harsh but really think about it. 1/3 of his edits are in talk (which means very committed vandal fighting), with only 700 in mainspace. This shows his work is basically all vandilism fighting and that does not show he has any experience in other sections of wikipedia. I believe in quality over quantity but this quantity is far too low. The quality of his work is good - I can agree on that but if you have quality and quantity at the same time, that would be great. And as to Ohanaunited you have done work on different areas (not just vandalism fighting) as well so that was why I deemed you appropriate. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Whilst I don't think arbitrary standards such as half of edits in mainspace are helpful, I do think that an admin needs mainspace edits that are not simply vandalism. As an admin we all have to deal with problematic articles and problematic editors with tact. Building articles, doing what we are here to do, helps a user to understand and empathise with the many problems that editors face. Whilst I don't think that you have to have 1 FA or GA etc, I do think you have to have knowledge of building articles to be an admin. I have to go with Blnguyen on ths one and agree that these concerns were brought up last time and you have done little to remedy it. Woody (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose' with almost no edits in WT space, there is no way to tell if the candiadate actually knows how to apply policy. I dont go all that much by answers here alone. this is not counting edits, but evaluating participation and demonstrated knowledge. DGG (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Too little improvement since the last time I opposed. I find the paltry use of article talk pages particularly worrying. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I admire the bot and Cobi's work regarding that. But do not see much improvement on the article space, the main concerns from the previous time. With a much bettered mainspace contributions, I would support. - KNM ^Talk 04:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Blnguyen. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - the reasons have been stated numerous times above. DiamonDie (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Hats off for your bot but, not enough mainspace edits. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose With apologies, and though I've been away for a while, I was steadily becoming less and less impressed by Cobi's judgment. Add to the fact that he hasn't learned at all from his two previous RfAs. Sorry bud, but I can't support you this time around. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
per Blnguyen -- Y not be working? 01:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: He may seem like a normal and useful contributor, but one time I asked him a question about his anti-vandalism bot's fast ability at reverting, but didn't reply. I reply to most of the messages on my talk page, and I have a lot of mainspace edits. Looks like a little more knowledge is in hand. SchfiftyThree 01:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question consisted, in its entirety, of:

Hello, owner of ClueBot. Sometimes it annoys me when I see so many reverts by the anti-vandalism bot, and then I don't get a lot of reverts. To me, honestly, I kind of like Voice of All's bot a little better. I am not saying I hate you; I just would like to be happier while RC patrolling. Even User:Voyagerfan5761 talked about that on one of his talk page archives (under the Barbecue section). Oh, well. SchfiftyThree 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(See here)

I don't even see a question in that quoted text. I assumed that the question in the subject was rhetorical and that the answer was obvious. I will attempt to answer the question in the subject here. ClueBot is fast because it is a computer program, capable of recognizing and reverting vandalism in just a few seconds after such vandalism has been posted. I was not aware that this was a race to be won, but rather a job to be done. Vandalism patrol is to revert vandalism on Wikipedia as quickly as it is posted. Every extra millisecond is another chance that the vandalism will be viewed by more people, and Wikipedia's reputation may suffer as the result. However, if vandalism is reverted very quickly and efficiently, not only does it discourage the vandals by denying them recognition, but also it helps Wikipedia's reputation in that people see that vandalism does not stay for extended periods of time on Wikipedia. Also, Editcountitis is a bad thing. Recent change patrol is not for just running up one's edit count. Thanks. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Cobi. I'll have to start waiting a while before updating my edits. I didn't even head of editcountitis until now. SchfiftyThree 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I want the crats to decide on this one. Dorftrottel (complain) 02:52, March 13, 2008

I'm not sure I follow... SQL ^{Query me!} 03:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I want the support percentage to be in the perfect bureaucrat discretion range. It's because I believe they should have promoted him on his first RfA[3]. The crats appear to hate new folks and love their ol' buddies. I would love to see them have a second discussion about another RfA of the same user. Dorftrottel (warn) 03:08, March 13, 2008
Oppose per Blnguyen. I think that lack of mainspace is an issue that has not been addressed well enough. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I thought about this for a long time. I was wishing that the candidate would do article work (that's why I opposed on the first RFA), but in this case, he didn't. So, I am sorry, I have to oppose on that issue, as well as some of the issues explained above. miranda 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

I find that I can't bring myself to support this request, because Cobi has shown no inclination to assuage the concerns of editors in his last RfA who spoke to his lack of mainspace contributions. Maybe this shortage should be an issue, and maybe it shouldn't - but a willingness to listen to such concerns and compromise with fellow editors is one of the most important attributes of a good administrator, and Cobi has rejected the concerns of his fellow editors out of hand. Dekimasuよ! 10:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Cobi is an excellent user, and has made amazing conntributions with the ClueBot, but has few mainspace edits outside of edits related to the bot. I don't find this enough reason to oppose, but feel I can't really support. Also, it seems to me that some of the issues from the previous RfAs have not quite been addressed. He is an excellent user, but just needs a little more work to get to adminship. It appears that the majority is supporting, so good luck, and I hope that adminship is not too far off for you. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the work you do, but I think you're here for the wrong reasons. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to show off your coding skills. Majorly (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they are mutually exclusive - both building articles and running hi-tech bots to revert vandalism and perform other functions benefit the encyclopedia. There are other venues for Cobi to display coding skills - what is important, to me anyway, is that is he doing it here and helping us. Avruch ^T 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avruch, Cobi's excellent coding skills are of benefit to Wikipedia, as you can see through his ClueBots. Sure he may have some lack of article namespace edits, but he is still an excellent contributor at bot building and at WP:OP. PseudoOne 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While I appreciate his work, Cobi seems to miss that point. Now, if he had maybe triple the amount of edits I'd consider supporting, but he's not even a prolific vandal fighter which would make me want to support. I see absolutely no benefit whatsoever in making him an admin. Sorry. Majorly (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when do edit counts prove the skills and qualities of a user. Anyone could have twice the amount of edits as Cobi, but be a POV-Pusher etc.... Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought the ClueBots were the ultimate vandal fighters. Avruch ^T 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he is not ClueBot. Tiptoety ^talk 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That they are - they are the epitome of automated vandal fighting. Pretty elegant too. Unfortunately, if all a user did (even without the use of a bot) was revert vandalism, it would result in pile on opposition so fast WP:SNOW would melt. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No they wouldn't. Some of our best users only revert vandalism (DerHexer comes to mind here) and pass easily. Majorly (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd dispute referring to any user as one of the best if all they did was revert. No article building, no talking, no other bureaucratic areas? Nope. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point then. Majorly (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you know I were and still am a sysop on de:wp (where I'm writing some articles, etc. pp.) which made it easier to trust me not to abuse the tools. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you didn't insinuate that people who make incredibly useful bots that save hundreds of hours of editor time aren't wanted here, Majorly. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am not a big fan of ClueBot or any other reverting bots, they often take away my opportunity to build up my edit count. I revert manually without the use of Twinkle or any other script. Useight (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not here to build up your edit count, you're here to build a free encyclopedia. The aim of the project and your stated aim of building up an edit count isn't entirely compatible with writing a high quality encyclopedia. Nick (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I never insinuated that. I just don't think he "deserves" adminship for it. He ought to edit the encyclopedia like everyone else. Everything else that happens here is, in fact irrelevant. I'm happy he's made an excellent bot, but we have plenty of vandal fighters out there who do the job just as well. Majorly (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Naerii you are over reading this. Majorly made no such insuation at all. He states clearly enough in his initial neutral comment above that he appreciates Cobi's work, and makes a sound argument as to why he does not support his adminship request. Not wanting someone to be an admin does not mean that "they're not wanted" full stop. I suggest you reconsider your phrasing here. Pedro : Chat 23:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"...you're here for the wrong reasons... This is... not a place for you to show off your coding skills". Sorry, what part am I misreading here? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 14:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You've conveniently misquoted me there, thanks. You forgot to mention that I said "I appreciate the work you do". How is that insinuating he's not wanted here? Actually, don't answer... I've just realised who you are. Enough said. And to think there's so much fuss over a neutral vote... at least I didn't oppose. Majorly (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, typical Wikipedian tactics.. "I'm going to reply to you, but don't bother responding kk I want the final word" -- Naerii · plz create stuff 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you're a Wikipedian too! You can reply if you like, this is a wiki. I'm not going to stop you. Majorly (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't support because you have shown disregard to the opinion and recommendations of the community. In your past RfAs, you were told that more article work would be needed to pass. And yet, you're here again, and nothing substantial has been done. I personally do not subscribe to that school of thought, but when you have failed two RfAs because of it, and then come back here again without addressing it, I have a problem. However, you do a lot of good work, and so I cannot oppose. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral, moved from Regretful Oppose. I am much reassured to hear that the candidate was testing a script when the out of process speedy nominations I observed were placed. :) I don't feel I can quite move to support, though, since I think running such a script was probably a misguided choice, and it also leaves me nothing substantial to judge CSD experience by. Speedy deletions—nomination or follow-through—should be weighted carefully, I think, since they are potentially about as bitey as we can get. Anyway, whether the editor gets the tools or not, I do think he's a very valuable contributor, and I feel at least quite sure that he will not misuse the tools intentionally. Hence, even if I don't quite feel I can support, I'm pleased that I no longer feel I have to oppose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I see very little evidence that you've learned from your previous RfAs, nor that you have any experience in the areas you wish to work with. On the other hand, you're a good guy who obviously cares about the project. I kinda hope this passes, on the one hand, but I can't support based on my personal belief that RfA is to be a learning experience, and you have shown very little development. Fwiw I'm a big fan of the bot, am absolutely stunned by your coding skills, and very much think we need and want you around. Ugh, this one's tough. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral basically what Riana said. Sorry, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral ClueBot's great, and I mean great, but I think more article work is neccessary. Sorry. THE KC (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC).
After much thought, I'm switching from support to neutral. I apologise for this relatively late change, but after re-reading the opposes and re-evaluating what I stated earlier, neutral is the best option for me. And per Riana as well. Rudget . 15:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

Categories: Unsuccessful requests for adminship

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cobi

[edit] Questions for the candidate

[edit] General comments

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search