Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi

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.

Contents

[edit] Cobi

Closed as consensus not reached by Cecropia 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC) at (76/33/11); Scheduled to end 04:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cobi (talk · contribs) - I do hereby nominate my master, Cobi, for administratorship on the English Wikipedia. My master could greatly benefit Wikipedia with the extra buttons. He has been described as "the most level-headed person I know" by his friends and I think he would make a great administrator of Wikipedia. ClueBot 04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept :) -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 05:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment This RfA is supposed to close, it is already pasts its ending time. NHRHS2010 Talk 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See discussion here - TwoOars (Rev) 19:52, 10 October 2007 (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: There are several areas where I have experience working in as a user and bot master. First, I am a verified open proxy checker at WP:OP, so I will be helping out in that regard with the ability to actually block the open proxies as opposed to simply noting that they are open proxies. Second, I plan on working at WP:AIV, as I have had experience reporting vandals there. My bot also reports a lot of vandals there. I also plan on helping out at WP:UAA and WP:SCV.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would have to say that my best contribution to Wikipedia has been User:ClueBot and the other ClueBots. ClueBot reverts a lot of vandalism every day and the other ClueBots do other work around Wikipedia, such as clerking WP:OP (IV), talk page archival (III), redlink removal at WP:SCV (II), and tagging inactive WikiProjects (II).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The only "conflicts" that I have been involved with have been in relation to false positives reported about my bot. Such false positives are inevitable, but users can often get very indignant when this happens. This has not caused me stress. My approach has always been to gently explain the computation behind the false positive and try to fix this from happening again. My approach as an administrator would be very similar, in that I would quickly find the problem, make a judgment on its correctness, and "fix" the problem, while making sure all involved parties have as little discontent as possible.
4. Optional question by AntiVMan: What are you opinions of COI, and what do you think it should be applied to?
A: I believe that people who are related to or have a strong bias about a particular topic should either 1) not edit articles relating to that topic or 2) use extreme caution when doing so.
5. Seemingly Optional question by SQL: I figured I'd get this one out of the way early on. What are your thoughts on Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Should this RFA pass, would you add yourself to this category? Why / Why not?
A: It seems like everyone has a slightly different method of implementing this, but I will because I think there should be an easier way to desysop administrators if the community no longer wishes them to be an administrator without the long and drawn out process of ArbCom and because administrators should be accountable for their actions. I am not exactly sure how I will implement it, yet, but I will list myself in that category.
6. Question from JayHenry
I'm having trouble figuring out your editing background from your contribs. It looks like you made a few edits and then, as about your 8th edit, started operating ClueBot. Most people don't start operating bots on their 8th edit. Two and a 1/2 months later, you're applying for adminship. That's a very accelerated path through Wikipedia. Is there more to the story here? --JayHenry 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A: It is true that new users don't generally start operating bots, however, prior to my joining Wikipedia I have run many, many bots on IRC and elsewhere. Most of which, I coded my self. I saw a need and I made an automated program to fill that need. And, I realize that I am relatively new here, but I have read and understand Wikipedia's policies and I have operated several MediaWiki installations before.
7. Question from Fiddle Faddle
Sometimes we "meet" other editors whose concept of editing Wikipedia differs so radically from our own perception of what we believe WP is that they can seem to us to be any of: obstructive, obnoxious, willful, stupid (list any pejorative adjectives you please here). It can feel important "for the good of Wikipedia" to show them where they are in error. Such situations can become combative, and require assistance to reach some form of resolution. Assuming no formal mediation or arbitration processes were available, thus the problem could not be delegated, what would your approach be, both with yourself as one of the "combatants" (I use the term particularly) and as an impartial editor (not as an admin, just as an editor) who has observed the tension and wishes to see it resolved?
A: Well, unless the editor is going against policy, I generally don't confront them or I do so gently. If they are going against policy, then I will give them a warning stating that they are going against policy. If they continue going against policy, then I generally notify administrators via IRC or the appropriate noticeboard. If I am an impartial editor who wants to see a heated conflict resolved, I generally ask both parties if they can try to resolve the conflict. If it continues, I usually notify an administrator via IRC.
8. Question from Eliz81
Some of the opposes are concerned with your lack of experience in typical admin areas and with more 'substantial' edits in the mainspace. For example, how do you plan to approach AfD? Would you never participate in it, learn about it and participate/delete articles, or jump right in? Are you planning to only work in the areas you've mentioned above, or eventually branch out, and if branching out, how and to where? When, where, and how can we expect you to be using the extra buttons?
A: I don't really plan on closing AfDs unless there is a backlog or need in that area. I do plan on eventually branching out into other areas, like WP:RFPP and WP:AN/3. I think CO summed it up nicely here.
9. Question from After Midnight
Can you provide any insight into your editing outside of the areas of editing your userspace, bot requests or reverting User:AlptaBot? When answering, please note that I used the word "editing", not "contributions".
A: I have done a fair amount of anti-vandalism work on my own apart from ClueBot. I have also tagged several articles with CSD tags which, for obvious reasons, do not appear on my contributions page. If you were referring to authoring articles or adding new content to existing articles, I have done very little in this regard. I do not have the gift for writing nor do I write very well.
Reverting and nominating for deletion would count as "contributions", not as "editing". Have you done any editing whatsoever, even if it has not been to add content? --After Midnight 0001 20:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I have done a little. I created ClueNet and made some changes to Shell account. This was soon after I created my account and before I knew about WP:COI. When I did learn about WP:COI and WP:NPOV, I cleaned the article up as best I could and have tried to stay away from that article since I do, in fact, have a COI. I also created a stub, Offline File System, per this request, which was later redirected to File System.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cobi before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Question from Phoenix 15

1 Do you lot who opposed Cobi think he/she will abuse or misuse the tools?--Phoenix 15 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
While I did not oppose, I remained neutral because I couldn't evaluate how the editor would be in conflict situations, which is an inevitable result of becoming an administrator. In going through his contributions, and reading the responses he's made here, I'm leaning much more towards support. I definitely think Cobi would rock at WP:AIV, and at WP:OP! I just was concerned that interaction with other editors hasn't been a large part of what he's done here to allow evaluation of that area. (And Cobi, if you're a girl, my most abject apologies!) Ariel♥Gold 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Sexism...--Phoenix 15 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Not intended! I think it is because I saw someone say "Hey man," on the editor's talk page. Hee hee. Ariel♥Gold 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
hehe--Phoenix 15 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
^ that was a pointless comment--Phoenix 15 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
P-munny, you make me laugh. Dfrg.msc 22:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I would like to note that, based on experience with the user by watching him on WP and seeing him as an admin of IRC networks, he has tried, and sometimes succeeded in making the user -> admin jump far too fast in many cases. It hasn't worked out for more than a few months yet. Keep the bot going though. User:Not Logged In October 6, 2007) (Not logged in to stay neutral)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.116.186 (talk)
    I'm sorry, but anonymous participation in the RfA process is not allowed. Please log in if you would like to participate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Excuse me? It is most certainly allowed, but should be moved to the discussion section, which I have done. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. If this nom doesn't succeed, don't be disheartened. Trust and clue is all you need for an administrator. This user has my trust, and is clueful to the policies of Wikipedia. --DarkFalls talk 06:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. A helpful user, and a fantastic bot. Lots of good work. AntiVMan 06:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support - Good vandal-fighter and clearly a trustworthy user, although I'd like to see more participation in mainspace content creation and in XfDs. Nonetheless, the candidate will not abuse the tools. WaltonOne 07:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. I trust you man, I trust you. That's what it comes down to, after all. I don't think you're gonna go psycho, and block everyone, I don't think you're gonna delete everything. In fact, I think you'll be an asset to the encyclopedia. SQL(Query Me!) 07:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Why not honestly? Jmlk17 08:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per SQL and Jmlk17. Heck, if this guy was here to harm Wikipedia he wouldn't spend hours writing bots that help out would he? Plus, as opposed to Jeffery below, I liked the introduction to this RfA. If we can't have a bit of fun here whilst creating a serious work lets just pack it all up and go home. I don't want to give up my valuable time for a worthwhile project if I can't have a bit of light hearted humour occasionaly. Pedro :  Chat  08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, tending slightly to the weak side of the spectrum (only a little) per Walton. But a clear support nonetheless. Daniel 08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support good bot-op, wouldn't abuse the tools. Trust him. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Very Weak Support on experience concerns, but your dedication and help to wikipedia is much appreciated. Good luck - although I doubt this rfa will succeed --Benchat 08:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Tentative support from what I've seen, a level-headed and sensible user. Half an hour of going through contribs didn't turn up anything but I might change my opinion if any skeletons are found later on. :) Oh, and like Pedro, I too like the self nom statement. - TwoOars (Rev) 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support A good editor; his bot is one of the best. No reason to oppose. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per nom. LOL. Yes I know Cluebot is a bot. I've warned and reverted some of the same vandals. No bot is perfect, and Cluebot helps clean out the ocean of vandalism. Anyone with the this sort of sense of humor is not likely to go nutter and destroy Wikipedia with the buttons. I imagine the comparably low edit count will sink this, so hope to see you back in about 3,000 edits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose has a sense of humour, and concentrates too much on mundane project maintenance tasks. Probably unsuited for clearing backlogs and dealing with wackos. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Riana. — Dorftrottel⁠, was: AldeBaer 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think these were serious opposes. --JayHenry 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Have moved these two oppose votes here as they don't appear to be serious, and were first placed in "support" by their creators. Thedreamdied 18:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Because they were supports. Please send a search party out for your sense of humour :p ~ Riana ⁂ 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    It helps to read the comments before you move them; why would someone oppose beacuse the candidate "has a sense of humour" and how is someone who " concentrates too much on mundane project maintenance tasks" be "unsuited for clearing backlogs". I think it is fairly obvious what the intent of these comments are but don't worry we all have off-moments ;) GDonato (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your sanctimonious comments, I'd like to point out that i moved them out of the oppose section that someone had put them in. Also, knowing the kind of moron that regularly edits wikipedia, "a sense of humour" seemed as normal a reason as any for opposing this nomination. Thedreamdied 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    True. GDonato (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support or at least I think so since I can't work out which section this is now The fact that this user operates ClueBot clearly shows that Cobi will not harm the project and understands important content policies. GDonato (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support: the nomination is a cheeky breath of fresh air, and Cobi is helpful and responsive, and can explain things in a way even atechno-turkey like me canunderstand. The bots work well, and I can't see how one needs to perform a powerful lot of personal edits one's self in order to qualify as a competent admin. Seems to me that all the relevant buttons are pressed here. Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Appears to have good knowledge of policy, and is experienced with technical matters. Has a sense of humor as well, which, as I stated in Alison's RfA those many months ago, is a quality more admins need to have. Acalamari 17:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose -Sense of Humour...HA !. He is an editor who is hell-bent on destroying vandalism and that is not what we expect of an admin, his bot has made many people cry..which is mean ( :P ).. he will make a terrible admin..but seeing that he was nominated by a bot :O scares me..his bots are trying to take over wikipedia..fleeee.. :S ..--Cometstyles 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support This editor knows what they are doing, and I couldn't find anything in the contribs to suggest a lack of judgment. [1] edits such as this also lead me to believe you are accountable, and respond to the needs of your fellow Wikipedians. Hiberniantears 19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support -- I don't see any evidence that this user will abuse the tools. --Haemo 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Blocking open proxies sounds good to me, that doesn't require experience in articlespace at all, and having a popular anti-vandal bot in use sounds like this user must already be very experienced with Wikipedia despite the short time span. Homestarmy 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Weak support. The user's mainspace contributions seem a bit on the thin side, but all in all this user appears to know what is going on and seems trustworthy - there's a lot of havoc a bot operator can unleash on the 'pedia even without the admin bit. I believe sysopping this user would be a net benefit to the project. The self-nom via bot thing was funny, for the record :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. CO2 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. SupportPer Pedro, I believe this user will definately be able to contribute more to Wikipedia through his getting of the tools. Plus, I've encounted his bot/s countless times. Phgao 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. I understand the concerns about article writing, but I believe despite the lack of it, he is dedicated to building this encyclopedia. His way of building the encyclopedia is protecting it from the bad guys, so that the users who our good at article writing can write and not be distracted by vandals and trolls. I feel that this is perfectly legitimate. --Mschel 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Weak support That is about trust, you have my trust. Just do not try to experiment in the areas which you have not experience. Good luck. Carlosguitar 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Strong support. Cobi's a really friendly guy with a sense of humour. That's of utmost importance in an admin to avoid burnout. I don't have a concern about the edit count because I know he's dedicated to helping the wiki, and his bots have over 50 thousand edits total. Cobi is also a great boon to WP:OP. —Crazytales talk/desk 00:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support (or is it oppose?) Per Riana. —[[Animum | talk]] 01:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Oppose votes just don't convince me. By the way, loved the 'bot nomination.' Very funny. Yahel Guhan 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support No reason to oppose this user. And I wonder how ClueBot nominated Cobi. NHRHS2010 Talk 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    He logged in as the bot, maybe? :) Carbon Monoxide 03:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Seems like a trustworthy user. Pax:Vobiscum 02:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support While it would be nice if Cobi had more mainspace edits, his contributions suggest a strong understanding of the rules that make wikipedia work. I think he'd be a productive editor in many areas outside of mainspace (and maybe there too), and will be a valuable admin. --Bfigura (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support This user would not abuse the admin tools given to him. Happy to give my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support The main reason for opposition appears to be that this user does not have enough "experience" or has not made enough edits. Cobi has had a huge amount of experience both as a general administrator (he is a chief administrator of the successful ClueNet network) and with Wikipedia in particular. He has obviously researched the policies of Wikipedia in great detail and is very knowledgeable of its workings. Cobi's writing of ClueBot is an example of this knowledge, but he has also even delved deeply into the MediaWiki code itself to make modifications for personal wikis and has experience as a wiki admin in the same regard. It is obvious that he would not harm Wikipedia in any way - his dedication is apparent. His ability to write a complex piece of software to automatically analyze pages demonstrates his general ability as well as desire to help. Opposition on the sole grounds of "not enough edits!" is illogical, because the purpose of an administrator is not to spend time improving the content of pages - it is to handle much larger issues regarding the overall health of the encyclopedia, its users, and its specific pages, a task for which Cobi is certainly more than adequate. I believe he is and will continue to be a great asset to Wikipedia. This user has my full support. Crispy1989 05:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    — Crispy1989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Crispy is the co-admin of Cluenet, and has known Cobi for some time now I can surmise. —Crazytales talk/desk 23:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support A sense of humor and slight disregard for How Things Are Supposed To Happen make for an ideal administrator, someone who understands what ignore all rules is all about and when it's appropriate to ignore them, yet won't make a mess of things by ignoring them when it's not appropriate. I have high hopes for this user. kmccoy (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Yes, the "oppose lack of experience" arguments are valid, but from their history I trust this editor not to do things they're not confident in — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support I believe this user will make good use of the tools, and that he has sufficiently earned the trust of the community. JavaTenor 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support, it saddens me that some of the oppose reasons brought up below are for "lack of experience". You can't be serious! I can't possibly imagine how difficult it must be to construct a good, working bot like the one he has! Cobi definitely possesses the knowledge to edit protected templates, which would be of great benefit to the community. And if I'm proven wrong and Cobi does abuse the tools (something I seriously doubt), he'll be listed for recall. So what is there to lose? *Cremepuff222* 21:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Seems to have a use for the tools; doesn't seem likely to abuse them. --Carnildo 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Per above. Unlikely to abuse of tools. ♠TomasBat 23:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - seems like a good user, has mentioned where they plan to work admin-wise, appears to understand policy. The bot is a factor for which the community trusts Cobi, and I'm inclined to think that his work there shows that he is helping the project through automated technical means if not much directly. Nihiltres(t.l) 23:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support as per Riana.He has shown commitment an has contributed to Wikipedia by cluebot which fights vandalism.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  43. Hell yes.  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support per DI.Marlith T/C 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support - could obviously use the tools, clearly isn't a mental. Neil ム 11:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. I believe the candidate is qualified for adminship based on his overall record, including but not limited to the Cluebots' work. I hope that this current nomination will succeed, I anticipate that the candidate will continue working on Wikipedia and gaining additional experience, resulting in overwhelming support next time. Newyorkbrad 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Plenty well qualified in the areas he intends to work, WP:WPOP notably being one that always requires more attention from admins who know what they are doing there. Will make an extremely useful admin. Will (aka Wimt) 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support Won't abuse the tools. He's been clearly showing that he only wants to help Wikipedia. Oh, and I enjoyed the commentary by the "nominator". =) нмŵוτнτ 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support hhe will be a good admin doing stuff like SD--Phoenix 15 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support With ClueBot, has made a substantial contribution to fighting vandalism. Civil and a sense of humor. Has earned my trust, and I do not think Cobi will abuse the tools. I trust your judgment, but especially since you didn't give quite the answer I had hoped for to my question, I make a small request that you be extra careful in admin-related areas where you have less experience. Although, I do trust your judgment in terms of misuse, and opening yourself up to recall should address concerns of the opposers. At the very least, I think you will make an excellent vandal-fighting admin with OP and AIV. ~Eliz81(C) 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support We need all the help we can get toward all the reports and warnings filed by that damn Gluebopped thingy... LessHeard vanU 22:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support Why not. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. Sounds like a great vandal fighter. Let 'im block vandals too. Props on ClueBot, by the way; it catches a lot that previously slipped through. I delight seeing it on my watchlist (as I often do for the many pages I tend relating to politics and Mormonism). Cool Hand Luke 08:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support, as editor seems committed to fighting vandalism and improving the encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support, I trust you, sounds like a good idea to make you an admin. --CapitalR 10:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  57. I am confident that he will only use his tools in areas he's experienced in, and that the net effect of giving him admin rights should be a positive one. We need more people to help out with maintenance, and this candidate seems to be perfectly suited for that. Why wait while he makes more mainspace edits while he doesn't intend to work in that area? Melsaran (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support per iridescent and Cremepuff -- Cobi works tirelessly in fighting vandalism, has written an incredible bot to fight vandalism, and wants the tools to further fight vandalism. Good reason for having the tools + background that shows virtually zero likelihood to abuse them + substantial postive contributions to Wikipedia = support from me. Ashdog137 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support I think we can be sure that this user can be trusted as an admin. Captain panda 20:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support John254 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. I was considering going neutral for a while due to Cobi's inexperience, but after thinking it over a bit, I definitely trust him to use the tools to the best interests of the project; why wait when he can and will help us now? --krimpet⟲ 09:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support I think we can trust him. Oysterguitarist 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support I thought about this for several days. This is a big place and nobody is familiar with everything. Over time try to gain experience in different areas. Since you won't abuse the tools, there's no reason not to have access to them when needed for your valuable work. - Jehochman Talk 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support Great nomination. ClueBot is a real time saver, and Cobi has demonstrated sufficient technical knowledge to handle blocking by himself. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support I think the opposers should read Cobi's answers to the questions above, if they haven't done so, and reconsider their vote. Adminship is said to be not a big thing, and it seems to me that everyone here agrees that he will certainly not abuse tools. Why wait, and waste time? He certainly needs the admin tools, and will make good use of them. This editor seems to have already achieved the experiency and usefulness level, even if he did not do so many edits. If he can notice and take care of key things of wikipedia, then he is more than experienced enough. He might not be an all around admin but doing a few things almost perfectly is not worse than doing many things rather mediocrely. ClueBot is not his only contribution, he will probably address other key issues in the future, so beware the other admins for becoming less useful (their edits don't count anyway, as they were mostly some Cluebot type edits, right?) His niceness and thoughtfulness are his great assets that will be most useful during vandal fighting, it is certainly much better for ignoring and waiting for the vandal to just go away. He even put that turn off button on the bot's userpage, that is an important minor thing, another sign of his thoughtfulness. He should feel free and be bold in doing mainspace edits, we are a community here, and we can improve other edits. By the way, thhis article is getting too large, we should split it. DenizTC 13:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support. I looked at some of Cobi's contributions and read the above discussion, and have no concerns. I can live with the low edit count because of the potential value of his work in the area of vandalism and backlogs. He has credibility in my eyes because of the work he has already done with ClueBot. I don't expect him to be able to close the Daniel Brandt AfD, as noted above, but it doesn't sound like he is planning to do that kind of thing. EdJohnston 15:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support. Was tempting to vote neutral, but fence sitting wouldn't help anyway. I'm confident theat you will not abuse the tools, and you have shown enough good edits for me to put my support behind you. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support His bots have helped relieve some of the massive amount of work for the project. Four bots, all approved, clearly shows he knows what he's doing and would be a great help with the tools. Kwsn(Ni!) 00:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support. No big deal. ➪Hi;;;DrNick! 04:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support I trust Cobi's (perhaps implicit) representation that he intends to partake, qua admin, largely/exclusively of those tasks his familiarity with and aptitude for which are uncontroverted, and he appears to be possessed of a sound sense of judgment and a measured demeanor, such that I think him well to understand whereof he is not entirely sure and thus to be altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting in areas of the policies and practice relevant to which he is unaware) the tools; I feel quite comfortable concluding, then, that it is exceedingly likely that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support. Most of the opposes are "experience" related but this user is the coder of Cluebot, which has made over 40K edits. This also shows that he understands the fields in which he wishes to contribute so well that he was able to build one of the most praised automated tools for these tasks. --Kudret abiTalk 05:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support I'll support this as well. and yes I know its after the deadline, its not closed yet so eh. Cluebot does good work, and while the nom is silly I really don't care. Cobi is as far as I can tell a decent user. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support - yes it's past the deadline. No, it hasn't been clsoed yet, so I'm supporting per the sense of humour shown in the nom, and my total trust in the user to complete adminny tasks as required. Martinp23 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support — meaning to support prior to this, but I believe that Cobi has the technical and social capabilities to be a beneficial to Wikipedia as an admin. GracenotesT § 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support per Martinp32 and Gracenotes above. Sense of humor is a plus. Article-writing is a worthy quality, but certainly not essential for most administrative tasks. Trustworthiness and grasp of policy seem to be much more important qualities. Cobi seems to have both. IronGargoyle 20:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    You're free to have your position, but I'd like to comment on a specific point. You say that "Article-writing is a worthy quality, but certainly not essential for most administrative tasks." and I've seen others say similar things. But have you considered that expecting article writing is the most powerful way to prevent or reduce gaming the system? In my participation and observation of hundreds of RfAs it's not that hard to meet the nominal admin requirements such as x number of edits in each namespace and some participation in various processes, even when x is very high. It is however difficult to contribute to content so that can be a valuable discriminant. I say this because it is known that the system has been gamed before through meeting nominal requirements. But if we expect more quality article writing, then the gaming will have a net benefit for the project. Not that it's a good thing, but the expectation can change a large negative to a net positive. Again writing an encyclopedia is the only thing we're here for. - Taxman Talk 21:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Do you think that I am attempting to game the system? Indeed, it is difficult to contribute to content, but it is also difficult to make ClueBot. If I were here just to get adminship, do you think I would have taken the time and energy to create ClueBot? Just a thought ... -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 21:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think "writing an encyclopedia is the only thing we're here for" is true -- or, at least, neither a complete statement nor accurate as it is often used in these discussions. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, open to contributions from everyone, and which is intended to be as reliable a source of information as is possible. Crafting Wikipedia thus necessarily involves people who make a commitment to, and who are highly skilled at, protecting the encyclopedia from vandals -- in other words, we need admins like Cobi in order to allow the mentioned "writing of an encyclopedia" while simultaneously maintaining the ideals fundamental to this project, as opposed to any of the myriad other encyclopedias created throughout history. To require every admin to be a direct author of high-quality content is to miss the forest for the trees -- it is precisely those editors and admins that focus on things other than content who enable editors to submit high-quality content, knowing it will be protected against abuse. Ashdog137 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    (double edit conflicted) Absolutely Taxman, I agree with you (almost) completely. Article writing is a great way to avoid gaming the system. If a borderline case (assuming we are talking edit-count here) was a great and productive article-writer, I would definitely take that into account. I think the bot-work shows something similar in surpassing the nominal requirements though. Are there bot designers that have made or would make terrible admins? Absolutely. There are also article-writers that have made or would make terrible admins. This is why civility is probably my number 1 criteria. I have not seen any evidence that this user is uncivil or will engage in any sort of disruptive behavior (good sense of humor is an indicator of that I think, and is why certain oppose votes in this RfA gall me so much). IronGargoyle 21:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Also, we are not here just to write the encyclopedia. We are also here to maintain the encyclopedia and reduce its entropy. IronGargoyle 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support I can't understand why this is on a knife-edge.--Bedivere 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, if its a joke nomination. If it isn't, oppose because its written like one. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    This is not a joke nomination, but essentially a self-nomination. Thanks. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 06:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    This is a very poor reason to oppose. RfA is often far too serious, and I don't see that this candidate's done anything wrong. WaltonOne 07:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    With all due respect, Walton, but you have to admit that 'having done nothing wrong' isn't a sufficient reason to support adminship, or don't you? If this would be an argument, Editors who shied away from any controversial articles would actually have an advantage over those who tried to solve real problems. A candidate can have made mistakes, what's important is he learned from them and developed the necessary experience we need in our admins. Just my two eurocent. Gray62 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Actually - For Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: People support on the basis of a good track record with no "bad" incidents. That is, they think someone is a good admin because of a lack of evidence that person is bad. - User:Raul654/Raul's laws. Raul654 22:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ehm, that was not Walton's reason to support, he said Jeffrey shouldn't oppose since the candidate had done nothing wrong. Melsaran (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    I shall support or oppose for whatever reason I see fit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Do you expect the closing 'crat to appreciate this comment of yours as much as the joke of not forcing you through RfA again may imply? — Dorftrottel⁠, was: AldeBaer 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - The bot is good, but I really don't think you have enough experience, mainspace wise. I.E. creating articles. Also, IMHO, I think you are too new. Miranda 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Trustworthy user, but not enough experience. east.718 at 07:24, October 3, 2007
    Just to clarify, with no meaningful mainspace contributions and little participation in the wiki namespace outside of WP:BRFA, I do not believe Cobi has enough time put into areas related to adminship. east.718 at 02:42, October 4, 2007
  4. Oppose 200 Main space edits is too low to demonstrate appropriate knowledge of how the encyclopedia is built. But please try again after you have more experience. Ronnotel 11:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    BTW, I really like ClueBot. However, I do find it somewhat disappointing that a simple PHP script can defeat such a surprisingly large portion of the collective imagination of vandals world-wide. It's not a reflection on you, of course. It's just that you have shown us how shallow the mind of the vandal really is. If this fails (which it probably won't) I'm looking forward to supporting your next RfA. Ronnotel 21:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose — your mainspace contribs do not demonstrate that you have the ability to work collaboratively, or that you are clear on what our goal is here, since they are basically all automated vandalism reversions. To those opposing above me, stop counting edits. --Agüeybaná 12:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Vandal fighter ---> admin. Cobi isn't going to be the one to close an AfD like Daniel Brandt's, he isn't going to fix the conflicts over articles like Global Warming, and he probably won't solve articles' BLP issues. Will he be able to block the everyday school kid vandal, deal with the inappropriate usernames, delete the non sense pages, and protect the pages hit heavily with vandalism? Yes, and he will be able to do it quite well. Yes, content writing helps make a well rounded admin, but that's not everyone's niche. Honestly Agueybana, your standards are getting quite high. CO2 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    And I'm getting tired of your constant assumption of bad faith. --Agüeybaná 10:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. The candidate working here for a whopping four months isn't really enough to build a positive vote on. Also, his interaction with other users mostly seems to be limited to appologizing for his bot's mistakes (this begs some questions about thew usefulness of his bot, too, imho). Not much real edit work, as far as I can see in the diffs, and thus no experience in solving real conflicts. And the candidate didn't make a compelling case why he needs admin powers for the anti-vandalism stuff. He seemed to get along just fine without it. So, what shall we base a positive vote on? Wishful thinking? Sry, this might be a promising candidate next year, but this is much too early yet. Gray62 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Edited. After reading a bit more about AV bots, i see that a number of false positives can't be avoided. 'Cluebot' at least is superior to its 'ancestors', and apologizing for its errors is actually a nice move by Cobi. I don't want to discourage this productive and valuable user. I just think it's a bit early for adminship. Gray62 18:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Miranda. Majoreditor 13:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Sorry, Cobi. I have no doubt that you are a good user, but with so few edits to the article talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk spaces, I can't accurately judge your ability to interact with the community and deal with arguments, indecision, etc. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - you have been so very useful to Wikipedia with what you've done so far, and the bot you created is magnificent - it even drove the previously unstoppable MartinBot into extinction! But, as a Wikipedian under Cobi, there needs to be much more experience in all areas. But, don't get me wrong, what you've done so far is great. :-) Lradrama 17:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. First I want to say that ClueBot does really, really great work. But is it's work so incredible that I feel comfortable supporting a candidate who's been active for two months, has made several edits to only three articles, and has minimal interaction with the community? I'm sorry, Cobi, but I don't think there's any bot that could allay those concerns. I would definitely support in the future if you continue on your track and interact more with the community. It wouldn't hurt in my opinion to maybe put some serious work into an article or two, in order to understand the encyclopedia-building aspect of the project. --JayHenry 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose you only have 12 mainspace edits that aren't reverting vandalism. T Rex | talk 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - Per Miranda. Sorry buddy. ScarianTalk 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - I would support you becoming a WP:BAG member, but frankly, you have absolutely zero record of editing, no talk edits, minimal interaction, nothing that I see. Almost all of your edits are either editing your userspace, bot requests or reverting User:AlptaBot. In my mind, this is not even a situation of coming back in a few months. Despite the fact that you may be a good bot editor, you are far away from demonstrating the skill necessary to become an admin. --After Midnight 0001 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. With little evidence of encyclopedia building or of non-trivial interactions with other users, I can't evaluate this editor's suitability for adminship at this time. Espresso Addict 07:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Your bot is good, but I really don't think that you have enough articlewriting experience. -Lemonflash(O_o) 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - I think a user who has been here for less than 6 months is too new to become an admon. Od Mishehu 21:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    With all due respect, Od Mishehu, don't you think that a person's experience and intentions should be based on the edits rather than the time he or she has been editing? *Cremepuff222* 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    What's an "admon"? --Agüeybaná 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Lol, well the "o" key is right next to the "i" key... :) *Cremepuff222* 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    No, Admon! Dfrg.msc 23:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose should get more experience in the mainspace.Rlevse 18:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose way too little mainspace exposure.Sumoeagle179 21:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Reluctant oppose (changed to neutral below); I'm sorry, Cobi, but while ClueBot is an extremely valuable asset to the 'pedia, I'd really want to see a bit of participation in admin-related processes before you get the tools. Spend two months doing XfD work, for instance, or manual vandal/spammer hunting (for AIV experience), and I'll support you— you obviously got the right attitude, but basically no experience with admin processes; and at this time we have no way of really knowing how well you understand how policy is applied. — Coren (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, bots are immune from having to understand principles that underpin Wikipedia, such as Assume good faith; we accept them because they do more good than bad. Without a broad range of experiences on Wikipedia, I cant gauge whether the administration tools are in the right hands. John Vandenberg 06:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    The applicant is the bot operator, not the bot. LessHeard vanU 09:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thats right; Cobi has yet to display the characteristics of a good admin. John Vandenberg 10:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Fine. It wasn't clear from the initial comment. LessHeard vanU 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Far too little experience, especially in article writing, to allow me to judge suitability for adminship. TigerShark 20:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose too little experience. Epbr123 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose probably won't misuse tools, but not enough mainspace editing to be sure. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, doesn't write content. Everyking 07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. I'm perfectly willing to consider that a candidate with narrow experience of admin related areas could be given the tools on the basis that they would only exercise them in areas they feel confident. But it seems that Cobi lacks experience in all areas related to use of admin tools. He has not particpated in deletion discussions and hasn't tagged article for speedy deletion. There is no great involvement in article writting or editorial disputes to give other signs of good familiarity with content/deletion policies. I just don't feel able to judge Cobi's ability to apply Wikipedia policy were he an administrator. I think he's on the right course and a couple of months would allow him enough participation to judge whether or not he'd make a good admin, but this RfA seems premature. WjBscribe 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose While his efforts in reverting vandalism are much appreciated, I suggest that he takes some time to diversify his experience in other admin related areas of Wikipedia, as the users above have said. You're almost there, good luck.--Alasdair 12:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Not Yet Come back when you can refer to your own contributions as evidence that you will do well with the bot. Bot actions are necessarily without judgement, administrative actions require judgment. Until we can see your judgment in admin related activities, we can't trust what you will do with the tools. GRBerry 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose (after closing time) I really think admins need more experience with content...that's the reason we're here. That's not to say he wouldn't be a good admin down the line, in fact he probably would be. But right now there's no way to judge and he certainly hasn't been active enough to gain the needed experience. RxS 14:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose He seems to be big-headed (why did he ask someone else to make a request?). Only ~2000 edits? Not enough, up to 5000 edits earn a support. --Petar Marjanovic 17:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    I take it you didn't notice it was his own bot account that nominated him? In other words it was a self nom in a lightly humorous way and he didn't ask someone else to nominate, from what I can tell. - Taxman Talk 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Comment That is one of the worst opposes I've heard. After all, adminship is no big deal. Edit counts also mean absolutely nothing and accusing him of being big-headed is what dicks do--Phoenix 15 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Note: Peter Marjanovic has only 16 edits at this time. Acalamari 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose - Far too little experience. you don not write articles.--[[User:Syrcro|sугсго . PEDIA 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    In deciding whether to give Wikipe-tan a mop, our question should be whether she can clean stuff up, not whether she is a published novelist

    — WP:AAAD -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 18:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. You have done a lot of great work and please keep it up. But way too little participation in what we are really here for, particularly writing articles. Too little experience outside narrow areas doesn't give enough information on which to judge your abilities enough to support. I and many others feel that until you have experience writing articles you cannot make proper decisions about things that affect content creation which is the only thing we do here that is important. - Taxman Talk 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Reluctant oppose. As great as your bot is, have our standards went this low? I don't really see any non-bot experience present, I'd prefer to see some of that in either main or wikispace before I can support. Wizardman 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. weakly oppose —DerHexer (Talk) 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Oppose Cobi has done some xcellent work with ClueBot, but I must regrettably oppose this RfA at the current time. Personally, I feel that an RfA candidate should have experience in mainspace contributions/discussions. Whether you agree with me or not, admins will definitely have to involve themselves in dispute resolution or mediation. If a candidate has a history of discussion over articles and participating in collective editing with others, then he/she has some background and experience that can help them handle future matters properly (like mediating an edit war). You don't necessarily need this experience to handle all of these type of issues, but you will need some background for some matters. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Netural Cobi's a good user, but still a bit new, I suggest you diversify a bit more. -Chris  G  06:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral You have my trust, but you don't have enough experience in other aspects of the encyclopedia. Pursey Talk | Contribs 07:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral ClueBot certainly is a most valuable addition for Wikipedia, but I feel that you've concentrated on that area specifically, and have not really had a chance yet to dig into some of the most fundamental areas that you'd need to be familiar with to be an effective administrator. (And if you are familiar with those areas, I apologize, but going from your edits, there is little or no history of AIV, UAA, AFD, XfD, participation, etc.) I'm sure this will come with time, but at this point, with less than 300 mainspace edits, I just don't feel that you're fully aware of the entire scope of the project and the depth of the areas an administrator would be dealing with. All that being said, I would like to thank you for your creation of ClueBot, as I've been beaten by the bot too many times to count, he's quick on that trigger! Good job! And in the future, if you diversify as suggested, I'm sure you'll be ready for another RfA. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 07:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    My bot reports to AIV quite often, I also know about WP:UAA, but I have not contributed there often because other users tend to beat me when reporting inappropriate usernames. It is true that I have not contributed at WP:AFD and the other "for deletion" areas. This is because most of the articles I come upon which should be deleted are candidates for speedy deletion. I don't vote on them often, but I do read them. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Yes I figured that there's no way you could create your bot without fully understanding AIV, and the reporting process. :o) Your answer to question #3 is short and succinct, but administrators are often called upon to resolve disputes, or end up in conflict simply due to the nature of their mop duties, and I just wasn't able to find much interaction between you and other editors outside of RC patrol, or coding and bot issues. I'm not saying you don't know what you're doing, but merely that your focus seems (by your contribution history) to be quite confined. I'll dig deeper into contributions, and please know that I in no way think you'd abuse the tools, and I think you'd be effective with AIV, but Wikipedia is so much more than that, I'd just personally like to see a bit more diversity, for instance, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, WP:AER, or WP:SSP, I'm unsure how familiar you are with these areas, as your contribution history shows no activity there. Ariel♥Gold 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Good user, but his bot violates point 1 of the bot policy – the bot must be "harmless"; it may well do more harm than good, but since it has reverted many legitimate edits and continues to do so, it can hardly be called "harmless". I can't support someone who so willingly violates official policy :) – – Gurch 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I don't know. I know he's made several bots, but at around 1,100 edits and only a few months at wikipedia.... try again in six months and I might support. (And I saw nothing wrong with the nomination). —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Great work on WP and you have some good experience... but a little more experience, in areas such as WP:AIV, will benefit your next RfA. κaτaʟavenoTC 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral for now, per above. However, Great ClueBot operator. NHRHS2010 Talk 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)changed to support NHRHS2010 Talk 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral leaning towards support I usually ask myself would I trust this user with the ability to block, delete, protect, as well as can they handle the usual "Why did you block me, you suck", "Why did you delete my article, you penis, etc, etc, that admins that are vandal fighters have to deal with. If I answer yes I usually support. However, this is an encyclopedia built by volunteers, and I would like to see some significant article building. Now since we are nearly all volunteers, I have no problem with people who spend the majority of their time reverting and fighting vandals, trolls, and other disruptive users. With that being said, the only thing keeping this from a full support is the lack of article writing. If Cobi can show some examples of creating/expanding an article then I will fully support. KOS | talk 08:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral leaning towards support - I second the above. All you'd need to do to satisfy me is at least a little bit of article writing - a GA?, some DYK? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. Without more substantive edits or talk, I can not evaluate this user. Sorry. Good work on reverting vandalism, e.g., RuPaul. Bearian 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ranging between neutral and oppose. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral; (changed from oppose above) after reconsideration, I feel that my hesitation due to your inexperience with admin processes may not be worth a full oppose. I'd still prefer it if you were a little drier behind the ears, but I'm also not worried you'll go on a rampage. — Coren (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Neutral - The candidate is obviously knowledgeable in technical aspects of running a wiki, but his contributions offer no evidence relating to his abilities in dealing with editorial conflicts. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:11, 10 October 2007 (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.