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

Cbl62[edit]

Final (72/4/8); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62 (talk · contribs) - I hereby nominate Cbl62 for adminship subject to the consensus of the wikipedia community. I have been involved with this user at T:TDYK where they have been industrious, constructive and helpful, having created/expanded 180 articles which have had hooks in the DYK mainpage section, as well as providing analysis of DYK stats at User:Cbl62/sandbox3. With over 20000 edits since May 2007 (15000 in mainspace), I feel this user is clearly trustworthy. Currently, there is a lack of admins involved in the DYK process (it requires protecting an image, often a copy of an existing commons image which needs deleting thereafter, and editing protected pages every six hours), and some of the admins involved would be happy for a break if others stepped up. Thus, I feel Cbl62 would clearly benefit the project working as an admin in this area, plus having a large selection of articles to watch to the usual recent change observers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Wizardman: Ah, what to say about Cbl62. I've seen him around quite a while, and he's certainly an amazing article writer. He's written a lot of GAs and DYKs. Speaking of which, we need more DYK admins. He'll be a great asset there, certainly. Casliber's already went into detail on this, so I won't duplicate. I urge those who plan to vote to keep something in mind though: a low mainspace count does NOT automatically mean a user hasn't engaged in work that requires admin tools, this user is a clear exception to that. So I hope no one uses that as a reason to oppose or neutral. Furthermore, he knows what he's capable of, he's a user who has clue, so he's not going to go do anything stupid. Quite honestly, he's proven his trust, and he will make a great admin. Wizardman 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and thank Casliber and Wizardman for their nomination. I have enjoyed my Wikipedia experiences over the past 16 months and would be pleased to help advance the project in this additional capacity.Cbl62 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental statement: This is my effort to respond more fully as to why I accepted the nomination and to respond to some of the points raised below.

For starters, I think Wikipedia is an incredibly valuable tool to bring free, unfiltered knowledge to anyone who wants it anywhere in the world (well, except for places where it's blocked). I didn't ask to be nominated, and as Elkman correctly pointed out below, my focus has been on editing and writing, rather than the inner workings of policy issues. I enjoy writing and editing in areas that have been neglected. I accepted the admin nomination because I care about Wikipedia, and I'm willing to volunteer some time to improve it beyond editing and writing. I have been asked to help by updating DYK to the MainPage, and that requires an administrator. As my comfort level develops, I hope to contribute to policy discussions and other areas as well.

Kurt Weber asked a question below, asking whether I'd follow Wikipedia guideline on cool-down blocks. He felt I reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the project because I said I would follow the blocking guideline published on the site. He and Asenine have opposed my nomination based on that answer. I do think a new admin should give substantial weight to guidelines that have been established through community consensus. That does not mean I would mindlessly apply rules without giving thought to what's best for the project or whether particular circumstances warrant a different approach. I realize that not every situation is the same. If Kurt’s real point was to draw me out and get a better sense of where I stand on important issues facing the project, that's fair. So here are some thoughts that would guide me in offering input on policy issues.

1. Notability. I tend to be on the inclusionist side. Wikipedia shouldn't be a MySpace venue where every bar band or lawyer has an article. But if a person, place or group has received significant and non-trivial press coverage, it should have a place on Wikipedia -- if someone is willing to write a well-sourced, encyclopedic and neutral article (i.e., not an advertisement). The one notability debate I got into involved a church in the LA area. I'm not a religious zealot, but I do think churches are important (and in most cases notable) social institutions. Still, I realize that articles on churches (or other institutions) would have to be evaluated case-by-case for notability, and consensus on a particular article is more important than my (or any one person's) opinion. Another example that comes to mind is the myriad of articles about manga and anime. They may seem trivial to me at times, but I have a 15-year-old son who contributes energetically to articles on those topics. People will disagree about what's "notable," and I would be open to different points of view, while at the same time drawing the line at content that is truly not encyclopedic.

2. Copyright. I think copyright is a valuable right to encourage innovation and allow writers, photographers and inventors to profit from their labor. And, of course, it's the law, and one that has serious legal consequences. However, I also believe strongly in fair use to allow us to build on the knowledge of others. If I were asked for input on these issues, I would try to evaluate fairly any claim of fair use, but would also be cognizant of the need to protect Wikipedia from the potentially devastating costs of litigation.

3. Civility. I value the civility that is the general practice on wikipedia. I try to follow that practice, though there have been a couple instances where someone has pressed my buttons, and my comments have fallen short.

4. Blocks. As noted elsewhere, this is an area where I need further schooling and where I would be reluctant to act until my comfort level develops. I value the openness of the project, and I also value the reliability, reputation and integrity of the content. These two values are not always easy to reconcile. There are a lot of people who perceive the project negatively. I once told someone I'd written an article about "X," and she asked me where. I said "Wikipedia," and the response was a chuckle, followed by a comment that she won't even let her kids look at Wikipedia because it's so untrustworthy. The struggle to balance the need for reliable content with the open collaborative nature of the project goes to the core of what many of you have dedicated a lot of time and thought. Before engaging in any blocks, I would want to learn more about when blocks have and have not been effective. I would have a very pragmatic approach. I understand the need for warnings, coaching, second chances, etc. Even more so where the misconduct is balanced by valuable contributions. But in order to protect the integrity of the project, we need to stop repeat, unrepentant vandals.

I'm happy to help with admin work, but if the consensus goes the other way, that's fine too. With all that said, I will try to refrain from making micro-comments below and let the process take its course. Cheers. Cbl62 (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My areas of interest in the project have evolved over time and likely will continue to do so. One of the great things about Wikipedia is its scope and the potential to inspire new areas of interest. I enjoyed the work I did with the Baseball project in 2007 and with the College Football project in late 2007 and early 2008. More recently, I have been working principally on projects relating to Registered Historic Places, architecture, and DYK. I have also been reviewing DYK hooks, helping to compile the Next Update, and compiling statistics on DYK page views (User:cbl62/sandbox3) that I hope are of interest. I was fortunate to catch a cleverly prepared hoax that was nominated as a DYK hook a few weeks ago before it reached the Main Page. I intend to continue working in these areas, though I am open to other areas as well, depending on how my areas of interest evolve. I also have about 1,100 articles on my Watchlist that I monitor periodically for vandalism.Cbl62 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also follow-up at Q16. Cbl62 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia have been in my writing and editing of articles relating to Registered Historic Places, College Football, Baseball, Roman Catholic churches, University of Michigan athletics and architecture. About 20 of my articles have been rated as “Good Articles” (including Bob Chappuis, Germany Schulz, Willis Ward, Elmer Gedeon, Dan Dworsky and John Maulbetsch), and about 180 of them have been featured in DYK. My DYK list can be viewed at User:cbl62/DYK. I also hope my administrative work on DYK has been valuable.Cbl62 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: I generally try to avoid conflicts, but have had three that I can recall. One involved a proposal to delete an article that I had written about a church (Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California)). I opposed the deletion proposal, don’t think I said anything out of line, and the article was not deleted. A second involved an article about attorney Neil Papiano, where a user (potentially affiliated with the subject based on nature of edits and limited edits elsewhere) had created a bio that read like an advertisement. I beefed up the article and tried to add balance. This resulted in some reverts by the original creator, including efforts to shift to a more positive spin, though that person ultimately acknowledged on the talk page that my edits had improved the article. The third conflict I recall had to do with the University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor article I created in early 2008. Another user challenged two introductory sentences which I had taken from an official university web site describing the criterion for admission to its Hall of Honor. I had wanted to set forth the criterion with precision and cited the web site as a source but failed to put the two sentences in quote marks. I rewrote the two sentences in question, and the issue was cleared up – I hope without any hard feelings. The UM Hall article was one of my earlier contributions, and I have become much more cognizant of Wikipedia’s citation and style elements since then.Cbl62 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Neil916
4. Recently, you were involved with an issue at DYK relating to Sherurcij (talk · contribs) proposing a hoax article for inclusion in the Did You Know? section on the main page as a self-admitted experiment. When confronted with the hoax, which was uncovered in large part as a result of your sleuthing, the user admitted (link) that it was a hoax and was intended as an experiment. In the ensuing discussion, you posted a comment (link) that included this statement: "When someone is caught red-handed perpetrating such an attack, you need to mete out meaningful punishment". If, at the time, you were an administrator, what action would you have taken if the decision were entirely up to you?
A:I was initially skeptical of Sherucij's statement that it was an experiment. I was startled by what looked like an attempted vandal attack on the Main Page. After hearing so many people speak up in Sherucij's defense, and considering his comments, I regretted making the harsh comment you quoted. For that reason, I left a note for Sherucij here this apologizing for my harsh tone. Sherucij responded in an appreciative way to me, and all parties moved on. Fortunately, the decision wasn't left up to me, though I was very interested in the criticism of Man in Black's 24-hour block. I thought Man in Black's action seemed measured. However, I did take note of the comments by several admins about not using blocks for punitive purposes. In such a situation, I would not act unilaterally or out of anger, but would instead seek consensus on an appropriate response. Cbl62 (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Dlohcierekim. Dear Cbl62, thank you for submitting your RFA. I would like to ask a question to help me evaluate your thinking. If you do not like it or choose not to answer, you may remove it.

5. In reviewing recent changes, is it more important to quickly block vandals or to educate/coach new users who are slow to learn? Why?
A: I think it is appropriate to warn vandals first. Only after warninga are ignored, and misconduct persists, should a block be considered. The vandal's changes can always be reverted, and this diminishes the need for an immediate block. If I were named as an admin, I would be cautions with blocks.Cbl62 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from TomStar81 (Talk):

6. What is your opinion on the use of optional questions in an rfa? Are they helpful or hurtful to a potential candidate undergoing an rfa?
A:I have no objection to supplemental questions. I'm impressed, actually, that people have taken the time to dig through my user history to come up with good, pointed questions and comments. It gives me greater confidence in the process. If the supplemental questions help root out a candidate who is unsuitable or not ready, that's helpful to the process.Cbl62 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:VasileGaburici:

7. Assume you are called to mediate a discussion where two groups of editors are debating a potential WP:OR issue. One group of editors insists on adding a statistic (a mean for instance) that one of them calculated from raw data contained in one of the references cited in the article. Even though the reference data is beyond doubt, the other group opposes the edit, arguing that performing a calculation constitutes original research. What would you do? VasileGaburici (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A:I would first review past pronouncements of policy and/or precendent on the issue. I am not mathematically oriented, but if there were no clear policy or precedent on whether a specific statistical function constitutes original research, I would try to determine whether the function is purely mechanical or "synthesis" (reaching a conclusion not specifically found in any source by putting together different sources) of the type proscribed by WP:OR. I honestly don't know how a mean is determined, and given my lack of statistical sophistication, I would have to call on others with more knowledge of the subject for further insight.Cbl62 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
8. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
A: Per Wikipedia policy, "blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should never be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." I would follow the policy.Cbl62 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Elkman
9. Explain how the City Beautiful movement is related to the Beaux-Arts architecture style. Or maybe it isn't. What do you think?
A: The former was a political/social movement aimed at improving the quality of life in the growing industrialized urban areas of the United States around the turn of the 20th century. The latter is an architectural style that dominated American urban architecture of the same time period, 1890s and 1900s. A lot has been written about the cross-fertilization between the two movements, and the connection seems logical. Certainly, the Beaux Arts architectural style would appear to complement the political/social drive reflected in the City Beautiful movement and its effort to bring peace, order and aesthetic beauty to the urban environment. ... It's been about 25 years since I've had to write a bluebook exam. These questions may cause me to relive old test anxiety dreams (the ones where you find yourself at the final exam not having attended class or studied all semester).Cbl62 (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Is there any Richardsonian Romanesque architecture in Los Angeles or elsewhere in California? Why or why not?
A:The only example I've come across is Stimson House. Accounts I've seen indicate that the style did not gain popularity in SoCal, but Mr. Stimson was from the Midwest and wanted his new LA mansion to look like the ones on Lakeshore Drive in Chicago.Cbl62 (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Would you rather be editing articles about architecture and historic places, or would you rather be doing admin work?
A:I would rather spend my time editing and writing articles. That's what I enjoy the most. But I value wikipedia and am willing to put some of my time into DYK and other admin work to do my part. Cbl62 (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from  Asenine 

12. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A:Verifiability is, as it should be, a core content value. Wikipedia will lose credibility if we allow non-verifiable content. Consensus is important too, but if we allow a group of editors on the article's talk page to decide that non-verifiable content (which may also be defamatory, copyright infringing, plagiarized, non-compliant with WP:BLP, or just plain unreliable) should control, then the project is in trouble. As for the specific dispute, I would inquire of the disgruntled editors whether they have or can obtain verifiable sources for their version. If not, the verifiable content should be adopted. If the situation became heated, I might also seek input from an experienced admin as to the appropriate forum to use in helping the parties resolve their differences, be that Requests for Comment or a more specific subject matter forum.Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A:I haven't had a lot of people coming to me with difficult situations yet, but I try to help where I can. Not sure if it's exacttly what you're looking for, but see [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. I have also reached out to give people pats on the back for good work, which I think is an important element in any collaborative process, e.g., [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11].Cbl62 (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A:All subject to the demand of real life, I intend to contributing content to the project as well as working on DYK. If given admin tools, I will also be able to help with the full DYK update process.Cbl62 (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Gazimoff:

15. What is your understanding of WP:IAR, particularly in relation to WP:V and WP:N? When is it suitable to invoke WP:IAR? When should WP:IAR not be used?
A:IAR is a directive to not check your brain at the door and to use common sense and good judgment. The paramount goal is to do what's best for the project. Policies and guidelines reflect judgment and wisdom developed over time as to best practices, so they should be given great weight. IAR should be invoked in situations that call out for an exception. When it is used, there should be a justification for doing so. IAR should not be viewed as a license to sabotage the project, create anarchy or be uncivil. Verifiability is a core content policy. If content is determined to be non-verifiable, defamatory, or copyright infringing, IAR should not save the material. Sure, we should give contributors time to add citations, but after something is determined to be non-verifiable or original research, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. As stated above, notability is an area where I tend to have an inclusionist bent, and common sense plays a part in close or exceptional cases. Marginally notable content poses a risk to the project's reputation, but to a lesser degree (in my opinion) than non-verifiable, defamatory, and infringing content. Still, if an article is clearly non-notable, IAR should not be used as a talisman to save it. As noted in Wikipedia:Exceptions should leave the rule intact, a page creator's unsupported appeal to IAR where the guidlines clearly show non-notability is mistaken. "Rather, any exceptions to the rule should leave the rule intact. Another way of putting this is use common sense when it comes to common sense." That sounds wise to me. Cbl62 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:JoJo

16. Your answer to question 1 didn't really answer the question. What admin areas have you worked in and do you plan to work in? — Jojo • Talk • 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A:As noted below in response to Oppose #1: "The one specific 'admin' task that I have been asked to help with is DYK. They are short-handed and as a result a backlog sometimes develops. I have been contributing where I can, but an admin is needed to process the next updates to the Main Page on a timely basis, and that is something I am willing to help with. Beyond that, I am open to other possibilities, as time permits, and as my comfort level develops." Cbl62 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cbl62 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support. Finally you guys nommed. I thought you guys had given up! bibliomaniac15 04:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - By all means. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - We need more content admins who are in touch with the encyclopedia. Will be a net positive to the community. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Synergy 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --BorgQueen (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as nom. Wizardman 04:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as nom. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support. Not as much experience in the Wikipedia namespace as I would normally like, not to mention poor use of edit summaries, however he does excellent work in the mainspace, seems to have knowledge of how everything works, and is civil. I found comments like this (making amends with another editor) and this (looking to improve himself) to be great. It was hard to sift through your contribs, though, without the aid of edit summaries; I would suggest using them all the time as it makes it much easier for the rest of us. Useight (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support. It's been a joy to work with Cbl62 on historic site articles. A while back, I noticed his DYK contributions on some buildings in Los Angeles, which included some NRHP sites. I was able to suggest use of some NRHP tools based on my experience and I occasionally commented on content issues. He absorbed and used whatever i had to share, and went on to do far more than i could ever hope to. He is a mature, skilled, prolific researcher and writer. Much of this is reflected in List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles and linked articles. More recently, he responded to some general calls for help addressing backlog in the DYK area -- I want to claim some credit for asking him, but he did all the work -- and he has been a solid editor there. I trust him to learn what is to be done, and how to do it properly, in any new area of wikipedia adminship that he chooses to venture into. doncram (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per his impressive work in DYK. Good luck! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - some experience with the other common (or uncommon) areas of admin responsibility would have been good, but DYK specialists are also much-needed and your extensive article experience will stand you in good stead in considering other admin actions. I also like the answer to Q4, it says good things about your willingness to communicate the way you went back to Sherucij after catching the hoax. Euryalus (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support. Attempting to vandalize the Main Page is blockworthy. This non-punishment dogma is becoming the most absurd bit of Wikipolitical-correct nonsense reverberating around the dramaboards at the moment. The mere utterance of the word cited as reason to oppose. Goodness, people, get a grip. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Cbl62 excels at it and needs the tools to help ensure the smooth functioning and integrity of the Main Page. He (actually, I thought for some reason you were female!) has a stalwart track record, and will do nothing but help from Day 1. Please, please, do not withhold the tools for using the faddishly politically incorrect WOTW "punishment"! We hurt the encyclopedia every time we insist on "WikiSemantics" over "WikiSubstance". --JayHenry (t) 06:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Support Solid editor and good contribs, from what I have seen and I trust the nominators a bit too. Concerning is the near lack of using the "This is a minor edit"-checkbox, even for just correcting typos, that shows a lack of understanding what minor edits are (which an admin should know about). Also a bit concerning is the low edit summary usage (86% / 0%). SoWhy 07:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support As per Jay Henry and has over 16000 mainspace edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Did you know... that Bencherlite supports this request for adminship? 10:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, as I said I would at WT:RFA. The stuff below is a bit concerning and I would implore Cbl62 to keep a check on the words he uses and to use the preview button. But there are more important things than civility (many of our current admins/RfA voters could lean from that). Giggy (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Hello, I called about seeing a psychiatrist -- I am having intensely peculiar fantasies about the Duke of Edinburgh and...oh, wrong queue. While I am here: Support for a dedicated, focused and highly skilled editor. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Wee need more DYK admins, and Cbl would be great. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 10:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, a prospective specialist admin in an area that needs more specialist admin help. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Seems to be able to admit his mistakes and is mostly a good guy. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I see only positive effects on the project by granting adminship to this candidate. Good luck. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Aye. MBisanz talk 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support per DYK work and answer to Q4, I was involved in the thread and saw his excellent work there. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Add weak per answer to Q8, one's own judgement should should take precedence over policy.[reply]
  25. Support per Lankiveil| Also, "running experiments" on the main page is vandalism. Cbl62 should be commended for preventing it from happening. I probably would not have blocked unilaterally, but such behavior needs to be discouraged. 14:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    Candidate has experience in the area for which the tools are requested. His use of the tools will help DYK be more efficient in that it will not need to await an admin getting free to help out, and it will allow other admins to continue without stopping to help out at DYK. Net positive. Dlohcierekim 18:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgrade to Strong Support per answers to questions, particularly Q8, and per my responses to Kurt's oppose below. Liked the answer to question 4. Seems like a reasonable, helpful, good faith candidate unlikely to oppose/misuse the tools. The answers to the bluebook exam show he is articlate, nuanced and thoughtful. Also, we share the same nightmare, per question 9. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Prolific mainspace editor with a clean history. No worries here! --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support – nice to see a DYK candidate. Caulde 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Per everything I've said previously on various pages regarding cbl's role in exposing the DYK hoax, and per my inability to take the oppose/neutral comments seriously, I strongly support. — CharlotteWebb 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Hard worker and trustworthy. Give him the mop.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per my stricken oppose below. Húsönd 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Normally I would oppose a candidate with only 122 project space contributions, but Cbl62 is an exception. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Why not? Excellent DYK contribs, and it has been stated we need more DYK admins. —§unday {Q}`
  33. Yup. Does that really say 180 DYKs? Pfft. You are obviously an asset to the quality of this place, and the admin tools will only help you more easily do what you like to do here. This is a no brainer. Keeper ǀ 76 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support of course. RMHED (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Would support anyway, but DYK badly needs more admins & he has excellent experience there. If his experience of other areas is lower, I'm sure he will work himself in gently, if he goes to them at all. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Umm... why would I oppose this fine editor? Xclamation point 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Bannana Hammoc. Every other reasonable support rationale has been said already.--KojiDude (C) 22:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Outstanding editor. LittleMountain5 review! 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support He'll likely exercise good judgment as an admin. VasileGaburici (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support rootology (C)(T) 03:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support for your tireless contributions to DYK?, and especially for uncovering the DYK hoax --Superflewis (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Per nom statments. America69 (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I've seen nothing but good work from you at DYK, and look forward to your continued contributions there with the added bonus of the buttons. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per answers to my questions (although the first two questions weren't serious questions). The main thing I get is that Cbl62 is interested in article work, which I've already seen as a participant at WP:NRHP. I think I can trust his actions, and I really don't think he's all that interested in being a pure policy wonk. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Elkman. I was afraid you were going to grade me on my knowledge of the City Beautiful Movement! :) Cbl62 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Great amount of experience, he would use the tools well. --Banime (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Question 7. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - while you may not have the tidiest editing style around, I don't think that there's any doubt that we can trust you to use the tools well, or that you will be civil while using them. As long as you take your time when stepping into areas in which you've had little experience, I think you will make a good admin. – Toon(talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. support Good user. Good contributions. Stifle raises a serious issue but based on the questions and the actual wikipedia space contributions I'm not that worried. There are some interesting issues brought up in the neutral section. I'm not at all concerned with the Phlegm Rooster issue. Indeed, I think Cbl62 handled that better than I would have (and Cbl was pretty close to correct there anyways). Catching the subtle hoax attempt on DYK definitely speaks well of the editor in my view. I disagree with claims made that it is intrinsically necessary to have editors deal with seriously controversial topics in order to judge their temperaments. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Good answer to Q 8. It was sincere. I have no idea what the "correct" answer is supposed to be, but I liked yours. Contributions look good. Has a need for the tools, and seems polite. Feel free to ask for help with policy if something is unclear. Jehochman Talk 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per Jehochman above, and other editors. No candidate for Admin can apparently please everyone; however, there is nothing at all in Cbl62's history to worry me that he will not slide into his role cautiously. Horses for courses, I say. --Rodhullandemu 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support per nom (I trust Casliber's judgement) and candidate's supplemental statement. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I've seen you around, and seen what you've done. You have my full support. Jordan Contribs 14:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support seem right for the job. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Reliable user who will not abuse the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support If he already knows all about DYKs and wants to help more with them then, sure. Haukur (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support DYK work a big plus, nothing big jumps out to make me say oppose otherwise. RockManQ (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. A qualified candidate, willing to work in an area which needs more assistance from administrators. Kablammo (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Weak support. Though low amount of discussion made through talk pages, I see reason to oppose. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 03:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Can't see why not. :) SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 08:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Keeper76 about sums it up. Cbl62 is dedicated to the project, trustworthy and more admins tending to DYK are badly needed; so a no brainer. Ceoil sláinte 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I think this helps to build an encyclopedia of good material. Modernist (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I'm confident that he will use the tools appropriately. Hobartimus (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Yeah he seems very responsible and does deserve this --EZ1234 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support—as per solid contribs and adequate question answers. I wish you the best of luck. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 20:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - for GA's. The fact that there are opposes based on Q8 is interesting. --T-rex 20:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - I love his DYK work. :-) Can help out at DYK with the tools. Yours, RyRy (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - Good Luck! Brianherman (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support loocks good! abf /talk to me/ 10:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Policy concerns have been dealt with through responses to questions. many thanks for taking the time to answer them. Gazimoff 12:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - I believe that the more admins there are, the easier it will be to ban all vandals. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC) (Bow down to Pharaohly Pharaohness)[reply]
  71. Support - Good answers and fine contributions. And JayHenry makes a valid point too. Give the man a bucket.    SIS  21:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - I have watched this nomination with interest from when it was first mooted, having noticed Cbl's intelligent commitment and hard work at DYK. I see no problem with promoting a user to admin with one specific area of expertise in mind, particularly when admin help in that area is sorely needed, provided their RFA reveals that they understand their current limitations and will be circumspect with the tools as they learn. Cbl's answers show exactly that. Karenjc 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose The incident alluded to in Q4 is only two weeks old, and strikes me as a rather significant misunderstanding of WP policy. I applaud the candidate for admitting the mistake and helping everyone move on, but just seems too soon after that kind of mistake to request the tools. Townlake (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reread a couple things and examined a bit more history, and I've decided to withdraw this oppose. I still personally feel the Q4 incident is a bit too recent to offer full support, but I did notice multiple cases where that the candidate readily admits when he's made mistakes, and he genuinely makes an effort to proactively remedy them - which essentially squashes the rationale behind my original opinion. We should all be so humble and cooperative. Townlake (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose, sorry to be the first, but low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge and of experience in major admin areas. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, sorry. You're obviously a polite, communicative and trustworthy candidate, but that aside I think that there is insufficient evidence that you have enough experience to handle administrative chores. Your answer to Q1 is inconclusive as after reading it I still do not know which particular admin-oriented areas would you be willing to serve as an admin if promoted. If you could expand that answer to include what you believe would be your scope of activity as an admin, then I might reevaluate my position accordingly. Otherwise I have to agree with Stifle above and oppose under the same grounds. Anyway, if this RfA is deemed unsuccessful, I hope that you dedicate some of your wiki-time participating in a few "new areas of interest" in order to cast away any doubts on your preparedness next time. Which I hope would come very soon as your character is certainly befitting of an exceptional admin whom I would be glad to support. Húsönd 17:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The one specific "admin" task that I have been asked to help with is DYK. They are short-handed and as a result a backlog sometimes develops. I have been contributing where I can, but an admin is needed to process the next updates to the Main Page on a timely basis, and that is something I am willing to help with. Beyond that, I am open to other possibilities, as time permits, and as my comfort level develops.Cbl62 (talk)
    Alright, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt since you intend to work as an admin primarily in an area where you already have experience. However, please exercise caution if you decide to widen your scope of activity. Consider perhaps participating in other admin-oriented areas as a non-admin for some time before starting to use the tools there. Húsönd 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose personally I don't think that "falls within the scope of two established Wikipedia projects, one on the Catholic Church and the other on schools [.... and] within at least four Wikipedia categories: Category:Roman Catholic churches in California, Category:Elementary schools in California, Category:Roman Catholic elementary schools in the United States, Category:Churches in Los Angeles, California."[12] really has any of the slightest bearing on the notability of an article. I imagine that the useless band articles that are SD every day could fall within the scope of half a dozen Wikiprojects, and dozens of categories. (yes that diff is 3 months old but it is from the most recent AFD that this user has participated in) - Icewedge (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's only one point of several that I made at the time (and not a very good one standing on its own, I'll admit). More to the point, I noted at the time: "As far as notability and verifiable sources, I searched the Los Angeles Times archives and came up with over 400 articles discussing Incarnation Church. I have added content and citations to several articles reporting on important events in the history of the parish. This parish has been at the center of not only the Glendale community, but also important social events, including the Raul Aguirre murder that almost resulted in an ethnic riot, the attempted rape of a 71-year-old parishoner in the sanctuary drawing widespread media attention, and molestation charges brought against the parish's associate pastor who fled to Sri Lanka and remains a fugitive. This is a highly notable church." The proposal to delete the article was withdrawn.Cbl62 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a completely uninvolved editor, I'll just point out that the article in question now has 16 references, some of them from mainstream press. Cbl62's initial argument with the categories was (strictly from a policy perspective) handwaving, but after this was pointed out to him, he went back to the article and added those mainstream references himself. I don't know if this was the first AfD he was involved in, but he eventually understood and played within the rules. See the whole AfD for perspective. VG ☎ 09:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per answer to Q8. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the rationale here. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the rationale for the policy, with which you or I may agree or disagree, my answer to Q8 simply quotes official wiki policy and says I would follow it. Do we want admins who feel free to disregard policy?Cbl62 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need community servants whose fundamental grasp of Wikipedia is so weak that they think so-called "policies" are actually binding rules when they're really merely descriptions of what has typically happened in the past that we are free to ignore totally in present or future situations as community judgment determines is best for the given situation. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, Kurt, can you give us some examples of situations where admins should have ignored the rules and issued a block, solely for cooling-down purposes, where a block would have helped the situation? I'd like to see some examples -- maybe we current admins could learn something. Also, is there a standard warning template for a cool-down block? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I remember when I first proposed IP Blocking Exemption out of a need to work beyond "policy". Perhaps you can cite examples and work out the issue on the talk page of the policy. I don't know if the RFA of editors is the venue. I think new admins are safe to follow the "policy" then as experience progresses, from time to time, they can ignore some rules. This is my response to this rationale. Wikipedia is not a battleground. You should not use RFA to fight these. Best and cheers!!!!!!!!!!!! NonvocalScream (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand where this is coming from; Cbl62's answer to Q8 is pretty much the "right answer" but doesn't go into why it's the right choice. Do you follow the policy to the letter because it's policy? Or because you believe in the policy itself? Or because you don't believe in cool-down blocks? Cbl62's answer to Q8 could be interpreted as a dodge to avoid the elaboration of the candidate's attitudes towards adminship which is at the core of any RfA. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not one agrees with policy or not, one should follow it. If one disagrees, he should seek change. Quoting policy is not a dodge-- it shows one understands policy. Blocking someone outside of policy is the sort of boldness that often leads to trouble. Generally, one should seek consensus before doing so. Blocking people unilaterally out of IAR can be the sort of admin abuse we need to avoid. I prefer candidates that show they will follow policy instead of running amok. And really, Kurt. Dlohcierekim 13:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Elkman is correct the place to discuss the efficacy of CDB's is Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Dlohcierekim 14:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you and Elkman are both wrong. Anyone who actually understands Wikipedia understands that these so-called "policies" are really anything but. They are not rules meant to bind us in the future but rather descriptions of what has typically happened in the past; they are descriptive, not prescriptive. To put it another way: actions do not follow "policy" on Wikipedia; rather, "policy" follows actions. The correct way to change so-called "policy", then is to start ignoring it and doing what should be done instead. If this happens, then because these so-called "policies" are really just descriptions of typical actions made after the fact, the so-called "policy" will be changed to reflect that. So-called "policy" on Wikipedia is just a reflection of what has typically been done in the past, not a prescription for what to do in the present or future. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Kurt, I asked you a question: When would a cool-down block help a situation instead of inflaming it? Can you point out examples? What's the appropriate template or warning to give a user when issuing a cool-down block? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I didn't answer it because it's a red herring. The issue is Cbl62's fundamental misunderstanding of what so-called "policy" on Wikipedia actually is, as evidenced by his answer to question #8. Cool-down blocks are just the example I've chosen to use, because, of all the so-called "policies", I've found a potential community servant's understanding of it to be the best indicator of his understanding of the basic nature of so-called "policies" on Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "To expand on that: This is the reason I ask the cool-down block question on RFAs that aren't self-noms. It deliberately puts people in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation."--they give one answer and they're likely to get an oppose from me (and possibly a few others), and they give the other answer and everyone else will oppose. Part of being a Wikipedia community servant is doing things that aren't going to make everyone happy, so that's why I like to force people to take a side one way or the other and stick with it. It's one thing to take a side and then change your mind when provided with new arguments or information that outweigh what you had previously; it's something else entirely to not take a side altogether. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)" I think this clarifies things.--Serviam (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it doesn't--after all, the nominee took a pretty clear side here. But the particular side he took, and the way he phrased it, belied a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia that is also extremely problematic. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you would have supported if he said "I think cool down blocks are necessary; incility and revert warring create a hostile atmosphere that has a negative effect on editing, and people who act aggressivly in discussions and engage in edit warring should be blocked untill they cool down"?--Serviam (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Per lack of policy knowledge and Q8.  Asenine  23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you indeed positive that the candidate has a poor grounding in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, Asenine? To offset the candidate's solid history to date, do you have evidence of instances where Cbl62 has demonstrated a poor understanding of Wikipedia's communal norms; and, are you not convinced that the candidate's knowledge of Wikipedia's policies is axiomatic, demonstrated most especially through his competent contributions thus far? Just a thought which you might wish to consider alongside any review of the basis for your opposition. Anthøny ✉ 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I should have put it the other way round. It's mostly per lack of evidence for policy knowledge, not a lack.  Asenine  01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do apologise for being persistent, but I am at a loss to understand this: you are opposing because Cbl62, despite being a constructive contributor for a good while now, has not given you evidence of having knowledge of policy? Sorry, but that really doesn't seem logical to me... Anthøny ✉ 12:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral due to difficulty in evaluating admin-y participation; I don't see much work in the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces, especially AfD and various noticeboards. While DYK participation is good, I don't see that alone as a particularly good argument for requesting the tools, after all, Adminship is neither compulsory nor necessary to aid Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Updating DYK requires admin tools and is an admin-y area kinda though! Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get me wrong, that's the main reason I'm not opposing for lack of demonstrated need/use. I should probably point out that I'd probably support following another month or two of good, well-rounded activity in the Wikipedia namespace and continued work at DYK. Thus, I'm neutral :-) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I was leaning towards opposing the candidate for a couple of issues, primarily temperment and concerns of how the block button would be used. I posted question number 4 in reference to a fairly recent incident that suggests to me that the candidate would be inclined to issue punitive blocks, but Cbl62 responded very quickly to the question and I'm less concerned about that now. Of additional concern was a warning on an anonymous editor here that in my opinion was excessively harsh in reaction to petty schoolkid vandalism that is all too common here. I was very unhappy with Cbl62's interactions with Phlegm Rooster (talk · contribs) regarding a copyvio tag on the University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor article (discussion), and in another incident, a conversation with AdultSwim (talk · contribs) here (note that the text in bold was put in boldface by AdultSwim, not Cbl62) left a bad taste in my mouth, but after reflecting further, I think that it was the comment about not having any constructive suggestions in the last edit that bothered me, and when taken in the context of being in response to someone who threw out comments like "Please Raise any issues at you may have at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. You can lord your accomplishments there too" wasn't likely to cause AdultSwim to cry himself to sleep that night. I'd like to suggest a better use of edit summaries, but for me that in itself is not a reason to oppose. Overall, I'm concerned about how Cbl62 might react with the admin tools when faced with gross incivility, so I'll raise my concerns, but stop short of opposing this request and instead simply express my hope that my concern is unfounded. Neil916 (Talk) 07:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neil - Exchanges like the ones you referenced with Phlegm Rooster and AdultSwim have been rare. When my work has been criticized, I generally take the comments contructively and appreciate the input. In these two instances, I was a bit thin-skinned. I realize that an admin has to deal with heated situations, and if named an admin, I will try to keep my ego (and thin skin) in check.Cbl62 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Low edit summary count, low talk count. The articles you do edit tend to be on the "safe" side. Concerns about your ability to communicate, discuss, build consensus or deal with heated situations. As an afterthought, you also have an annoying user name, it's really stone cold and doesn't feel inviting at all. Can I ask why you chose it? — Realist2 10:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Points taken. As for the user name, I used an email prefix as my user name when I first signed up on wikipedia and have been stuck with it ever since. Nothing profound. I wish there was more of a story to it.Cbl62 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Cbl62 has a certain charm to it. A kind of sybarite feel with the hedonism of the 60s mixed into it. Now, if it were Cbl52 or, heaven forbid, (dare I say it!) Cbl82, I would understand your concern, but Cbl62 seems delightfully bold and liberating!--Regents Park (one for sorrow) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't know already, WP:CHU exists for this.  Asenine  11:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Cbl62 sure seems to be a nice, good mannered guy, and I understand it would be helpful to have another admin at hand at DYK. However, two things disturb me: Firstly, this candidate seems to concentrate overwhelmingly uncontroverial articles. So I can't find examples how he would react under pressure. But before someone gets the power of the mop, I really think he should have proven that he can still do a good job when the going gets tough. And secondly, there is an annoying lack of edit summaries. Imho this isn't appropriate for an admin, who should take care to be transparent on what he's doing. Oh, and one last small observation: If an editor posts April 1st jokes on April 2nd, this makes me somewhat question his good judgment! :D. All in all, cbl62 sure is made of admin material, but I would rather like to see him return in a few months and shows us some work in controversial articles. Gray62 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gray -- You are correct about the edit summaries, and I have begun to take the time to prepare more careful edit summaries. As for the belated April Fool's joke here, my teenage son (Kurowoofwoof111) needed to be brought into line. :) Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that. Kuro ♪ 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, leaning towards support. I would support because of the Good Article writing, even more so because of the catching of the WP:DYK hoax. And I see nothing at all wrong with the lack of edits to controversial articles. However, I share the concern expressed above concerning the interaction with User:Phlegm Rooster, and this concern is serious enough (it is the subject matter of the dispute rather than the tone in which it is conducted that concerns me) to weigh against all the excellent reasons why I would want to support this RFA. Bwrs (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral — Per Realist2. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - starting to think Kmweber has a point (my suggestion to future nominees going through the rigmarole: say "a well placed cluebat is sometimes needed" because it's true :-p (actually, I wonder how much would be different if we started calling certain CD blocks cluebats, although tbh I think most admins lacking mediation experience won't be making many blocks except at AIV... something to consider, since if you don't know the best approach then you'll look to policy for what is the best approach, and you'll assume it documents the best practice even if it really doen't. Or something like that.)) My bigger issue is the response to Q5, which is more vandal-grr than newbie-yay... combined with the red-handed comment, I get the impression that the candidate (mwahaha, "the candidate", I have so much power) is a bit militaristic in his approach. Might not be a bad thing though, which is why I'm babbling in this section. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. Cbl62 has some good mainspace edits. However the answer to question 1 indicates no suggestion of use of administrative tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per perceived lack of policy knowledge. Gazimoff 11:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Striking, switched to support. Gazimoff 12:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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