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

FINAL (142/26/9); closed 03:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cobi (talk · contribs) – Cobi is an editor who I have great respect for, and am happy to be able to nominate for adminship. I hope that we can get past the more arbitrary and 'stats based' RfA criteria with this candidate, and promote someone who would be a true asset as an admin. I do hope everyone takes the time to read this nomination, which I will try to keep as short as possible, to facilitate that goal.

Cobi does not have a lot of edits. Nor does he have a lot of featured articles. He is not the average pre-vetted adminship candidate. But I imagine virtually all of you have been affected by his work. Among other things, Cobi wrote ClueBot. This bot has arguably improved the Wikipedia reader's experience more than any single editor could ever do. Additionally, Cobi is one of only two non-admins trusted with the ability to modify the Edit Filter, which can block edits from being saved, and the only one of the two that was given that ability by a consensus of the community. Cobi is a member of the Bot Approvals Group, the group that approves the operation of every bot allowed to operate on Wikipedia. Since his first edit in 2007, Cobi has acquired the knowledge, trust, and capability to benefit Wikipedia as an admin in a way that an average admin candidate can not. So I ask that those who comment please consider not just the 'stats' Cobi has a acquired, but instead look at the very substantial impact he has made, and the very substantial trust he has earned, before deciding if he will properly use the admin tools. Prodego ^talk 04:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by MindstormsKid: Ever since I started editing I've known Cobi as a very smart and polite person. Cobi may not have many manual edits, but the fact that he runs 5 approved bots and that the anti-vandalism one is very accurate shows that he knows his way around wikipedia. If Cobi gets the mop, we will all benefit greatly. ≈ MindstormsKid 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Tim Vickers: Admins need to have three characteristics, they need to be sensible, trustworthy and helpful. Cobi is certainly sensible and trustworthy, as his long experience of running high-profile bots demonstrates. I also believe that he will be well-placed to help Wikipedia as an admin, through his breadth of technical knowledge. The major objection in the past to his being given the tools is that he has limited experience of writing articles, however I represent the reverse of this argument, as I have almost no technical knowledge and lean heavily on other admins who do understand the nuts and bolts of Wikimedia software and networking. Having more admins with these particular skills will make Wikipedia's set of admins more effective. Admis do not work alone, and Cobi will form an important part of the team. I strongly recommend that his nomination be accepted. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: Primarily vandal fighting. Some open proxy work, and BAG work.

Expanded A: As I have done a fair amount of vandal fighting, and as I even wrote a bot to do it, I am fairly proficient at it. This would include blocking vandals, reverting/deleting vandalism, and editing the edit filter and its MediaWiki-namespace notices. The relevant noticeboards include: AIV, RFPP (to an extent), CAT:CSD, AF/R, WP:AF/FP, and ANI (to an extent.)

I'm a verified open proxy checker and, as such, will block open proxies per policy.

I'm also a member of the BAG and, as such, will occasionally need to block unapproved bots and unblock previously blocked bots once they get approval to operate.

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

A: ClueBot. It has made over 1.1 million edits reverting and warning vandals. This has helped out article writers by letting them focus on writing articles and not having to revert the article and warn the vandal.

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 have. However, I don't stress over it, or let it get to me. I generally try to understand their point of view, and logically explain my point of view.

Expanded 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.

Additional optional question from NuclearWarfare

4. Do you intend to still add yourself to CAT:AOR under this criteria, as you indicated in your last RfA?

A. Yes.

Optional question by DarkFalls

5. What has changed since your last RfA?

A: Primarily experience and time. It's been over a year since my last RfA. I also tried some article work, and brought UnrealIRCd from a redlink to a DYK.

Optional question by Malleus Fatuorum

6. You seem from your answer to Q3 to have very little (if any) experience of resolving content disputes with other editors. Would you agree that resolving disputes between editors as amicably as possible is one of the primary jobs of an administrator? Would you further agree that has very little to do with unilaterally imposing the present ill-defined civility policy against non-administrators while ignoring the poor behaviour of administrators?

A. It is an important job, but not the sole administrative job. Indeed, dispute resolution is not even limited to administrators. Therefore, I wouldn't say that resolving disputes is one of the primary jobs of an administrator. There are several administrative tasks which don't involve resolving content disputes. I'll list a few examples here: anti-vandalism work (blocking vandals, protecting pages under heavy vandalism, editing the Edit Filter, editing the MediaWiki namespace), blocking open proxies, and blocking malfunctioning or unapproved bots.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

7. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: While this would be irrelevant for the tasks I stated in Q1, I tend to identify more with the inclusionist. That is to say that we don't have any realistic space limits, and it won't hurt for borderline notability/inherent notability articles to stay around.

Questions from Tony1

8. In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?

A: I think that giving them the option to strike their text and apologize is a good idea. We all make mistakes and have said things that we regret. The criteria would be basically if they were in good standing without a track record of personal attacks/rude comments, like the user in the situation above.

9. Image compliance: what, in your view, are the most important two or three WP:NFC points for probing editors WRT their justification of NFC in an article? How would you go about approaching an editor who initially resists, when you know an image is not compliant?

A: I do not intend to perform admin tasks regarding NFC images. If I came across something that I think needed attention, I would point it out to a few admins I know that are well-versed in non-free images.

10. How strict should the policy on alt. accounts be? Any alternate accounts yourself?

A: Users should not use alternate accounts to affect the appearance of consensus, cause disruption, mislead others, or to circumvent a block. I have several bot accounts, and I usurped Cobi from Winbots.

11. Are you willing to give us an idea of your age range? Teens, 20s, 30s, etc.? (Optional)

A: google:User:Cobi+Age

12. Any examples of content editing (i.e., prose) you'd like to provide? To what extent do you think it's important that admins have experience in this?

A: I would say that admins don't necessarily need to be prolific article writers. They need to be experienced, trusted, level-headed, and sensible. Trusted not to abuse their privileges.

• Links for Cobi: Cobi (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Cobi can be found here.

---

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

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. Plastikspork (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Support - Prodego's nomination put it quite well. Cobi has been here a while, and he is trusted with far more than just adminship at the moment (Abuse Filter Editor, ClueNet hosting). Cobi has a clue No pun intended, really, and is as suited for the role as anyone that I have seen come through RfA. Good luck! NW (Talk) 03:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strongest Possible Support Wizardman 03:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Support Cobi will make a terrific addition the the admin team. No reservations whatsoever. →javért ^stargaze 03:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support; a bit inactive for my liking, but extremely knowledgeable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Had no clue you weren't. Can we just SNOW close this as successful? → ROUX ₪ 03:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support As nominator. Prodego ^talk 03:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support without hesitation. Despite three past unsuccessful RfAs, you have truly shown that you will make a fine admin. Good luck! The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Support. Cobi has earned a great deal of trust, and has imparted clue over a million times already.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. support. Nice guy, definitely admin material due to his non-articlespace work. Hayley»(talk) 04:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Just like I supported the last time, I have no reason to oppose him.--Caspian blue 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Support Absolutely. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 04:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support PseudoOne (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Of course. I would have nominated Cobi myself, had I not been on vacation yesterday. From what I see, Cobi is not our average user. He is not an avid article writer, but that should be overlooked for this RfA. He is incredibly well versed in technical skills, and this allows him to understand more esoteric parts of the admin toolset, such as open proxies and the abuse filter. He will definitely benefit from receiving the tools. (X! · talk)  · @222  ·  04:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. User has been around long enough that we know they won't be messing around with mainspace so the lack of content building isnt an issue for anotherwise great user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Cobi obviously knows a lot about vandal fighting, and BAG. Writing Cluebot must be time-consuming, so I have no problem supporting.--Res2216firestar 05:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Easily ready for the mop and bucket, but I would like to see a bit of "nitty-gritty" article creation/maintenance. But that's far outweighed by excellent vandal fighting. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong Support -download ׀ sign! 05:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Tan | 39 05:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Like always. Didn't we promote a sysop from another wiki with under 75 edits for a specific function? I trust Cobi. Keegan (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you referring to this? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I was. I was trying to be a bit more nudging than to link to it. Keegan (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22. Support Proven trusted user, and he knows his way around... I think he will do a great job with the mop and bucket... -Pax85 (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Heck, if Cluebot wanted admin status, I'd support that too. Supporting Cluebot's creator is a no-brainer. Ray^Talk 06:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support The brain behind ClueBot obviously deserves the mop. I don't find his alleged "sparse activity" on Wikipedia to be any cause for concern--the point is that we can trust him to use his admin powers wisely. B Fizz 06:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Strong Support Will be a very strong addition to the admin team ,great track and find the project will only gain with Cobi having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. support. NVO (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Obviously has the clue level to be an awesome vandal fighting admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. support I support giving adminship to any user who I believe will be a benefit with them, regardless of edit count, article experience etc. Viridae^Talk 07:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Clean blocklog, highly clueful longterm user. ϢereSpielChequers 07:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support I've nominated him previously, and I remain a strong supporter of him. Being an admin isn't a reward for running a bot or for writing articles or for whatever. It's simply a way to make it easier to maintain and improve the encyclopedia. This is what Cobi does, as well as or better than many of us. We should have way, way more administrators than we do, but that's a discussion for elsewhere, I guess.  :) kmccoy (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Adminship is not a reward for prolific content contributors. It's an extra toolset for people who would have a use for them and can be trusted with them. The opposes so far are for reasons unrelated to this candidate's suitability for the role.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Cobi has the necessary experience to help out. Good luck! -- Luk ^talk 08:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support because I see an editor who comes here with a very good track record and has proven himself trustworthy. Serial FA creators are awesome, but bot-programmers are of just as much value to Wikipedia, in my opinion. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, a trustworthy admin asset. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support; hard working editor that can really use the tools to great effect. Cobi has been working on infrastructure since he's been around, and giving him the maintenance tools is consistent with this. — Coren ^(talk) 10:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. —Dark ^talk 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support I opposed last time, but I was really nit-picking, and in all honesty probably shouldn't have. The guy has done more to improve Wikipedia than just about any other single editor. He can be trusted with a few extra buttons. faithless (^speak) 10:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. iMatthew ^talk at 10:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. (edit conflict) Support His work on Wikipedia may be specialist but RFA is not a competition to elect the candidates who are perfect in every way. His bot work and coding skills have saved the editors of this project thousands of hours they would have had to spend cleaning up after vandals and I see nothing bad happening if he gets the tools. His answer to question #5 does not mean he claims to be an article writer, it means that he has shown to know how to do it which just serves to assure me that he understands the effort that goes into writing articles (which is essential for anyone who has the technical power to delete such pages). In short, Cobi is clueful, technically skilled and knows his way around the project without any reason to assume that he will misuse the tools (I had pre-watchlisted this RFA in fact). Regards SoWhy 10:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strong Support, granting the tools will benefit him, and in turn benefit the project. --Taelus (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Martinp23 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Edit conflict Support --Chris 11:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Another (edit conflict) Support Highly trustworthy, GDonato (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - why ever not? Adminship is just another job, a set of tools, that Cobi can clearly make good use of. —Sean Whitton / 11:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. Cobi is trustworthy and has made a significant contribution to the project. WJBscribe (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. I like the way SoWhy put it. Cobi has been friendly and responsive to my bug reports. If we can't trust Cobi, we're already screwed, so he might as well be an admin. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. I supported last time. I support this time. Kingturtle (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support.  Frank  |  talk  12:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Sounds like a case of WTHN. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Kusma (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Per nom, and I have no reason to believe he will abuse or misuse the tools. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. I think Cobi would be a fine addition. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support - Cobi has amply demonstrated his commitment to the encyclopedia through his bots, if nothing else. Plenty of evidence that he’s smart, sensible, and would use admin tools maturely. Beyond applying some kind of bright-line requirement for article work (something I always disagree with, but particularly strongly in the case of this candidate), I can see absolutely no reason to oppose and many reasons to support. ~ mazca ^talk 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. This can only help the project. -- Deville (Talk) 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support- An asset to the community. PerfectProposal 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Why not. America69 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Strong Support Cobi is definetly ready for adminship. Wii Wiki (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Late support as co-nom and member of the "You aren't one already?!" club. ≈ MindstormsKid 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Has a clue and is trustworthy. Pmlineditor 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. (edit conflict)Support Cobi has already greatly improved Wikipedia through ClueBot, and I trust him fully with the tools. LittleMountain5 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support I supported each of the last three; why stop now? Joe (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Mifter (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Doesn't look like he'll abuse the tools in any way, and he seems to know his stuff. Timmeh 16:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - Of course. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Nathan ^T 17:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. With added experience, I find I can fully support you this time around. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support a candidate who has done a lot of valuable work in the unfashionable areas of Wikipedia - fighting vandals, making sure everything runs smoothly. Cynical (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Excellent user Triplestop x3 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Edit Filter access and Cluebot make me confident that this user understands our policies, which is essential. However, I am unpleased with the tone of some of the supporters. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72. Support, ah, another classic RfA nominee. My full support as always! --Aqwis (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. About time... let's hope 4th time is the charm. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Sure, why not? Shappy ^talk 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Positives outweigh any negatives which have been raised. --candle•wicke 20:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - trusted user, heck, he's already got the keys to the abuse filter. There is more to building an online encyclopedia than writing articles. –xeno^talk 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support of course :) Jeni ^(talk) 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Normally, I choose not to !vote on RfAs where I haven't personally interacted with the candidate, but I see the good that ClueBot does every day. Tools would be benefit to the project, and no downside. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support – trusted user who will no doubt make good use of the tools. Boghog2 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Merovingian (T, C) 21:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support: Looks good.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Strong Support - Cobi will definitely benefit from the tools. Wikipedia is lucky to have someone like him! Good luck. Airplaneman ^talk 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support I'm usually wary of a lack of content work, but his work with one of the most helpful bots that help content editors and maintainers convinced me. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Old-school user support. To clarify, this means that this user has been around long enough that they know what goes on and they have the patience to stick around for 2+ years. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support I like the answer to 3. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Icewedge (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support-He wrote cluebot which has a million+ edits. He certainly can be trusted with the tools and has been a great help through his various bots(which are no doubt time-consuming themselves.)Smallman12q (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Per trust he will not mess up and clubot's history. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support I understand the reluctance to support someone without a background in content building (I normally share that view), but I think Cobi is pretty clearly an exceptional case. There's a big difference between using Huggle and writing ClueBot. Cobi's paper on ClueBot (the link on your page isn't working, Cobi!) demonstrates precisely the right attitude toward bots, in my opinion. --JayHenry (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. I for one welcome our robot-operating overlords. ~ Ameliorate! 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Strong Support Duh. — Jake Wartenberg 04:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92.  Support Deo Volente and Deo Juvente, Cobi 4. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Cobi is plenty trustworthy enough for me. He also knows policies and his way around. hmwithτ 06:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Has the patience to learn from earlier RFAs and keeps working to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support, no indication whatsoever that the user will misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
96. Thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. Nick (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Weakly, only due to a lack of article edits (that are non existent since September 08) but nonetheless, you do good work, so I can't oppose you for being a specialist editor. Best of luck, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support any lack of conflict-handling skills would have been made apparent during false-positive bot resolutions. Please edit an article about bots. jmcw (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. I am proud to support the creator of a bot which has made our lives a bit easier. Valley2city^‽ 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support while I acknowledge the fact that Cobi does not have much experience in areas that some administrators do. He has contributed to wikipedia in some ways that edits cannot. I do not believe that someone should automatically be opposed because of automated edits, edit counts, or any quantity factor in the persons contributions. I believe it's how the edits (or contributions such as creating one of the most used/best bots out there) impact wikipedia, and Cobi has done that. There are administrators that do not use their tools, nor do they have any experience/use for them (will not mention names here to prevent a conflict), but I see instances where Cobi has the potential to use these tools greatly. Good luck SparksBoy (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support. I have no reason to believe Cobi will abuse the tools, particularly given that he already has access to the abuse filter. BryanG (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support per my rationale at his previous RfA. I understand that he isn't that interested in the writing or policy sides of the encyclopedia, but he clearly is dedicated to the project, and great benefit to it. The tools will allow him to do more. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. — Aitias // discussion 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Trustworthy; supporting per the same rationale as Xymmax. I already thought that you were an administrator. Lack of article-writing work does not bother me much as long as the editor has clue (no pun intended) and otherwise is knowledgeable about Wikipedia's processes; I have no doubt about the latter, and the former is obviously present, too. There are some awesome article-writers who would be terrible administrators, and vice versa. Article work is not necessary, as long as an admin is calm, aware of norms and policies, and has a general sense about what's the wisest choice in a given situation. That's what I look for in RfA candidates. JamieS93 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support Clearly here to create an enyclopedia. Writing an encyclopedia is not the same as creating one. Pedro :  Chat  21:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support The community has clearly trusted the bot to do a number of tasks, so I am fine assuming the creator can be trusted as well. Law _{type! snype?} 03:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. support —DerHexer (Talk) 14:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support — Cobi's need for the admin tools is rather specialized, and I'm happy with the other work he has done thus far. I am not judging his ability to create good articles or his conflict resolution skills, since I don't imagine he will do much work in those areas. Giving him unquestioned access to the abuse filter (via adminship) is obviously a plus, since he does so much anti-vandalism work, and the abuse filter is intended to fight vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. VERY VERY VERY...hehehe strong support - He needs the tools. Also, ClueBot's 1.1 million edits are very useful and Cobi's answers to the RfA questions are well-written. Cheers, Chevy Impala 2009 18:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. Strong support. Sad how this process had to be repeated so often for an editor who was obviously up to the task a long time ago. bibliomaniac15 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
112. support There's no reason to think the user will abuse the tools. Cobi is clearly committed to the project and the project seems likely to benefit from him having the tools. Incidentally, the level of experience he has in terms of direct article editing would have been considered more than enough 2 or 3 years ago. This general inflation of admin requirements is really not healthy. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     I have moved the discussion to the talk page. —Animum (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

113. Support All admins don't have to be cut from the same mold. I have no doubts Cobi will be a solid admin in his areas of focus. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. I have read the opposes and find them unpersuasive. —Animum (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115. Strong support Per above, thought he was one already.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support I disagree with the claims made below that RfA candidates should have considerable content work under their belt. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support as I did last time. Rigadoun (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support Yep, while it's always nice to have "content editors" enter the ranks, it is also a great benefit to have the "techs" help us out as well. I can see a need for the tools here, and have no reason to believe that Cobi would misuse the buttons. — Ched :  ?  10:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support. Several of the opposers correctly point out that Cobi has not done much direct work in writing articles, but I find Roux's counterpoint convincing here. Cobi's work has significantly improved the encyclopedia on technical aspects and helped in the encyclopedia building. If the lack of article writing were because Cobi runs around like a self-important bureaucratic busybody who engages in more WikiPolitics than WikiPedia, while getting in the way of the article writers, I would be opposing quite strongly, but that is not the case here. The efforts here show a commitment to encyclopedia building as strong as many article writers, and his counter-vandalism efforts have freed up a lot of time and effort for people who want to write article instead of patrolling them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support. Article work is a good thing to do, but there are other ways to contribute too. Cobi is level headed and does great things for the encyclopedia. On balance giving him the sysop bit will make things better. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support, as explained above. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. Per TimVickers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support - per Tim Vickers. Excellent rationale, Dr. Vickers! AdjustShift (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     It's only an "excellent rationale" if it's applied symmetrically. So I trust that both you and Dr Vickers will be equally supportive of the next candidate who presents him or herself here with a record of strong content building but no experience of "administrative areas". No? I thought not. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benjah-bmm27, which is almost a mirror-image of this RfA. Reading over this I'd agree with most of my previous arguments and if we were somehow forced to choose between content-only admins and tech-only admins I'd have to choose content-only. However, thankfully we don't have to make this choice, admins can be expert in a particular aspect of the software or content and make excellent contributions in this area. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     I completely agree with you, but can you honestly say, hand on heart, that you haven't seen a lot more content-oriented candidates opposed because of their lack of experience in so-called admin areas than you have supported because of their content contributions? Anyway, I've said all I intend to here, I'm sure Cobi4 doesn't want this discussion in his RfA, which seems to be going swimmingly. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

124. Support - no content contribs but I get the distinct impression that Cobi wouldn't be doing too much in the area of dispute resolution, and if he does decide to he has the required judgement. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support I have no question that Cobi will not abuse the tools and any lingering doubts I may have had about his lack of non-automated editing are laid to rest by the fact that both SandyGeorgia and Dr. Vickers are supporting him. Good luck! Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
126. I see Cobi abusing the admin tools in vandalism-related areas pretty unlikely. Inactive, yes, but has definitely demonstrated knowledge of policies and guidelines in the area they're going to work in. Jafeluv (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127. Strong support - I see no chance of abusing the tools, and this is a user with a very technical understanding not only of how to manage the tools, but of what forms vandalism takes on WP. I find opposing based solely on the lack of content contributions a poor argument. As I've heard said before, if no new content was added ever again, wikipedia would continue to be useful. But if vandal patrolling stopped tomorrow, it would quickly become worthless. Shadowjams (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support Erik9 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support I would love to see more content contributions, and I do hope that he makes more in the future to round out his experience, but Cobi does great work and I trust him not to delete the main page. Firestorm ^Talk 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support: absolutely.. South Bay (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support per nom and many of the other comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. Since being an admin has nothing to do with writing articles, there is no reason to oppose over this. Cobi clearly understands how Wikipedia works and edits it in its best interests, and that's all there is to it. Not one opposer has managed to give a solid reason as to why Cobi would make Wikipedia worse as an administrator. Majorly talk 02:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Neither have any of the supporters shown how he'd make it better. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Unlike yourself, I believe we should promote people if they ask to be, unless there's a good reason to suggest they would not make a good admin. Since I have not seen a single reason to suggest otherwise, I support, with the reasons I gave. Do you have a good reason to suggest Cobi would in fact not make a good admin? I'd be happy to hear it. Majorly talk 02:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     I see no point in drawing your attention to the obvious fact that Cobi has hardly ever interatced with another editor in his entire time here. Still, who cares, he's your friend, so he must be OK. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Heh. I don't know what gave you the impression I'm his friend. For example, I went neutral on his RFA last time with a rather terse comment. He's not interacted with me, ever (that I can recall). On to your next comment - while interaction is definitely something useful, I disagree it's an "obvious fact". Cobi has enough interaction with other editors that I can see. It isn't difficult to click edit and type things as if you were saying them into an edit box. And that is still not sufficient to suggest he would make a poor admin. I'd like to see examples of edit warring, abusive behaviour, a long legitimate block log, a set of diffs showing poor reporting examples to AIV, diffs of low quality driveby votes on AFDs, limited experience in general, etc. If the best you can come up with is "Cobi has hardly ever interatced with another editor in his entire time here" (which is debatable), then I do think I was right in my original support - that Cobi would make a fine admin. Majorly talk 03:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     How could we provide examples when he has barely touched content, talked to anyone, or regularly joined in normal community discussions? See talk for more details. "being an admin has nothing to do with writing articles" astounds me. He was given the ability to edit the edit filters at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter/Archive_3#Abuse_Filter_editors_group_membership_request (the only non-admin to be granted it), and hasnt used it yet. used it three times? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC) updated 04:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     That last accusation is just incorrect. [1] -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 04:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     My apologies; I've amended it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) according to the talk page discussion, the log was not enabled when Cobi made those changes to the edit filter. 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Do please explain how adminship helps people write articles. How for example does blocking help write an article? Or protection - how does that help? What about deleting stuff? How does that help to write articles? I'm very interested. Majorly talk 14:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     • blink* Your further questions only make me more astounded. Take it to the discussion page, or one of our discussion pages. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Just rudely going "*blink*", perhaps you should explain why you feel adminship = reward for article writing, instead of just bluntly assuming everyone thinks the same as you. PS the talk page section detailing his article edits simply makes my support stronger. You've proven it's utterly false he barely touches content. Right, he might not spend every minute of every day editing articles like some, but there's at least something there, and it's plenty good enough for me when you consider all the other useful things Cobi has done. I'll ask you the same as Malleus - what evidence do you have that would suggest he would not make a good admin, if any? I'm very curious. (And no, let's not split the conversation.) Majorly talk 14:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Adminship should be a role granted to people who have demonstrated an ability to wrap their heads around problems and handle disputes in an effective way. This doesnt need to be demonstrated by edits to mainspace; I would be happy if he was participating in reviews, raising problems to the noticeboards, or responding to comments on talk pages, village pump, reference desk or the help desk. I don't expect that he is highly active or available; experience can be slowly developed over the years; Cobi has been here years, and not taken up the collaboration offers of people who wanted him to do some content work in order to become a sysop. I strongly believe that he needs to become more involved in content, and in the community, before becoming an admin. Even here on his RfA, in the spotlight, he points out that I am wrong without first trying to understand the underlying cause of the confusion, and as a result responds aggressively[2]. I don't doubt that Cobi will be good at handling purely technical problems, however they are few in number. As this RfA is likely to pass, I hope that Cobi, and those who support him, takes on board the strong opposition and doesn't start using the tools in controversial situations where he has no experience - simply reading policy pages is not good enough. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Thank you for your opinion here. I disagree with it, as I see you disagree with mine. That's fine, people can co-exist and disagree at the same time. Thanks for taking the time to explain how you feel. I've explained myself a bit further on a new standards page. Majorly talk 19:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

133. Weak Support Some concerns have been raised about the lack of demonstrated interactions skills. But hopefully you'll do a good job. Don't ever block without a warning and discussion to try to resolve the issues amicably. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support—OK, I'm satisfied. Buuuut, do try to get a little content experience. Tony (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support This is definitely someone whose use of admin tools will benefit the project. There's no indication that they will be misused. --LP ^talk 17:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support I'd say he does enjoy the supermajority support already, but let me lend mine: different sysops bring different strengths. Not every admin has to have a focus on article creation. ClueBot has made Wikipedia a vastly better place and if this is the brainiac behind it and he wants the mop, let him mop, with thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     So adminship is a reward for Cluebot in your eyes? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     If there were serious issues with his candidacy, I would vote to oppose or at least remain neutral. But there are none, IMO. And Cluebot is his unique contribution. Hell yes, I think the project owes him a debt of gratitude for it. Call it a reward if you like: he's sure earned it.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     And by implication others who actually take the trouble to engage with other editors in building content, as opposed to attempting to automatically protect it without leaving their basement don't. Thanks for clarifying what was already obvious. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     I can see you don't really care what I have to say, you just want me as a strawman. But I will say this: most the admins we promote will have the the kind of content creation background you obviously prefer. Here is someone who has made a truly extraordinary contribution in another, more unusual, but vital aspect of the project. A team comprised of people with diverse and complementary skills seems to me to the strongest, and he would bring a unique knowledge and skill set to our cadre of admins. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     You're quite right. I leave it as exercise for the reader to decide which small piece of your posting I agree with. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Well, that's a considerate response to someone who took the trouble to reply to you. I won't make that mistake again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Tsk tsk, Malleus. Awards are given to those who deserve them. This is handing out a prize. Please get it right. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

137. Normally, I would not support on the grounds of Cluebot alone. Fortunately, you seem to be sensible, and I trust the judgment of the noms. ceranthor 22:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support. I trust this user to step back and ask for help. It would be smart of them to target an article to bring to GA status just to see the praise and pitfalls that go with the territory, this will likely make them a better admin. -- Banjeboi 01:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support Fundamentally sensible, and -- based on what he has done so far -- will work on what he knows how to work with. DGG (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support as per above. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support. While I understand the concerns of opposer related to the lack of content contributions, I still believe that giving sysop accesss to Cobi will benefit the project. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
142. supportsafe enough.©Geni 03:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Oppose - Nothing or very little has changed since the last RfA. User is relatively inactive and doesn't contribute to articles beyond huggle/AWB. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The user does, however, contribute in a way that makes it significantly easier for others to do so. Not to mention that what ClueBot does makes the encyclopedia better for the readers, which is the entire point we're all working on this thing anyway. Granting the mop and bucket to Cobi will allow him wider latitude in doing what he already does: making Wikipedia more reliable and easier to edit. → ROUX ₪ 03:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Just a quick note that adminship isn't a reward - even for cluebot - but I do agree that the shiny buttons will make Cobi's work easier and there are no real downsides to giving them to Cobi. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose as a 4th nomination. Yes, time has passed, but in almost a year and a half since #3, you boast about turning a redlink into a DYK? That's a pretty paltry contribution to article work. Make no mistake, I love ClueBot, and was looking for a reason to bend my own rule, but a single DYK is not "street cred" in content creation, and touting it like it is, is almost worse than not having any. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe you have misconstrued my intentions. I never intended to "tout" it as if it were something great — it's not. DarkFalls asked what had changed, and I said that time and experience. On the side, I mentioned that I had at least tried to do something in content creation, which was one of the complaints in my last RfA. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 08:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - Sorry, but I view article contributions as integral to this project and cannot support anyone with scarce contributions to the aforementioned area. Best of luck. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  13:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. In my opinion, though ClueBot has helped out Wikipedia significantly and though this use has been given a great honor by the community already, I think giving this user the mop based off of what ClueBot has done would be like giving him the mop as a award not as a tool. Also, i would have liked to see more work in the mainspace.--Next-Genn-Gamer 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Why does he need it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   See here. → ROUX ₪ 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Not enough; and I share the concerns that this is insufficient experience with article space. I will not sweat it if the opposes continue to be a supermajority, but I am not convinced; and Roux' need to reply to every objection turns me off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Nice hyperbole, there. I responded to 2/5. Seeing as 2 < 5, your statement is, charitably, in error. → ROUX ₪ 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This is not roux's RfA. I also would like to question what you mean by "not enough". I know many admins who have less need for the tools. —Dark ^talk 08:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose. As much as Cluebot is amazing and one of the most valuable bots out there, there is a major lack of content building. The last non-automated edit to the article space by the candidate was on August 18, 2008. Even ignoring that, the candidate hasn't edited to WP:AIV and WP:RPP for over a year. I really do appreciate all the hard work that his bot(s) have done, but the reputation of the bot can not be inherited to the owner. — Σxplicit 03:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Cobi's lack of interaction in the "Normal" encyclopaedia leads me to question his experience. Cluebot is very good, but we expect admins to be able to identify behaviours which are not simply codifiable. For example, (nearly) anyone can identify a simple 3RR, but this does not approach the full scope of edit warring behaviours. There is no question about the value of Cobi's contributions within his narrow scope, but I don't think he even approaches enough experience to become an admin. I would like to see at least one serious banging of heads over content to show that he is aware of the "Normal" to-and-fro of hotheadedness which accompanies article editing. AKAF (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Insufficient article work. Thus, I don't feel comfortable about how he will act when faced with a conflict between article editors, which is part of an admin's work. He needs more experience on the article side of things, however qualified he may be in the back office.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong oppose, for the same reasons as I have opposed the last three times, which still hold true. You are not seeking adminship for a well defined and limited purpose like lustiger_seth did. Experience should tell you that admins candidates (even Werdna!), are expected to have demonstrated stills in content work and conflict resolution. And time you have had. You only have a single edit in the Talk: namespace that isnt about "ClueNet". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. Minimal content creation. I am also disappointed by Cobi's response here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cobi doesn't seem to get involved in normal content work or interaction with other editors, as evidenced by his answers to questions and as noted by others in this section. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended discussion on the nature of this oppose moved to talk page. –xeno^talk 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. Strong oppose lack of anything except machine edits. No article editign YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Most of his edits are from Cluebot. He is not that active. Joe Chill (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose - yes, I know my oppose wont matter to any closing crat, and that it will just be ignored. However, I am use to it. Content work is important as it reveals one's understanding of policies. I might as well show solidarity with those above who believe the same thing, even if we will all just be ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - lack of content work. Cxz111 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose - we write articles, create content, thats the point...Modernist (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We also maintain content, where technical knowledge is particularly useful. As I'm probably one of the more content-orientated admins, I hope you'll read and consider my rather tardy co-nomination which discusses this objection. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17. I love the bot and all, but I expect any admin to do at least some serious content work, and there's nothing in the user's recent contribs that amounts to that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Weak oppose - ironically, I came here thinking to support. I'm usually quite supportive of "technical" contributors like Cobi and I'm not too hung up on the lack of mainspace contributions per se. However, most of what I am finding in the recent conributions are minor and/or automated edits or again, work on the technical side of the 'pedia. It is proving quite difficult to find anything in upon which to judge how this user would behave or function as an administrator. In all likelihood this RfA will pass and Cobi will prove to be a good administrator, but at this point I'm not seeing a lot to instill confidence. I hate to re-state what has already been said, but while the contributions via bot have been invaluable, they do nothing to prepare one for administrative work. Shereth 14:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose - this was a tough decision for me to make. On the one hand, I truly admire Cobi's programming skills and doubt he would abuse the tools. I believe him when he says he would stick to vandalism fighting. On the other hand, I see little experience in any area outside of vandal fighting. I don't expect an admin to have experience in every area, but more than one would be nice. His communication style also bothers me, as "short and to the point" might get the job done, but administrators are expected to be excellent communicators. Ultimately, I ended up on the oppose side because I don't see much need for the tools (Cobi is not personally very active even in his limited area of focus) and I can't justify giving someone the ability to delete pages who has no experience in deletion issues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose. more than the lack of content creation what bothers me is the lack of interaction. Wikipedia is an experiment in community based creation and admins are supposed to be the oil that makes the machinery work. Many (probably the majority) of the problems that an admin will be expected to solve requires some degree of social skills - as long as he has no such experience there is not way to know how he will respond when he gets confronted with that kind of problems. I need to see some evidence of commitment to the collaborative part of the pedia (ideally evidence of appropriate behaviour in a conflict) before I can support. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose Per John Vandenberg and others. I am not a believer in the notion that an editor must be an article writer to be trustworthy, but I don't trust someone whose contribs are almost entirely automated edits. A large part of adminship is people skills, and I don't see any evidence of that. Feel free to respond and convince me otherwise, and I might switch to support. Steven Walling (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose no indication of significant article work or even community interaction; two factors which I consider key to the adminship position. Artichoker^[talk] 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per John and Yellow Monkey. Sarah 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose, lack of content development and debate. Being well-rounded is one of my prerequisites for RfA support, and sadly, I do not see that in the candidate. –blurpeace ^(talk) 15:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose I worry about having admins who don't seem to have any history of discussing problems with others. John Vandenberg makes a good point. Dean B (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose limited evidence of content interactions --Stephen 02:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. At Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobi_2, I wrote that I would support in the next RfA, and I missed Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobi_3, so I was ready to support now. But I am disappointed by the answer to question 5 ("What has changed since your last RfA?"). "Time" by itself is not an argument, and "experience" is conspicuously vague, with - and the only example given, the article UnrealIRCd, is still only a stub. — Sebastian 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)    (I am open to changing or amending this vote or statement. If you feel facts changed sufficiently after I posted this, please let me know, as I may not be watching this page.)[reply]

   Just a quick note, the article was at DYK when Cobi wrote it (see diff). The article was cut down to stub size afterwards. Regards SoWhy 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, that makes it look a little bit better. Still, I share Congolese's sentiment: "I find it worrisome that Cobi [...] is unable (or unwilling?) to generate a few edits in his/her area of interest or just won't listen to the community's guidance."[3]. Cobi knows that this is what the community wants; I think it can be expected from an admin to watch at least one article - the only article he cites as an example of his good work - and prevent it from falling back to stub level. — Sebastian 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. I still don't see why Cobi's not made some more effort to work on the encyclopedia, especially after this has come up in previous RFAs. I'm not talking about writing an FA, just some occasional little improvements in wording or spelling (other than simple AWB work) to articles or even getting involved in article discussions. The lack thereof isn't enough to make me willing to oppose, but it is enough to make me unwilling to support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Impressed by the bots but article work seems to be lacking. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. I know that Cobi's a helpful editor when it comes to bots, but doesn't seem to have enough experiance with disputes. Most new users and such turn to admins for help and dispute resolving, but I don't know if Cobi is ready. Sorry.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. 'Per Ottava Rima, and my personal belief that admins need some experience in article creation, not just deletion. I hope that you will understand this logic, and not take it the wrong way; I utterly appreciate your great work - I just don't see a clear need for the mop.  Chzz  ►  19:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. For now, not really impressed by lack of non-automated contributions. Nakon 05:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral – while I don't care how many admin trips it takes to get the tools personally, and that you've had some particularly good contributions in the technical aspect, the lack of content work and more importantly interaction with others do concern me. MuZemike 00:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral I came here to support because of the amazing bot work. But one of my criteria is good communication with other editors, and there's just not a lot of it for me to judge. (Kind of surprising, because I thought that cluebot would generate some conversations). Every time the mop gets used there's either a frustrated editor involved or one who is about to get frustrated because of the admin action. It's essential that an admin can communicate well with that editor, and I'm not seeing enough evidence one way or the other to let me say yes or no. Sorry.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral Is "trustworthy" code for "tow the admin cabal line"? Anyway, neutral per MuZemike.   allstar▼echo  09:38, 9 August 2009 (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.