Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi 2

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

Cobi

(98/47/11); Scheduled to end 05:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cobi (talk · contribs) - Hello, I think it's time to once again ask that the community provide Cobi with administrator access. Two months ago, Cobi had an RFA which was closed at 76/33/11 as "no consensus". It seems to have been a very close decision on the part of the bureaucrats, as evidenced by a delay from the "official" close to the time a decision was made. To his credit, and fortunately for us, Cobi didn't take this as a rejection and continued his hard work, especially with his bot User:ClueBot, which is approaching a quarter million contributions. Cobi may not be a prolific article writer, or spend much time working on policies in the Wikipedia: namespace, but his technical work on the project is extremely valuable and useful. I look forward to seeing what improvements he will make if he is made an administrator. The pool of administrators and the project as a whole benefit from having people from a wide range of Wikipedia specialities. Please join me in supporting Cobi on this RFA. Thanks.kmccoy (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this excellent nomination by User:Kmccoy. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 05:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: There are several areas where I have experience working in as a user and bot master. First, I am a verified open proxy checker at WP:OP, so I will be helping out in that regard with the ability to actually block the open proxies as opposed to simply noting that they are open proxies. Second, I plan on working at WP:AIV, as I have had experience reporting vandals there. My bot also reports a lot of vandals there. I am also a member of the Bot Approval Group, but that doesn't really require the mop, except when a bot goes awry, in which case I would be able to block the offending bot. I also plan on helping out at WP:UAA, WP:SCV, and WP:RFPP.

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

A: I would have to say that my best contribution to Wikipedia has been User:ClueBot and the other ClueBots. ClueBot reverts a lot of vandalism every day and the other ClueBots do other work around Wikipedia, such as clerking and archiving WP:OP (IV), talk page archival (III), redlink removal at WP:SCV (II), and tagging inactive WikiProjects (II).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: The only "conflicts" that I have been involved with have been in relation to false positives reported about my bot. Such false positives are inevitable, but users can often get very indignant when this happens. This has not caused me stress. My approach has always been to gently explain the computation behind the false positive and try to fix this from happening again. My approach as an administrator would be very similar, in that I would quickly find the problem, make a judgment on its correctness, and "fix" the problem, while making sure all involved parties have as little discontent as possible.

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

A: It seems like everyone has a slightly different method of implementing this, but I will because I think there should be an easier way to desysop administrators if the community no longer wishes them to be an administrator without the long and drawn out process of ArbCom and because administrators should be accountable for their actions. I am not exactly sure how I will implement it, yet, but I will list myself in that category.

5. If you become an admin will you perform bot-like tasks? (i.e. Curps) Miranda 15:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A: I am not exactly sure what you mean. If you mean will I block vandals and clear backlogs tirelessly? Yes. If you mean will I run a fully-automated bot on my account? No. If I didn't answer your question, please post for more clarification. :)

6. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia?

A: I was once User:Winbots and usurped the account User:Cobi. I, of course, have my ClueBot accounts, which are strictly used for my (approved) bots. I do not have any alternate accounts other than that.

7. Does using ClueBot (talk · contribs) to advertise your RfA in hundreds of mainspace edit summaries conflict with either the word or spirit of the WP:CANVAS guideline? --Kralizec! (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A: It is a tiny little notice in the bot's edit summary. It is not advertised anywhere else (besides my userpage). I think the canvass guideline is more related to posting somewhere where someone actually has to read it (user talk pages, central locations like the village pump, AN, ANI, etc). No one forces you to read ClueBot's edit summaries. I also ran it by two administrators before I did it, one who thought it was a great idea and the other didn't have a problem with it. If you think it is excessive, I'll remove it. :)

It has been removed.

8. Optional Question from User:Tiptoety

Do you feel that advertising your RfA by using ClueBot (talk · contribs) constitues spaming, if so why did you do it, if not, why not? Tiptoety (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A: No, spamming would be if I were to dump a message on several users' talk pages. Unless you are looking for edits by ClueBot, the edit summary is not something many people see. I realize, however, that I shouldn't have done it, and it won't happen again. The only reason I did it in the first place was an admin that I ran it by thought it was a great idea and another that I ran it by didn't have a problem with it. It no longer has a link in its edit summary. See the above question for more details.

Continuation of question 8: Do you feel that it then violated WP:CANVASS?

A: Didn't we just do this? Somewhat. At the time I didn't realize it would show up in the watch list of several users, because it was very, very late and because it didn't show up in mine. I have already promised that I won't do it again. I have seen signatures with links to different things and thought that this would be even less "in your face" than putting it in a signature. I hope this answers your question.

9. Optional Question from User:Tiptoety

I have noticed that you have more cluebot and talk page related edits than mainspace, do you feel that you have the knowledge gained by preforming mainspace edits (polices, manual of style, templates, and basic article creation procedure)? Tiptoety (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes, I do think I have the knowledge. I have the technical knowledge because Wikipedia is not the only MediaWiki wiki I use. I have the policy knowledge because I have read, although not necessarily edited, the policies and guidelines, and I understand them. I hope this answers your question.  :)

10. Optional Question from Marlith ^T/C

What do you want Wikipedia to be three years from now? Marlith ^T/C 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A: A completely vandalism-free, troll-free reference of all (verifiable/notable) human knowledge. Or did you want a more realistic view?  ;)

11. Optional question from Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs)

You've said both here and on your talk page that two admins "approved" of linking to this RFA in ClueBot's edit summaries. Can you either name the admins, or show what they said in the context in which they said it.

A. I asked one in PM on IRC, half joking if I should do it, and he responded along the lines of "Great idea! You should do it.  :)", so I asked another admin in PM on IRC and he said that I might gain a couple of opposes for being unorthodox, but he didn't have a problem with it either.

Follow up question (originally in my response to your response to my oppose)

Q. What did you expect to gain from linking to this page in the summaries? And why would you do it?

A. I don't know. It was a lapse of judgment on my part. It was late (around 4 AM, my time) and I couldn't think straight. I am sorry that I did it, and I am sorry that I can't answer your question better.

Optional questions from SorryGuy

12. An IP is reported to WP:AIV for vandalism after the final warning. Researching the user, you see that he has not vandalized after the most recent final warning, but has been given many other final warnings in the past and has just finished a two-month block for vandalism. You also see that the user has not made any edits in the last six hours. What would you do as an administrator and why? SorryGuy  Talk  03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A: People who have not vandalized after their last warning should not be reported to WP:AIV in the first place. Furthermore, only active vandals should be reported to WP:AIV. It is also probably not the same person from before as most IP addresses are dynamic and, in general, should not be blocked for extended periods of time. I would remove the report as invalid per being inactive and per not having received their last warning. I would also notify the reporter of the guidelines of WP:AIV.

13. You find a request at WP:RFPP requesting semi-protection for an article with reason being IP vandalism. You look at the article's history and find out that one anonymous user has been removing a significant amount of text and one registered user has been reverting it as vandalism for several days. The only talk page discussion regarding it is the registered user giving vandalism template warnings on the IP's talk page. What would you do as an administrator and why? SorryGuy  Talk  03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Depends on several unknowns. For example, if the IP is a shared IP among many other users (an ISP proxy), I would probably protect the page with semi-protection. If the IP was not shared by many other users, I would probably block the IP for 24 hours if there were appropriate warnings on the IP's talk page. If there were no warnings on the IP's talk page, I would add a warning. It would also depend on how much vandalism we are talking about. Once per day? Twice a day? Several times a day? I hope this answers your question.

Optional question from Charitwo

14. Not applicable to this RfA or my vote, but do you, in the forseeable future have any intention, desire, or plans at any time to run an RfA for ClueBot to assist with WP:CSD or any other task that requires the use of the delete tool? --Charitwo ^talk 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Not the delete tool, as ClueBot doesn't watch new pages, and that would be the only place where it could be applicable. Possibly for access to the rollback tool, as that would be much easier on the servers than the "manual" rollback ClueBot uses now. And, possibly for access to the block button for blocking new users who do excessive amounts of vandalism (i.e., new user who has made less than 10 edits, the majority of which have been reverted by ClueBot in the last half-hour, and has all warnings and is listed at AIV). But before that would happen there would need to be a very big consensus for this, and from what I can tell, there isn't.

Optional questions 15-17 by Anetode.

15. What is the best article on Wikipedia you've come across?

A. I have come across a lot of good articles and the featured articles are definitely among the best, but to chose one specific article? I can't as there are several excellent articles.

16. Are you bothered by deficient coverage in any particular subject area on Wikipedia?

A. I am not because if someone feels there is deficient coverage in a particular subject area, they can fix it themselves or organize a team to help them fix it.

17. Is there an article you've always wanted to write or improve? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A. Not really as most of the topics I am interested in have good articles or featured articles covering them. Also, as I have said elsewhere, I am not particularly good at writing articles.

Optional Question from Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs)

18. Considering you co-founded ClueNet, do you feel its appropriate to link to its article in your signature [1], [2]?

A. I thought I removed that ... I am not the type that changes his/her signature every other day. I added that back when I wasn't aware of all the rules. It has been removed now. Thanks for bringing my attention to this.  :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Iamunknown

19. Will you consider some of the opposes below and be editing articles (not limited to reverting vandalism) in the future? --Iamunknown 05:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A. Yes, I will. I am not very good at authoring content, but I will try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobi (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Cobi
• Requests for adminship/Cobi 2
• Requests for adminship/Cobi 3
• Requests for adminship/Cobi 4

• Links for Cobi: Cobi (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• While Cobi's edit count is 1,600 (relatively low), query.php gives ClueBot's edit count, as of 12:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC), at 223,201. Will ^(talk) 12:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Shout out to Cluebot. Holla, baby, yeah! It's all love round here, you know how we do. ^Dlae│_here 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Concerns about mainspace edits: FYI - We had an administrator promoted with seven mainspace edits. Miranda 11:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • We did? It says on the RfA talk page that xe had 1,137 mainspace edits. WODUP 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page. Most were vandalism reversions. :-/ Sigh, Wikipedia. Miranda 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• If I may make a few comments: I was one of the administrators whom Cobi mentioned the idea of putting a link to his RFA in ClueBot's edit summary. I thought he was joking and responded with "haha" and "That's a great idea. :)". Looking back, he had no reason to know I was joking, and I really had no reason to think he was. Nor would either of us have any reason to think that such a link would result in more supports; it could easily have drawn in vandalism or whatever else. But a few little mistakes on the part of a few people compounded into a bunch of displeased people coming to this RFA to oppose Cobi for what they see as a lapse in judgement, and what Cobi admits was not a good thing. I urge the editors opposing Cobi's RFA on these grounds to think back on the little judgement errors they have made in the past. I know that when I make them, I just hope that everyone will see that it was an exception, not a rule. That is the case here.
• Also, regarding the editors opposing because of Cobi's low number of mainspace edits, I'm just trying to understand why that is. As others have pointed out, none of the administrator-only commands are really related to actual article-writing. In fact, we have lately seen a number of administrators request to have their access removed so that they could focus on writing articles. Wikipedia is built and maintained almost entirely by volunteers, and those volunteers come in all sorts of interests, abilities, and attitudes. We should welcome as many volunteers into as many positions as we can (with the exception of supporting abusive users in their activities.) Cobi has shown an interest and ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a way which doesn't involve writing articles. He's shown that he does it with a sense of humor and patience. I haven't seen any opposes due to mistrust, or an uncivil interaction, or anything like that. Cobi has made it very clear that he will wade into new areas very carefully, and he has the support of many users upon whom he may call for advice. This is a user who has much to contribute (even if he doesn't contribute it in the way that many other users do) and should be given as large an opportunity to do so as possible. Thanks for reading. :) kmccoy (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It also shows a lack of improvement since last RFA. His first one ended October 11th, and lots of the opposers cited lack of mainspace work. After the RFA, Cobi send out messages to many of the commentors in the RFA stating that he would get more mainspace experience (here, here, and here are three of the posts). Since then, he has added exactly 7 contributions to the mainspace that weren't vandalism reverts. This is not evidence of learning from past RFAs. Useight (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I know, being +sysopped gives you the 'rollback' button. How you'd expect to see a future admin using that, can usually be gauged by how they revert vandalism. I also know, from experience, that it gives you the block button. You can get a good idea, of how a potential admin would use that, from AIV, UAA, and, possibly AN/ANI. You also get the 'Delete' button. I'd gauge that by CSD. How the user interacts with others? Talk: and User talk:. Yes, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Some people, are better at protecting the project, and, worse at writing the actual articles. ClueBot's reverted what.... a quarter million vandal edits? How much time saved, is that, for the article writers?
    • There's no reason to knock or discount those of us, that are more suited to making life easier, for those that are excellent article writers. Likewise, there's no reason to punish those that revert vandalism, by discounting their contribs, simply because of the manner in which they choose to help the project. SQL^{Query me!} 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if we include the vandalism reverts, there's a total of 40 mainspace contribs since his last RFA when he was asked to do more work in the mainspace. I really couldn't care less about the work that ClueBot has done in saving time and find it irrelevant to this RFA. I'm sorry, but a candidate has to show improvement between RFAs. He was asked by the community to do more mainspace and he didn't do it. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with your first paragraph Kmccoy. For anyone thinking of opposing on those grounds along, please also see my comment(s) in #2 of the Neutral section (which in hindsight, I probably should have posted up here under "Discussion" instead). Also, good on you Kmccoy for stepping up to say you were one of the admins Cobi had "cleared" the action with previously, and for helping us understand the confusion and series of events that led up to it! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My oppose is based on the fact that, due to Cobi's very few mainspace edits, I can find no examples of his being involved in situations where tempers have flared. I expect all administrators to act in a civil and appropriate manner, and I am as yet unconvinced that Cobi will do the same. Of course, I have not been shown otherwise, but something more than an assumption of good faith is necessary for a successful RfA. I also think that opposition based on few mainspace edits can be a proxy for what I've described above, and should not be summarily discounted. Of course, as I've stated in my opposition, I look forward to being shown cases of where Cobi has handled himself calmly in tense situations. In that case, I will support. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• For the record, we do have precident with Joshbuddy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Joshbuddy's RfA. Keegan^talk 06:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  And I opposed that RfA. Time and experience have changed my mind. Keegan^talk 07:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  I was User:Teke in that RfA. Keegan^talk 07:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. kmccoy (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Just as I did last time. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Same as last time! SQL^{Query me!} 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak support I went neutral on the last RfA due to a lack of article writing. I haven't seen anything that shows that Cobi has written or expanded an article, however, I trust him with the tools, and don't believe abuse would be forthcoming. Plus ClueBot is awesome, even though I complain about it beating me too much. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Yet you've beaten it over 400 times? :) *Cremepuff222* 02:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   500 actually ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Excellent contributor, unlikely to misuse the mop. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose like last time. Good luck. I dorftrottel I talk I 07:11, December 11, 2007

7. Support very unlikely to abuse the tools after all this time spent on Wikipedia and an obvious sound understanding of policy inparticualr in the field of vandalism given his creation of a bot. Tiddly-Tom 07:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support as last time. Joe 07:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Cobi will be incredibly helpful as an administrator. John Reaves 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose, too many vandal reverts. Will ^(talk) 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Will, can you please clarify...is this a supportive or oppositional tally? Kingturtle (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    I would imagine, given the level of experience Will has, he can be expected to place his vote in the correct section for due consideration. Are we still tallying up the number of supports and opposes, scoff, here was me thinking this was a discussion not a straight vote, so does it matter if the tally doesn't match the number of comments ? Nick (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed, it's a joke-oppose. Gotta lighten up RfA somwhere :) Will ^(talk) 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    Just checking. Thanks. Kingturtle (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

11. Support - I opposed last time but I have seen an improvement. It's a good thing that you're rejecting the "norm" on RfA's by not getting 10,000+ edits before allowing yourself to be nominated. You have a great bot and I have seen from great work from you. Also, I trust the nominator :-) Scarian^Talk 10:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support again. Last time was a crock. Neıl ☎ 11:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - The user needs the tools and will use them very effectively in an area of the project not many people are familiar with. Plus ClueBot is awesome. --jonny-mt 11:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Support Cobi has my trust and I believe he has gain the required experience to be a sysop. --Chris 11:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC) - Changed to neutral. --Chris 09:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

14. Human Nom support- For being nominated by a Human this time .. :P ...--Cometstyles 11:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - anyone that's created ClueBot obviously knows how to fight vandalism and be sensible with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - I would trust him with the tools. --Mark (Mschel) 12:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Per last time - Heck, if this guy was here to harm Wikipedia he wouldn't spend hours writing bots that help out would he?. Pedro :  Chat  13:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    That doesn't mean he hasn't got a master plan, or an ulterior motive. Maybe he thinks an admin position is owed to him through his development of Cluebot. If this RfA is unsuccessful, he could always re-program the bot and set it for mass destruction of the encyclopedia. ^Dlae│_here 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Hadn't thought of that. Too dangerous to alow coders to be admins. Support withdrawn. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Pedro, are you serious? SQL^{Query me!} 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    (ec) Pedro, if I wanted to, I could do a lot more damage with my bot than with admin access. Bots have the ability to edit hundreds of articles in just a few seconds. But, I don't have any wish to harm the encyclopedia. In fact, I want admin access only so I can help the encyclopedia and (among other things) complement my bot in blocking vandals. As for the thing about me going rogue if this is unsuccessful, you can be assured I will not. Just look at my response to the last (unsuccessful) RfA I had.  :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Administrators are bound to act on community requests. Apparently my support rationale was insufficent for User:Dlae who is a member of the community. WP:AGF tells me that there must be a valid reason Dlae challenged my support. Accordingly my support is struck. Pedro :  Chat  20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Cobi, I believe in you and think you'd be a great admin (except maybe the canvassing thing, but hey ho). I know the damage your bot could cause, hance my original support rationale. Speak to Dlae. He caused this by challenging my support. I don't want any more disruption, I've been accused of enough over the last few days, when acting in good faith. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    (ec)I'm sorry, but it reads like you believe that Cobi will use bots to abuse the block / protect / delete buttons? Then you quote AGF? Something's not right there. SQL^{Query me!} 20:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    No I don't believe he would, hence my support here and the exact rationale in his first RfA, copied above. User:Dlae thinks that my rationale is insufficent as a support, hence support withdrawn. No lack of good faith on my part. I trust Cobi totally. Isuues can be taken up with the opposer to my support. Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oh. Turns out Dlae has already run around being incivil and disruptive. Support re-instated. Shame I never looked at his user page, and blindly assumed that his contributions where valid and in good faith. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well, I was just about to type something different until I clicked the article again and saw this. Pedro, I am a valid contributor - you're just an idiot. ^Dlae│_here 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oh yes, you're not wrong there. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Pedro, is your support withdrawn or not? As it stands now, you're in the Support column until you edit it differently. Kingturtle (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    It was reinstated on the 11th at 21:29 per the above. Pedro :  Chat  17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

18. Support Will make good use of the tools. --Charitwo ^talk 13:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
19. For sure. Redrocketboy 13:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    This is a weak support now, sadly. The cluebot canvassing was not really the best thing to do, and I hope you never do anything like it as an admin, if you pass. Thanks. Redrocketboy 16:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

20. UnequivocalWeak support; all he missed was a bit of experience, which he now has. — Coren ^(talk) 13:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Cobi, that ad in the summaries was a really, really lame stunt. One that almost made me switch to neutral— please give us assurances that you won't show such a lapse of judgment again. — Coren ^(talk) 23:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    It won't happen again. I realize that I messed up. Sorry. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

21. Support. Keeping in mind how well Cluebot runs, I think he can say he knows what he's doing on the vandal front. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Support --Ed (Edgar181) 14:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Support, candidate looks like he will be an excellent admin. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Support as I did last time. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - seen them around, and every time it's been good. — Rudget _speak.work 16:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - continued from last time. Nihiltres^{t.l} 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Support, little more to add than what's been said already. <eleland/talkedits> 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
31. Support (change from Neutral at last RfA). This user seems trustworthy and works hard to revert vandalism, both by himself and with Cluebot. He's ready now for the mop. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Good user who has done much for Wikipedia, especially bot-related contributions. Ready for mop, although the bot summary was not too clever. :( GDonato (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Support! —Reedy Boy 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. --- RockMFR 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Certainly --Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 20:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Without a Doubt... you're the guy that made Cluebot... that bot is very useful and amazing :) The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 20:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Support - definitely. (And ClueBot is truly amazing, by the way.)   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Strong support great ClueBot operator. Hopefully this RfA is successful. NHRHS2010 talk 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
39. Oppose removed any motivation I might have had to get MartinBot back up and running in any reasonable time span. Martinp23 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
40. Support For hard work fighting vandalism and a clear dedication to project work. Good luck! Dfrg_msc 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Support per useful bot work, and patient approach to controversies, as judged from Cobi's bot approval discussions. A bot that works, and is not too offensive, and is modified in response to feedback, is an asset to the encyclopedia. Due to the nature of his specialty, access to admin tools would be good to have. Any misbehavior will surely be observed and complained about by hundreds of watchful editors. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Strong support Mønobi 22:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. The botspam thing honestly doesn't bother me since Cobi talked with a couple different admins about it. –Crazytales talk/desk 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. Having the balls to advertise with ClueBot is a masterstroke. That's the sort of innovative thinking we really should be looking for in an administrator. The fact he's eminently qualified doesn't hurt things either. I also don't think, even if advertising this RfA is such a great sin, it's worth Cobi having to wait another 3 months for an RfA that would pass then. Nick (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Support, good job on ClueBot. Putting a link to this RFA in ClueBot's (who is on virtually everyone's watchlist) edit summaries was probably not very smart, but not reason enough for me to oppose your RFA. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Strong Support. Great guy, would never abuse anything, and would definitely be a dedicated helper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy1989 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Note, User has made only two contributions to this project, both regarding RfA's for Cobi [3] Pedro :  Chat  23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Crispy is the admin of ClueNet along with Cobi and I'm sure he knows Cobi very well. (: Mønobi 00:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    I can name dozens of people who know me very well, and have also never edited Wikipedia before. So it's OK if they act as meatpuppets next time I'm put to a vote? Nice to know, thanks – Gurch 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    Gurch, look at this logically for just a second. The purpose of votes such as these is to assess the subject's abilities and determine his potential as an administrator. Regardless of whether or not I participate on Wikipedia (which I don't often, due to other commitments), I can be a fair judge of Cobi's capabilities, and don't see why it should be a problem that I add my personal experience with Cobi to this RfA for consideration. One could argue that I don't have enough experience with Wikipedia, but it's not my experience that's in question here, it's Cobi's. I'm probably the only one here who has met him in real life, and for a significant portion of the time I was with him, he was steadfastly working for Wikipedia. His devotion and dedication are clear, and I believe that I can make that known from the unique perspective of someone who has been in close contact with Cobi. You ask if it's OK for friends of your's to vote for you from their own experience? Yes, I believe that it is OK. Now, Gurch, I've seen your comments to and about Cobi, and it does seem that you have a personal grudge against him, but please try to be objective for these types of votes. We're trying to determine Cobi's capabilities as an administrator. In all of your comments attacking Cobi, I can't see a single valid reason for reasonable objection. Most of your oppositions to Cobi personally seem to stem from objections to the concept of a bot correcting vandalism (which, in my opinion, aren't valid, but that should be clear to you if you examine it logically). The purpose of this vote is not to determine whether or not a bot should be allowed (that has already been approved by the BAG) or to evaluate said bot. The purpose is to evaluate Cobi's skills and abilities personally, and it seems to me that you have not been objective at all. You probably will be biased against me and my recommendations as well (because of my association with Cobi), but try to consider this logically and objectively. Crispy1989 (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    Only two edits, both to Cobi's RFAs? Definite meatpuppet. Not good. Useight (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    Useight, as I said above, my lack of participation in Wikipedia should have no reason to affect my judgment about Cobi's qualifications. If my integrity as a person is called into question, I'm sure I could provide completely satisfactory evidence. Crispy1989 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not questioning your ability to determine Cobi's capabilities in real life, but what I'm saying is that only having a couple edits doesn't throw a lot of weight behind your voicing of said capabilities. I'm not judging your character nor your integrity. I'm also not biased against bot operators nor their friends. Useight (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah, I know. It's true that my potential qualifications aren't immediately apparently due to my essentially nonexistent edit count. My comments about bias and such were mainly in response to Gurch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy1989 (talk • contribs)

    Crispy1989: in fact, your "lack of participation in Wikipedia" should have every reason to affect our judgement of your opinion of him. As Useight said above, it's not a knock against either you or Cobi. But this is supposed to be seeking a community consensus, and [if] you aren't at all a part of that (acting/editing) community, then this should be pointed out, as was done right underneath your vote. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) (whoops - meant to say "if" the first time around; added it in [brackets], at 05:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

47. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Support for familiarity with technical processes, policies, and common sense in general. As an admin, however, do realize: Wikipedians are humans, and a technical solution doesn't exist for every problem. Gracenotes^T § 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
49. Support as last time. Cobi lose his time fixing and improving his bots, that is why he does not have much edits. Thanks for yours incredible bots. Good luck. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Let's finally give Cobi what he deserves - a mop right up the bracket! DEVS EX MACINA _pray 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
51. Support —Animum (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Support. GHe (Talk) 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
53. Support Article writing does not necessarily indicate how useful one can be as an admin. Spellcast (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
54. Support Cobi came, ClueBot came, other ClueBot's came, what's next? I think it is time for Cobi to get sysop. — E ^talk_BAG 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
55. There is no evidence whatsoever that Cobi will abuse the tools. The issue with the bot is not an indication of abuse. Acalamari 03:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
56. Support I supported last time and I see no reason to change. Captain panda 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
57. Support, normally I would Oppose per your rather narrow edit count, but I consider you to be a special case because of your extensive technical knowledge. Therefore, enthusiastic support! =) Lankiveil (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
58. Support reservations from my opppose on previous RfA have been addressed. Happy to support. Ronnotel (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
59. Support, as I have no reservations about the candidate's potential use of the tools. But, please, do take time to consider the effects of your actions with the tools, and - if possible - don't mop when tired, as you might end up canvassing accidentally. ^_^ Best wishes, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
60. Support The canvassing bit is not a big deal for me. This user has made good, solid contribs, and certainly won't break the 'pedia. Hell, even if he did, he could probably fix it. I see nothing but good coming from this. GlassCobra 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
61. Support ClueBot is useful and Cobi appears to be also. Canvassing issue appears to be a non-issue. Orderinchaos 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
62. Support Quality editor. Twenty Years 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
63. Support. Will be fine, despite the edit count. Good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
64. I wasn't impressed with the linking to your RfA in ClueBot's edit summaries, but that's no reason to oppose you. I supported you last time and you have my support this time too. *Cremepuff222* 02:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
65. Support - I'm not impressed with the ClueBot linking, but that's a minor lapse that can and should be overlooked. Regards, Keilana 02:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
66. Support Great editor. Mr.Z-man 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
67. Support changed from neutral - I have concerns about the low mainspace edit count, but as I stated in my neutral comments, I do not believe Cobi will abuse the tools. Apparently there have been admins with even less, and the dedication to building and maintaining ClueBot shows dedication in a way that is (after considerable thought) about the same as having a FA or multiple GAs. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
68. Support John254 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
69. Strong support excellent editor. Maser ^(Talk!) 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
70. Strong support. Seriously -- this guy hasn't been promoted yet? He's only created the most effective tool preventing vandalism on wikipedia, which shows his devotion to the project and how unlikely he is to abuse the tools. Unless we don't care about keeping WP clean from vandalism anymore, I can't fathom him not being given the mop. Ashdog137 (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
71. As per before... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Having supported in this user's previous RfA, I support per the same reason stated here. ♠TomasBat 19:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
73. Support Considering his answer to Q1, lack of articles isn't a big issue. He obviously has a lot of experience thinking about vandalism, to design and improve such a well-regarded bot. The canvassing disturbs me, but if he actually asked two admins about it, I'd say it's unfair to hold him responsible. Rigadoun (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    I would actually be supporting the same as you if he could name the admins! Jack?! 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    Jack, did you read my comments? I was one of the two. Please read my entry in the discussion section above. I don't understand why it matters if he names the admins or not. Do you think he's making it up? kmccoy (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    Ah right, thanks for clearing that up. I'll be changing to weak support :). Jack?! 01:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

74. Weak Support - WP:CANVASS is the only thing stopping me from going for a strong support. Admins should know about things like that. However, this is a small blip in a good user whom I feel would be suited to the mop - keeping in mind that Cobi is only human, even if ClueBot isn't :P :-) Stwalkerster talk 00:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
75. Weak Support. The canvassing issue stops me from going for strong support also. He was told by admins that it would be ok to do what he did, although I don't think he should have got the all clear to do so. Because he was told it would be ok to do so, I will be changing to weak support. He says it was 4AM, and I know only too well what it's like editing at 4AM. As for why I'm supporting, I think it seems quite obvious; a good Wikipedian who will not abuse the tools! Jack?! 01:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
76. 01:48:02 (last) (hist) Lava matched rocks . . Cobi (talk | uw-test | uw-vand | contribs | block) . . (Reverted 1 edit by 66.167.45.248 (talk) to last revision by Trieste) . . show details . . [rollback] Keegan^talk 06:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
77. Support as per Gracenotes and Stwalkerster. I'm sure Cobi has the common sense and knowledge of the project to make a good admin, and that he won't abuse the tools. Will (aka Wimt) 15:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    Support I said I couldn't support, but at this rate it's close to the borderline, so I will. He clearly cares deeply about Wikipedia, and his bots are among the most useful aspects of the project. Someone who takes that much time to code a bot (and it's no easy task, even for a really simple one like mine) surely isn't going to abuse their rights. If you are promoted, please tread carefully. Thanks, and good luck! Redrocketboy 15:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, but no one may !vote twice (See Support #19.) Xoloz (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oops! I think I was confusing this one with Walton One's. Thanks! (The comments in the struck vote are my feelings though, if this has to be decided upon words value...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrocketboy (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

78. Strongest Support Possible Amazing coder who is unlikely to abuse tools. *Note Most admin actions (AIV UAA CSD) have nothing to do with mainspace edits. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 03:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    Most admin tools also have nothing to do with coding. :) Useight (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

79. Support as before - I'm a tad put off by the misguided canvassing too, but I really think he has the best interests in the project in mind here, and he's a dedicated user who knows what he's doing. --krimpet✽ 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
80. Support. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
81. Support - Canvassing - bad. Few mainspace contributions - bad. But I'm supporting anyway. User:Krator (t c) 15:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    Support Cobi may make mistakes, forgive him anyway. Cobi wont make them twice. V/good candidate, good skills - knows his limiatations and doesnt go beyond the boundaries. Twenty Years 17:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sure Cobi appreciates the support, but you already expressed it at #62. WjBscribe 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

82. Strong Support As per nom and user cares deeply about Wikipedia previous and also has created Cluebot one of the best and useful bot in wikipedia and the internet.RFA was on the wire cannot cannot understand why this has got so many opposes.Except for a lower edit count do not see any other concerns in his track to justify so many opposes for a person who has only contributed positively. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
83. Weak Support Though I trust you with the tools overall here are some major concerns I would like to point out. First, lack of XfD debates and a minimal amount of mainspace edits. But due to your high experience with vandal fighting, I will support somewhat. PrestonH 17:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
84. Firm support. The ClueBot advertising wasn't the best call but not bad enough to convince me that Cobi wouldn't make a good admin. Now I wonder how frank you were about Q5... :) Миша13 21:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
85. Support Looks like a good user. Stupid2 (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
86. Support - I like the bot, I think the advertising bit was a mistake. Since we know admins will make mistakes, I think it's useful to see how well they handle them - and Cobi passes with flying colors. Rklawton (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
87. Support Jmlk17 01:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
88. Support A bit on the inexperienced side, but would seem to make a decent and useful admin. MURGH ^disc. 03:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
89. Support Dedicated to cleaning up vandalism, will know will do well. —BoL @ 03:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
90. Support Outside the adverts, definitely one to be trusted with the keys. --Mhking (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
91. The fact that I have to actually compete with ClueBot (along with other bots) while in RC patrol proves that this user is an excellent vandal fighter. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
92. Support, really editcountitis is best treated rather than plastered over rfas. The standards for adminship remain the same: "do we trust them to not screw up and use the admin tools for constructive purposes?" The answer with Cobi is: "yes". Pumpmeup^{(is awake!)} 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
93. Support - if you were planning to somehow abuse Wikipedia it seems you would already have had the means to do so. I trust you to use the tools responsibly. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
94. Support per the actions of ClueBot and the fact that Cobi will not misuse the tools Alexfusco⁵ 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
95. Weakest support there ever was I told Cobi that if he would get his mainspace contribs to 500 and his total to 2000, that I'd switch to support. He did so. Since they were all vandal reverts, I'm not wholly impressed, but I'm fulfilling my end of the bargain by switching to the support section. My oppose comments are struck below. Useight (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
96. Support with idea Cobi has some oppose due to lack of mainspace editing. I've asked that Cobi help me with an article. Archtransit (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
97. Support. Seems to have a use for the tools. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
98. Support You seem deserving for the admin title.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am sorry but I don't think there's much difference from before. Your full edit count report (not the one presently on the talk page) shows a disproportionate number of edits to your own userspace and to that of your bot. I do not think you need to be a "prolific" mainspace editor and I do support the concept of admin specialists, but I think you need far more balance in your work. Closing AfD's, user conflicts on pages are all part of what you will be called on to do. I have the utmost respect for your bot work and frankly am envious of your talents, but I think we just need a little more in overall experience. Sorry. -JodyB _talk 11:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Your bot is very helpful, but I'm one of those editors who does "not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC." Worse that it's appearing in your bot's edit summary and turning up on my watchlist. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Also, I took a look at your editing contributions, as summarized by wannabe kate. Preferably, I would like to see more mainspace contributions, which I think is important for understanding how and why policies come into play. That, in turn, is important for admin tasks like closing AFDs. Though, what you do with checking open proxies is a positive. I don't know if this RFA will succeed, but should it not this time, do try again in a couple months. I may be in position to support you at that time. --Aude (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
3. (switch to ultra-weak support) Oppose. Sure he runs a bot and everything, which is amazingly great, but he himself does not yet have enough experience to sastify me. Sub-2000 edits and only 185 to the Wikipedia namespace demonstrates a lack of experience, especially in admin-like places. Plus, not enough work in the mainspace, it's the real reason Wikipedia exists. One-third of your edits are to userspace. I'm sorry if you think that's editcountitis, but I think it's evidence of not enough work in the required places. The violation of WP:CANVASS with Cluebot advertising your RFA (I was not led here by that, personally) is also evidence of lacking sufficient knowledge of policy. You've done a great job with Cluebot, but you and Cluebot are separate entities. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   You say that as if you think the ClueBot group is sentient, ultimately it's owned and controlled by Cobi. --Charitwo ^talk 18:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Irrelevant, in my opinion. Sure he wrote the code and all, which is very respectable, but being an admin isn't about writing code, it's about judgement and applying policy correctly. His work, not Cluebot's, does not yet demonstrate to me that he meets those requirements. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I think it is improper to add a link to here from an edit summary. Edit summaries describe the edit, and the edit had nothing to do with this RFA. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Comment on the whole, another admin approved of it. I think the whole Durova/secret mail list fiasco should give everyone a bit of pause before you say, well an admin approved of the action! Common sense and reading guidelines/policies (in this case WP:EDITSUMMARY) pertaining to what you plan on doing should be consulted. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose Per all above. I feel that running a bot does not prove experience, and your edit count does not prove you have ha enough experience to be an admin. I also strongly dislike that you used an automated system to advertise (spam) your current RfA. I did not care for the answer to question 19. Tiptoety (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, edit count proves noting... I've seen editors with 5,000+ edits, that still didn't understand 3RR, and some with 1,000 edits, that had great tips for me, on various obscure policies. Edit count is just a number, and, a very poor gauge of experience. SQL^{Query me!} 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Agreed, but i believe that the type of edits made along with the edit count prove to be a bit disappointing of a user who is running for adminship. Yes edit count is just a number, but sometimes it does reflect the editor. Tiptoety (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   I'm curious what it is about his answer to question 19 that you don't care for. You don't think someone who is not good at authoring content should be made an admin? Or you are concerned that he'll try to author content, despite saying he's not good at it? Should someone who is not good at authoring content be prevented from contributing to the project in other ways? I say this with a bias, of course, because I am not good at authoring content either, yet I appreciate being able to contribute in my own ways. kmccoy (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Spamming with your bot. Yeah, great plan. Seriously, WTF were you thinking? – Gurch 20:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   W(hy)TF are you using sarcasm and rude acronyms to justify your opposition? Wouldn't the RfA process be better served by simply stating the facts instead of asking rhetorical questions? --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   "W(hy)TF are you using sarcasm and rude acronyms to justify your opposition?" John Reaves 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Er, yes, that was sort of the point - to highlight the inappropriate-ness of the tone by reflecting it back. :) --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Fine, here's a better reason. Excluding vandal reverts, the candidate has made 20 mainspace edits. Yes. Twenty. Five of those were to the ClueNet article, four were to the shell account article promoting ClueNet, one was linking his own userpage from Cobi. The candidate has added maintenance tags to five articles and written a stub, and reverted vandalism a couple of hundred times. That is a complete description of the candidates mainspace contributions. I should not be able to fully describe an adminship candidate's contributions in three sentences. If the candidate hadn't written a bot, this adminship request would have been snowball-closed within hours, with the usual "moral support" and "come back when you've actually done something" comments – Gurch 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   I also went through every single one of his mainspace contribs, which, unfortunately didn't take very long. I counted 22 that were not vandalism reverts, and aside from one edit on the 9th, he hasn't edited the mainspace since October. Additionally, using Kate's Tool, taking his total edits and subtracting Bot-related edits (only the one's listed by Kate, there may be more), he's only made just over 1100 total edits. Useight (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose Per Gurch and Useight's Public Sock. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong oppose 300 mainspace edits, 25 mainspace talk page edits, plus using a bot to advertise your RFA? Any one of the above is fishy. Together they paint a picture of something the community would most likely regret. Sethie (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC) [edited by same, 00:49, 12 December 2007]
9. Strong oppose not enough mainspace experience. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose candidate has demonstrated a lack of judgment. You half joked off-wiki about linking your RFA in your bot's edit summary. Did you expect a serious answer, or one which echoed the context which you asked it in? ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 00:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    I expected a joking one, but the response was serious as far as I can tell. And the second admin I asked, it wasn't in a joking manner. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well then you should've taken the advice of the second admin and avoid risking opposition based on the potential canvassing. What did you expect to gain from linking to this page in the summary? And why would you do it? ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    Note, I've added this as a follow up to my original question, but left it here to preserve context. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 05:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

11. Gurch's summary of Cobi's edits is something I noticed. While I don't regularly judge a candidate by the distribution of his or her edits, I do expect an administrator to have some mainspace experience, and my impression of Cobi's experience is that it is lacking. I don't think that I can judge what type of actions Cobi would make as an admin, and so do not support. --Iamunknown 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose. Some experience working with articles is an absolute must. Nearly all of the 33 people opposing Cobi's previous RfA cited his extreme lack of mainspace contributions, and I'm not at all encouraged by his decision to accept this second nomination without attempting to address those peoples' concerns. As for the canvassing, I will assume that it was an innocent lapse in judgement and not an attempt to overrun this rfa with participation by his bot's admirers. Whatever his intent, I hope this process has not been affected. ×Meegs 05:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, you raise an important issue... as I sit with this RfA, I think the whole thing needs to be scrapped, given the canvasing and the possibility (probability?) that it is bot supporters who are the majority of "supports". Sethie (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    That's assumption of bad faith on the part of all supporters, plain and simple. Saying "majority" instead of "each and every single one" merely adds hypocrisy. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:23, December 12, 2007

13. No. Meat-puppeting, bot-spamming, nearly as many edits to this RfA as articles in the mainspace. Adminship is no big deal, but it's also not a reward for doing something nice. The mis-guided canvassing is what ultimately leads me to oppose - great coder, but clearly lacking in practical knowledge of the 'pedia's mores. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    I did not meat-puppet. Crispy supported fully out of his own will. I did not ask or encourage him to support. Neither did I have any control over whether he supported or not. As for the bot-spamming, it won't happen again. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)\

    A response to that is "he had to find out somehow". But of course, he simply could be what I call a "wiki-observer", someone who watches discussions on WP without participating. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 16:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    While Sasha Callahan has offered an explanation above, I was wondering if Cobi or Crispy could comment on how Crispy found this RfA. Or, more to the point, did you, Cobi, link him here with no indication of how he should vote? SorryGuy  Talk  04:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    I believe Monobi asked him on IRC to participate. Monobi or Crispy should probably confirm this, as I am not 100% sure. Furthermore, throughout this RfA, any links to this page by me have been completely neutral. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 05:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose Per Gurch, I have to say I feel we have nothing to go on here contribution wise, the coding is great, but that's just a bot, plus the poor judgement associated with the bot's edit summary going into this RFA. Dureo (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Gurch et al, I prefer to see more rounded experience (even if only slightly), and using edit summaries to link here was not well thought through. ^Khukri 10:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Gurch and Aude --Storkk (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Weak Oppose per answers to the latest optional questions, lack of contributions and spam. Although I love cluebot, I believe that this user can do a bit more to become great. Perhaps some time in the future. Marlith ^T/C 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Weak Oppose - I cannot find examples of this user interacting with other users in somewhat contentious situations, which I expect all administrators to handle in a helpful and polite manner. While I have no reason to doubt that the user will act appropriately, I see no examples of this either. Willing to change my oppose if shown appropriate evidence. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Weak oppose - very useful bot, however still lacks experience. Addhoc (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Weakly per Useight at 18:19, 11 December 2007, Gurch at 02:09, 12 December 2007 and Useight one and a third hours later, all above. The lack of both mainspace editing and Wikipedia-space editing is alarming, and isn't sufficiently remedied by the fact you run a bot. Sorry, Daniel 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    I can't support someone who has made 22 content-building edits, many of which are borderline COI, as Gurch notes above. I'd be willing to throw almost any standard to the wind to demonstrate my appreciation of ClueBot, but this is asking too much. --JayHenry (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn --JayHenry (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Reluctant Oppose I respect Cobi for the tremendous amount of work he has done on one of the most successful anti-vandalism bots around but I cannot support this rfa at this time. I believe that adminship should be no big deal and that you can be trusted with the tools but there is a minimum standard that admins should have. One big problem is that you have only 307 mainspace edits [4] on Wikipedia; and out of those 307 edits, once you get rid of the mass reverts of User:AlptaBot [5] you only have 9 reports to WP:AIV and a handful of vandalism reverts. In addition, you have no contribs at other admin-related areas such as WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA of the latter two which you stated you wanted to work in. Once again, I love your bot and work on it but your contribs do not demonstrate that you are ready for the tools. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

21. Oppose Just as before, almost no experience. Twenty-six talk edits, eighteen WP talk edits, and unless I'm missing something, zero XfD edits. How can I possibly know that Cobi can interact with the community when I barely have evidence that he even has before? This isn't some super-strong oppose because I don't think there's anything about Cobi that would stop me from believing he's an excellent Wikipedian, but this does not necessarily translate into being an admin. -- Mike (Kicking222) 09:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
22. I supported last time, but gosh - 20 mainspace? RfA should be a learning experience, whether successful or unsuccessful, and I'm just not seeing that here. I feel bad because he's a great guy, but I just don't know how he'll handle it. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose per above. I appreciate your anti-vandalism bot, but you don't have enough experience dealing with Wikipedians, and your violation of WP:CANVAS and answers to questions related to it makes me feel that you don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TomTheHand (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
24. In the bot spam incident, the candidate acted only in their own interest, without any regard for what's good for Wikipedia, and without RTFM (which would be WP:GRFA, in this case). While I acknowledge that that may have been a single mistake in a weak moment, I find Cobi's first reply "No one forces you to read ClueBot's edit summaries" still inappropriate. Candidate should know that edit summaries are there to be read. I also have a problem with bot coders who don't acknowledge that they're responsible not just for fixing the bot, but also for fixing a bot's past actions. Now, this may not be possible in this case, but if the candidate had just acknowledged that and used their inventiveness to make up for the mistake, that would have swayed my vote. — Sebastian 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    After considering how I could possibly fix the mistake, I will gladly redlink the edit summary link, if you want. I didn't think of it at the time. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Wow, that was a quick response, and a quick idea! I don't think a redlink would help, because it is just as distracting. But I will think about changing my vote to neutral, to acknowledge this. — Sebastian 20:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    I also tried to get the edit summaries (rev comments, as the devs call them) fixed by talking to the developers. They said that it didn't warrant changing them and "nobody cares about rev comments" anyway. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you - you are really making an effort now. I would support you in a couple months, but right now I feel it's just too fresh. This is only a weak oppose now. — Sebastian 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose. I can't support after the edit summaries of ClueBot contained this RfA, and the reply reading "No one forces you to read ClueBot's edit summaries". I also have a concern with your lack of experience communicating with other Wikipedians as per above. Jack?! 23:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)--user switched to support ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 01:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

25. Oppose. There seems to be some support for CobiBot for administrator, but Cobi (not his bot) is the running for administrator. Since an administrator makes decisions about editors, I find it disturbing that the number of mainspace edits since the last RFA is small (someone said 7). It's as if the community said, "try some mainspace editing for experience". I find it worrisome that Cobi may not have any outside interests and 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. I'd say to ask Cobi to come back in 2-3 months after editing or, if he/she passes, he/she should edit some before starting to use sysop powers. Congolese (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Strong oppose, sorry, too soon, and the mainspace contributions have not increased. Wikipedia is at the stage now where admins must know how to write for the encyclopedia, interacting with other users and anons in the process, in order to understand how to manage it appropriately. The canvassing is also poor form. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong oppose An almost total lack of experience in mainspace, combined with spamming problems when promoting this RfA, indicate that the candidate is not yet well-versed in community standards and practices. As Mailer Diablo often says, I'm afraid editor will "go sideways with the mop". Xoloz (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    That's a nice way of saying he will and has a reason to abuse the tools, which is a serious accusation. A "lack of" experience and a misguided mistake are not even close to reason to oppose an RfA because you think he will misuse the tools gained. Between the work between him and the work he's put into coding, overseeing, and running the bot and the anti-vandal work done, it's a sufficient amount of experience. And it was never a "problem", he was going off the advice given by two admins before doing so, removed the link and apologized. I really wish you would re-word and/or retract your wording. --Charitwo ^talk 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    "Abuse" carries the connotation of intentionality. I don't think the editor will abuse the tools intentionally, though this belief arises solely from WP:AGF, as he doesn't have much of a record to judge. Based on his spamming related to this RfA, and general lack of experience, I have every reason to believe the editor will misuse the tools out of ignorance (perhaps in rather grand fashion, given the work-rate of bots.) This is the meaning of my phrasing, and I stand behind it. Xoloz (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

28. 'Reluctant oppose the bot work is greatly appreciated, but the concerns that caused the last RfA to fail haven't been addressed. Look forward to supporting after more contributions and better judgment about canvassing next time ;). Shell ^babelfish 15:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose. The canvassing really should not have been done, because the edit summaries would appear on recent changes and any affected articles on people's watchlists, and this should have been obvious. More importantly, your limited amount of mainspace activity apart from simple vandalism reverts doesn't convince me that you have the knowledge and experience yet to deal with more complex issues. More activity with articles and their talk pages would also lead to more interaction with other Wikipedians, something which I think is very important for an admin to be able to do. You should also get more experience with WP:SCV and WP:RFPP before you get the mop, especially as you say that you plan on working in those areas as an admin. If this RfA doesn't succeed, and even if it does Regardless of how this RfA turns out, I think you would be a better administrator if you do address the concerns that everyone has raised here. --Kyoko 15:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC), modified 17:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose Pending answers to optional questions 15-17. Cobi has not made any comment regarding his stance/approach to anything that actually deals with the editorial side of an encyclopedia. Reverting vandalism is all well and good, but that task can be handled with a bot and WP:AIV. Being an admin means that contributors will approach you with requests for intervention in editorial disputes and deletions, anyone promoted to administrator status should be able to handle such requests by themselves. Dealing with content is an essential part of an administrator's responsibilities, relevant experience is a prerequisite for even applying. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you for taking the time to answer those questions. Unfortunately, I don't see any indication from your answers that you have given much thought to the content side of Wikipedia. Your anti-vandalism contributions, as always, are much appreciated. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

31. Oppose, per concerns concerning mainspace and here: Optional question 19, from Iamunknown - Modernist (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose - Sorry... I do not see enough experience in other places besides vandalism. I have a hard time finding any places where you helped mediate any situation that would allow us to judge your approach to any heated issues. The canvassing issue, well enough has been said on that. The bots are amazing and very much appreciated. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Reluctant strong oppose (an oxymoron?) . "Reluctant" because Cobi seems a well-meaning, good guy and I think we all appreciate what he's done around here. "Oppose" because he's just not ready as pointed out by multiple, thoughtful opposing comments above. And "strong" because of the whole CANVASS thing, a total non-starter and an abort-the-RfA action. Cobi, I look forward to supporting a follow-on RfA in 3 or more months if you work on the stuff others have identified as weaknesses. (Suggestion: try a few afternoons hitting the "Random article" link, tagging and fixing articles as they turn up). --A. B. ^(talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    PS "Well meaning, good guy" is not damning with faint praise -- it's the single most important trait in an admin and you've cleared a major hurdle by displaying it. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

34. Oppose. Admins should be sufficiently engaged in content writing to not be detached from reality in wikimatters. Thanks for your programming contributions and good luck with more of that. I hope the fact that you are not an admin won't discourage you from doing this good work which does not require adminship anyway. --Irpen 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Sorry, I cannot support this candidate per above. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Sorry, oppose. I am not confident, yet, that I know how Cobi would use the tools. Dekimasuよ! 03:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose I am concerned about the lack of judgment shown by the canvassing in edit summaries—as well as the repeated 'people told me it was okay' excuses. Additionally, while your anti vandalism efforts are admirable, your wikipedia space edit count does not leave me confident that you are adequately experienced in policy areas. Maralia (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Weak oppose. I want to support this canidate, but at this time I am not confident in policy knowledge or readiness for the role of adminship. While I have no fear that Cobi would not abuse the tools, I am less sure he knows how to use them. I tried to get to this with my questions, and the answers were fine, but I am still not totally convinced. Frankly, with so little mainspace contributions, it is simply too hard to know. You do seem to be doing great work here, and I commend you for it, but also encourage write some articles and gain some policy knowledge. Cheers. SorryGuy  Talk  06:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
39. Oppose. ClueBot is good, and it shows the candidate has a great deal of technical understanding, and I have no reason to question his good faith. However handling adminship tasks needs more. The work in mainspace with actually building articles is almost empty, so too with interacting with other users. Admins need to deal with other people, and should need experience there. They will need to deal with complaints over article content, whether it's at AFD, in angry e-mails, on talk pages, at CSD, and so on. If experience is seriously lacking in these areas, there almost certainly will be misjudgments when admin tools are given, and some of those can be quite serious. It is not that the candidate has done anything wrong, what he has done is valuable, but he has not gained a sufficient level of experience in wide areas. Yet. With some experience in these areas, I can see myself supporting some time in the future. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose The bot does a great job in keeping this place cleaned up. But, the nominee just doesn't do much else. Mainspace editing teaches a lot to a potential admin. If the editor is just going to continue cleaning up vandalism, then the admin tools are unnecessary. If the editor wants to do more, then please show us more. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Your lack of mainspace contributions combined with canvassing in edit summaries makes me think that you're not ready. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Oppose lack of mainspace edits is a problem, not only for lack of experience in understanding writing but it was pointed out that it would have made me (and some others maybe) support this time round. Not taking up suggestions worries me WRT ability to listen. Canvassing gave further cause for concern re judgement. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Oppose; sorry, but I have a few problems here. Most have been mentioned above, particularly the substantial portion of bot-activity vs. other. Thanks very much for keeping the place free of vandals, but I think that more experience is necessary along the lines of what Sjakkalle mentioned for an admin. Also, I am very much against seeing canvassing on these, for three reasons: one, because of the reasons laid out in WP:CANVASS. Two, because it is going against consensus in said guideline that would seem to discourage it. Three, it reflects very poorly on judgement. A nom for adminship is a chance to present your best face, but you had to go and do something that many people are always unhappy with, admin's 'approval' notwithstanding. While you are not prohibited from doing so, I see it as a definite negative factor. Epthorn (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Oppose - ClueBot is brilliant. I love it. It IS the most effective vandal fighter out there (apart from me of course ;-) ). No, I'm joking it is brilliant! But User:Cobi becoming an admin cannot just step from his wonderful creation. They are two separate accounts. And this account isn't ready for adminship just yet. Lradrama 11:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Regretably, Oppose - I suggest you do a few DYKs before next try. It's not so hard and I would be happy to help you. Your bot is my favorite. Thank you very much for that. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Oppose - As much as I would like to give a support !vote, the low number of mainspace edits, lack of xfD experience, and WP:CANVASS issue give me too much pause. However if you were to take the next three or four months to get involved in xfD and make a substantive number of mainspace edits, I would be delighted to !vote support in your next RfA. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
47. No evidence that this user has a practical understanding of our core content policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I really, really dislike ClueBot mentioning your RfA in its edit summaries.[6][7][8] I don't hate it enough to actually oppose the RfA, but I certainly don't feel comfortable supporting, either. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   I tend to agree, but wanted to see the answer to question 7 above before making up my mind. It appears that ClueBot has posted over 350 links to this RfA since 01:04 today. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   That's how I was led here, haha. ^Dlae│_here 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Me too, actually. Then again, I have no beef against it; I honestly believe that is was a long time coming. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Although unorthodox, it's really kinda cute in a twisted way if you think of ClueBot as a realistic little robot running around smacking vandals. --Charitwo ^talk 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   I am sorry you dislike it. :( The only reason I did it was because another administrator thought it was a great idea. If you want me to, I will remove it.  :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 18:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   It has been removed. :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   No harm, no foul. And BTW, I agree with your point on Question 8 (?) about that no one is forced to see it. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Ugh. Similar sentiment to the above, in that I thought the RfA linking in the edit summaries was in rather bad taste. But taste is relative (clearly, since both you and at least one admin thought it would be neat) so it seems that this is not sufficient reason on its own for opposing the nomination. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, after re-reading some of the votes, let me clarify my thoughts. Any Oppose votes which have only the edit summary links as their rationale should be counted as what they are: knee-jerk votes in reaction to a single mistake in social etiquette which did not hurt the project, and was quickly fixed once brought to light. They do not take into account, or even mention Cobi's history of editing and interaction on the wiki, and are thus not representative of this nominee outside of the nine hour window in which the faux pas occured. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Very well put, Peruvianllama! SQL^{Query me!} 21:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   On the other hand, those opposing for that reason may also be implying that user doesn't rely on his own judgement but rather on the judgement calls of other admins and/or that he didn't take the time to learn the policies of WP:EDITSUMMARY or WP:CANVASS. But, then again, it could be that he seeks consensus before acting. It could be good or bad. I, however, opposed for a lack of experience, and only mentioned the edit summary usage in passing. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   A single action should not be taken as indicative of the user's overall ability. Your own opposition aside: it's fine that the action serves as a catalyst for further investigation into the nominee's past actions, but it should not be taken prima facie as evidence that the user is unsuitable for adminship. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   I agree. Excellent point. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Hear hear! ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   It depends on the action. In this case, the mistake is arguably harmless (it probably inflated both the supports and certainly the opposes/neutrals for this RfA). However, it calls into question whether or not maturity (or a lack thereof) came into play. A poor choice by an editor typically has short-lived consequences, a poor choice by an admin can have wide-ranging effects. I choose a neutral vote, because this alone simply isn't enough to oppose. Justin ^chat 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to support after further consideration. I want to support, even with the issues of canvassing for a brief time with ClueBot. The thing that keeps me from supporting is highlighted in Gurch's oppose (the lack of mainspace contribs), and the thing that keeps me from opposing is that I do not doubt that Cobi will not abuse the tools if he had the use of them. Unfortunately, I just can not support at this time. I really do hope this RfA is successful. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)-MBK₀₀₄ 03:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral (leaning towards support) - I want to support but the issue with the lack of WP namespace and the Canvassing issue sway me too much. Sorry. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral I was going to support but the ClueBot Canvassing issue has made me question your judgment --Chris 09:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Ugh... I was just about to support until I saw the spamming in ClueBot's edit summaries... Sorry. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Same as above. I actually supported Cobi's last RfA, but I think the edit summary spamming shows spectacularly poor judgment. Cool Hand Luke 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral, I can't really oppose based on the edit summary spamming, but it's certainly enough to move my vote from support to neutral. While, the choice could be nothing more than misplaced excitement, it shows a level of immaturity that makes me nervous when combined with the admin tools. Justin ^chat 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral This makes me really sad. :( —DerHexer (Talk) 20:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral Leaning to oppose. ClueBots are great, but they are just a series of codes.-- Vintei  talk  23:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

   Twinkle is just a series of code, but do you expect someone to just disregard all of your reverts made using twinkle because it was just a series of code? How about MediaWiki/index.php? It is just a series of code, but do you expect someone to just disregard all of your edits because it was made by a series of code? Thanks for your reconsideration.  :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   The two really are not analogous, Cobi. In the first, by using Twinkle you show us your own judgement of vandalism and the ilk as well as your choice to use twinkle in the first place. Both of these give us insight into what kind of editor you are. However, when the script is automated, we really do not get to see this. SorryGuy  Talk  16:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, I will disregard Twinkle work if the editor is using it for a vast majority of their work. I like to see an editor do their own work; I've never used Twinkle or any other automated script. Useight (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, but you did attempt to use it, until you found out that it doesn't work in IE. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   True, but I didn't use it, and that's what I said. Useight (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

10. Sitting on Neutral OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Neutral - too many negatives to support, but am unwilling to oppose. EJF (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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