Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cobi 4

Cobi's edit stats using Edit Counter as of 17:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First edit: Jun 30, 2007 05:39:24
Unique articles edited: 2,394
Average edits per page: 2.07
Total edits (including deleted): 4,963
Deleted edits: 431
Live edits: 4,532

Namespace totals
Article         1336	29.48%
Talk            39	0.86%
User            986	21.76%
User talk       1353	29.85%
Wikipedia       685	15.11%
Wikipedia talk  89	1.96%
File            13	0.29%
Template        25	0.55%
Template talk   2	0.04%
Help            1	0.02%
Category        2	0.04%
Portal          1	0.02%

Month counts
2007/06	1	
2007/07	190	
2007/08	348	
2007/09	456	
2007/10	482	
2007/11	136	
2007/12	719	
2008/01	301	
2008/02	192	
2008/03	207	
2008/04	206	
2008/05	323	
2008/06	65	
2008/07	94	
2008/08	92	
2008/09	305	
2008/10	26	
2008/11	9	
2008/12	8	
2009/01	31	
2009/02	27	
2009/03	9	
2009/04	116	
2009/05	19	
2009/06	130	
2009/07	31	
2009/08	9	

Logs
Accounts created: 82
Pages patrolled: 21
Files uploaded: 6

Top edited articles
Article
    * 20 - UnrealIRCd
    * 9 - Shell_account
    * 4 - Ongerup,_Western_Australia
    * 4 - Bobby_Hill_(King_of_the_Hill)
    * 4 - Boston_Massacre
    * 4 - Miley_Cyrus
    * 3 - McDonald's_products
    * 3 - Slavery_in_the_colonial_United_States
    * 3 - Wedding
    * 2 - Onion

Talk
    * 5 - Shell_account
    * 2 - Southwest_Airlines
    * 1 - Joan_of_Arc/Archive
    * 1 - Anarchism/Archive_21
    * 1 - Bashir_Ali_Mohammad
    * 1 - Substance_abuse
    * 1 - Creation_geology
    * 1 - Cryptex
    * 1 - History_of_science/Summary_style
    * 1 - Anarchism/Archive_23

User
    * 116 - ClueBot/FalsePositives/IPReports
    * 106 - ClueBot/FalsePositives
    * 73 - Cobi/CBChannels.js
    * 61 - Cobi/monobook.js
    * 44 - Cobi/transparent.css
    * 39 - Cobi/CBAutoedit.js
    * 20 - ClueBot_Commons/Infobox
    * 19 - ClueBot/FalsePositives/Reports
    * 18 - Cobi/autoroll.js
    * 15 - ClueBot/Documentation

User talk
    * 271 - ClueBot_Commons
    * 192 - Cobi
    * 10 - Useight
    * 7 - CO
    * 7 - 209.244.42.97
    * 5 - JayHenry
    * 4 - Davey1889
    * 4 - Cremepuff222
    * 4 - 24.47.127.166
    * 4 - Crispy1989

Wikipedia
    * 78 - WikiProject_on_open_proxies
    * 46 - Bots/Requests_for_approval
    * 28 - Changing_username/Usurpations
    * 26 - Requests_for_adminship/Cobi_2
    * 25 - Bot_requests
    * 25 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 21 - Non-administrator_rollback
    * 19 - Requests_for_adminship/Cobi
    * 19 - Highly_Active_Users/User
    * 19 - Bots/Requests_for_approval/ClueBot

Wikipedia talk
    * 15 - Highly_Active_Users
    * 12 - Bot_Approvals_Group
    * 9 - Bots/Requests_for_approval
    * 8 - Bots/Anti-vandal_bot_requirements
    * 8 - WikiProject_on_open_proxies
    * 7 - Layout
    * 6 - Edit_filter
    * 3 - Layout/Archive_4
    * 3 - Requests_for_adminship
    * 2 - WikiProject_user_warnings

File
    * 5 - UnrealIRCd_Logo.png
    * 2 - CBFPHowto2.png
    * 2 - CBFPHowto3.png
    * 2 - CBFPHowto1.png
    * 2 - CBFPHowto4.png

Template
    * 8 - Proxyip3
    * 2 - Uw-avb1
    * 2 - Opblocked
    * 2 - Uw-avb4
    * 2 - Uw-avb3
    * 2 - Uw-avb2
    * 1 - X1
    * 1 - Skyscrapers_in_Malaysia
    * 1 - Template_sandbox
    * 1 - Usurp

Template talk
    * 1 - Did_you_know
    * 1 - 2009_flu_pandemic_table

Help
    * 1 - Redirect

Category
    * 1 - Start-Class_articles
    * 1 - Screenshots_of_Windows_software

Portal
    * 1 - Law

Discussion re: Malleus' oppose

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not going anywhere useful. Viridae ^Talk 04:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]
- Opposers should remember that unless an oppose on these grounds are tied to the work of an administrator, as I tried to do, there's a chance it could be disregarded by the closing crat.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What ought those who choose to badger opposers, as you have just done, remember? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine any crat choosing to dismiss oppose rationales based on lack of substantial content work or article collaboration - the hallmarks of this project, and not to mention the crux of the problem for the previous failed RfAs. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, EVula is a crat well known for proclaiming his opinion that article writing is irrelevant, so I wouldn't be surprised if he passed this even if it plummeted to 68% or so, which doesn't seem like happening. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to divert from the candidate, but I'd find such a decision to be rather risky for one's wiki-reputation. Nevertheless, the above admonishment is inappropriate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think EVula doesn't give a tinkers' about her 'wiki reputation'; she follows what she feels is right, accepts criticism when other people disagree, and gets on with it. → ROUX ₪ 02:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cough* he *cough* (X! · talk) · @178 · 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow YellowMonkey, I didn't realize you could be that big of an ass. Thanks for the vote of confidence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reaction is hardly surprising. Lol. "I want to block him and oversight the log just to fuck with his head" goodo.... There's two Wikipedias out there. One for irrelevant patter, where all the people with the big hats live and another where the information good or bad is. At the end of the day, those on the latter are relevant and those in the former are not, even if they are de jure important. At the end of the day, banned users and racists have more impact than the former....as the odd idiot might believe everything in a wikipedia article. Nobody remembers a many crats/arbs after they retire because most of them are just populist puppets, who get all upset by the prospect of one person disagreeing with them and have no impact as powerbrokers.... Good thing I aren't as easily affected as that, especially when some double dealing politician screwed up his own double cross and killed off all his cult disciples, and tried stalking me around after that...But the reaction wasn't much of a surprise, it's quite typical of a hat-collector. It's all right, I'm not going to go crying to an arbitrator.... YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around long enough (and sat quietly for long enough on IRC) to know the MO and psychology of different types of Wikipedians (although you didn't notice me there because I wasn't wasting much time on irrelevant chat there much). Those who likes to sign up tens of committees and do just enough to become admin on lots of little wikis while doing the least amount of article editing tend to be very sensitive to criticism without doing anything often go on IRC and swear as soon as anyone disagrees with them. That's something for their fragile psyche and inferiority complex to deal with, not everyone else. They're like a North Korean general who plasters his torso full of war medals but has never seen any real action, while the rest of the people are starving, and who gets all upset when they get anything less than 99.99999% fawning. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't presume to understand my thinking. The fact that you can't discern a joke from a serious statement just goes to show you'd rather grandstand. Furthermore, if you paid any attention at all, you'd realize that I'm on IRC very sporadically; I've only recently started logging in again after about a five month absence, and even then, I'm usually on about two days a week for maybe three hours at a time. Your utter bullshit RfB comment about my IRC use (which torpedoed my second RfA, thanks for that) is the reason I have absolutely no respect for your opinion whatsoever. I understand that you have no respect for me or my contributions because I don't spend my time writing page after page of prose; I'm not good at it, and but I don't feel that I owe you or anyone else an apology. I'll just go back to signing up for my tens of committees. Feel free to go complain to an arbitrator, though I haven't the foggiest clue what you'd complain about. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're still spewing, I know, like most rubbish collectors. That other double dealing admin was still burning with hatred two years later.... I ain't worried about you and your ilk think either. Nope my comment about your IRC use in 2007 was not BS, unless you think that maybe 12 hours of chat per day is "normal". Lol YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus - he does have a point. I had to support in this RfA because of my view of policy violations in content work was outright disregarded, and you know that constantly posting disregarded statements can get you banned from the Wiki. However, this user doesn't even have major policy violations in content, so, that is even more of a reason to dismiss and then seek an all out ban. Arms are tied, after all. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have your opinion on the candidate and I have mine. I doubt either of us will change the mind of the other, or even be bothered to try. Looks like this RfA is going to pass anyway, so what does it matter what I think? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of the original statement. Nobody has to tie their rationale to the 'work of an administrator.' Nobody has to even give a rationale. What about nom statements that highlight content creation and FA, GA, etc? By that logic, all 'supports per nom' would run the fear of being discredited by crats as well. We all know that doesn't happen. People are far too critical of not just the opposes, but those who oppose. I seriously think people need to find a way to not let these votes get to them, and move along. On an additional note, MF's oppose mentioned communication skills, which is directly related to administrative work, so Wehwalt missed the mark here, as far as I can see. Law_{type! snype?} 14:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I disagree with the oppose; I think the work Cobi does is good for the project. However, it is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. It is reasonable to want admins to have created significant content and demonstrate communication skills. Firestorm ^Talk 15:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this discussion is even taking place. Joe Chill (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's become fashionable and acceptable for over-zealous supporters to harrass unpopular opposers. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do note, Malleus Fatuorum, that Wehwalt is not a supporter. Oppose #8 is Wehwalt. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, I think Malleus' oppose is perfectly reasonable, justified (though I disagree somewhat), and needed no follow up. –xeno^talk 15:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Malleus, and I wish Supporters would accept the right of Opposers to (!)vote how they wish. However, an oppose is worth 4 times as much as a support, so it is understandable that they would generate more contention than your average support vote. Prodego ^talk 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it 3x? –xeno^talk 15:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if the cutoff is 80% or 75%, I believe. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standards have slid some, perhaps, but 80% is 4 times. 75% would be 3. It used to be 80, I still use 80. Prodego ^talk 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bureaucrats don't, though. You will find that most RfAs that fall between 75 and 80% are closed as successful. 75% would be the closest approximation, although 70% and 80% are sometimes mentioned. Enigma^msg 04:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any discussion of this matter by the bureaucrats themselves? I would be particularly interested to know their opinion as a group. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I did not intend to badger anyone in particular, and certainly not Malleus. I'm just warning that after that incident last month, where a number of opposes were disregarded on the grounds I cited, leading to a promotion of a candidate who had only 2/3 of the !vote, that it is wise to state a reason where you relate it to admin duties, or you may have your !vote disregarded. Sorry to anyone who felt badgered, but as I was agreeing with their vote (I have opposed) and am seeking that people improve their rationales to insure that the crat is harder pressed to disregard, I don't think it should be viewed that way! --Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was just one crat. And no disrespect to the admin, but it was a shitty call, IMO. When we start limiting how and why people oppose and support we're in bad shape. Or actually, worse shape. Law_{type! snype?} 05:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One crat, out of thirty, of whom significantly fewer do the work of closing RfA's. I don't want to be outside the gates of 'Cratland again shouting "Where is my !vote?" again, so have no problem with encouraging people to make their !votes difficult to disregard. Malleus was simply the last !vote in line when I noticed it was happening again. Probably I should have put it on the talk page, but who would have noticed?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion section, maybe? –xeno^talk 15:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, next time I will, and sorry to Malleus, no intent to offend.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite used to people suggesting that my vote is of no value, and I only wish that the rules made it more obvious that oppose votes are unwelcome; might as well ban them completely it seems to me. Stupid support votes are perfectly OK, but any kind of oppose vote is completely unacceptable. I shan't be wasting any more time; Wikipedia has the administrators it deserves. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JoshuaZ's support

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]

Why is it not healthy? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the standards then were more than enough. We are weeding out very good candidates this way. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the community is not in accordance with that statement. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument against the statement. See Argumentum ad populum. If we were discussing some possible policy proposal this might be minimally relevant, but we aren't. (I suggest further discussion occur on the talk page since this isn't terribly relevant to the original statement). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to spend much more time discussing this - nor do I feel like a dry pedantic conversation about logical fallacies. I think it should be fairly obvious to anyone that the current community consensus is, that while the criteria may be steep, we aren't passing up good candidates. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to fan the flames, but I would like to point out that he is not debating that current consensus is as it is; he is arguing against it. I also don't like how you've made attempts at debate sound like "a dry pedantic conversation about logical fallacies." He pointed out a logical hole; the only pedantic thing is the name of the fallacy itself. —Animum (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 1300 article edits was considered enough in 2006 when most of them are machine or small tweaks, at least not later 2006 YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non-automated edits

In response to JoshuaZ saying that Cobi has sufficient "direct article editing", here is a complete list of his non-automated edits to mainspace. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (feel free to expand/improve)[reply]

Edits (not including articles he has created; see below)

2007

Shell_account - add "ClueNet"
Shell_account - add "ClueNet" and http://unixclan.no-ip.org
Shell_account - add "ClueNet"
Cobi - adds dab, including to userpage
Several - rv ClueBot
Shell_account - add "ClueNet"
Optical_illusion - Rm nonsense
Music_from_Studio_X - add {{sources}}
Music_from_Studio_X - add {{radio-stub}}
San_Andreas_Fault - rv
UniLang - add tags {{unsourced}} {{advert}}
City_Chase - add tag {{unreferenced}}
Justin_Guariglia - add tags {{unreferenced}}, {{wikify}} and {{bio-stub}}
Naturalistic_fallacy - queries a quote
avid_Jordan_(musician) - syntax fix
WBCO - tag with {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}
Internet_Relay_Chat - fulfill a {{fact}} request.
Internet_Relay_Chat_bot - remove a sentence tagged with {{fact}} six months prior
Manga_Bible_(series) -remove junk
2008
Shell_account - add link to http://wiki.cluenet.org
Tiddim_Township - remove junk
Peisistratus - rv
Black_hole - remove duplicate word
Newcastle_International_Sports_Centre - spelling
Tim_Sarkes - add tags and wikisyntax
Tim_Sarkes - remove one of the tags
Coca-Cola - remove junk
Shell_account - remove link to http://www.ircdnetworks.com
Ronald_Lee_Martin - spelling fix
Sonny_Moore - spelling fix
Pedro_Bordaberry - alt. spelling
1987 - spelling correction
Fergie_(singer) - spelling correction
Alvin_and_the_Chipmunks_(film) - spelling fixes
Shaun_Maloney - one spelling correction; many British->American spelling changes (British spelling would be more appropriate for this article)
Archangel_(pigeon) - spelling correction
2009
redirect to Mike Whitmarsh

Deleted contribs (not including edits to articles he has created; see below).

Late. Sh. M.L. Razdan - add {{wikify}}
Red skye comics - add {{wikify}}
ShellsNet - fixes broken external link; adds link to "ClueNet"
Candyfloss (book) - few spelling corrections, and tags {{wikify}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{notability}}

New articles

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Custom_Search_Engine_Enhancement_Page
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClueNet
Offline_File_System
Domain_Masking
73 articles about asteroids, and some additional edits to those articles (not mentioned above)
[1][2] created by his bot? are there more? Note the page was fixed much later.
There are more bot-created stubs. Many more. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 11:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UnrealIRCd

I am fairly sure that the Google Custom Search Engine Enhancement Page wasn't me. It was likely whoever had this account before I usurped it (it had deleted edits when I usurped it, and was informed that those would not be moved with the usurp). -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 11:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, Google Custom Search Engine Enhancement Page was indeed not created by Cobi. (it was whoever had the name before the usurp). Prodego ^talk 06:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll need to think about this more. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit filter

Why isnt the abuse log recording these actions? Those edit filters are all public. What am I missing? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the log of abuse filter actions that cobi has set off, not that he has added? Viridae ^Talk 05:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the log for Avraham. There is says "Avraham (talk · contribs) modified Special:AbuseFilter/216". The word "modified" suggests that it is changes to the abuse filter rules. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird. I have a log. So do Prodego, OverlordQ, Xeno, etc. Perhaps non-admins' EF modifications don't show up? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That log was turned on some time in July. Cobi's last change was 26 June. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]