Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobaltbluetony

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

Cobaltbluetony

Final (87/3/3); ended 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobaltbluetony (talk · contribs) by Rudget. I am simply delighted to nominate Tony for adminship, due to the many factors which I will now go on to explain. Cobaltbluetony has been a model Wikipedian for a good few years now (four in fact), but only started to actively contribute around mid–2006 and has since that time amassed over 15500+ undeleted edits and 1985 deleted contributions (this link is only available to administrators). But that is only for those that focus on edit counts...

Tony is an active participant in deletion discussions at the multiple XfD venues where his comments are always enlightening, backed by policy, use common sense and in some cases, reflect that Tony knows where he has made errors (1, 2, 3 4). CBT is a clueful user which is somewhat of a rare-ity at RfA nowadays, where he diligently updates project noticeboards to reflect newer changes which are relevant, he has refactored comments so alignment and priority comments are placed where applicable, creates sockpuppet reports where necessary (resulting in blocks for all those named), reverts clear-cut vandalism, knows CSD tagging policy, and reports articles that are in need of attention and for other reasons may be deleted.

In talkspace terms, Tony is excellent with outstanding experience in that field. A sincerely and deeply civil user (with a clean block log), he has excelled in communication with other users: commenting on user's username (which he later received a barnstar for), recognising others good work, quoting policy to inform users of where they have made mistakes, tagged articles under the applicable WikiProject ([1], [2]), removed comments that aren't constructive, and made name changes to articles where appropriate.

In the mainspace he has extensively developed the Jehovah's Witnesses article, and helped out further at Ghana, Moose, Ronaldinho, Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses etc. (see all) Furthermore, Tony has rescued articles from speedy deletion on numerous occasions (1, 2), copyedited, expanded etc.

With this in mind, I feel that Anthony is an exceptional candidate for the mop and I put him forward to you for consideration. Rudget. 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Rudget's nomination. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:05, 24 March 2008 (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: Mostly CSDs, and fighting vandalism, with an interest in working with new editors in helping them understand notability criteria.

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

A: I am proud of Indian King Tavern, Act of Consolidation, 1854, and more recently, Gakken. I am interested in the history of the area in whih I live and was amazed to find that things I thought were well-known weren't published here, so the first two articles were well-suited to help me in learning Wikipedia. Gakken, more recently, because I find loreign-language subject really difficult to evaluate, and yet I found significant eveidence revealing the notability of this company, especially in Japanese education and entertainment culture. In summary, I really enjoy creating articles which have significance I can determine through research, especially in relation to my regional interests.

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: Some time ago, I worked tirelessly against POV editors in the Jehovah's Witnesses series of articles (until I opted out of that subject matter) in an amlost unedning battle with editors whose POV edits were well-hidden in quasi-research and veiled criticisms. It was untimately too stressful for me to try to defend my efforts as unbiased (as I am a JW) while striving to keep out POV statements and/or attempt to 'edit for the enemy' and limit those statements to "here's a notable opposing point view" expressions.

More recently, I was uncharacteristically flippant with Randy Blackamoor (talk · contribs), for which I was appropriately chastised by TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs). Before that, I nearly got pulled into the Homeopathy debacle involving ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) and his aligned co-editors.
I am usually a non-confrontational individual, both in person and online, and rely on Wikipedia policies here to substantiate my viewpoints. When those viewpoints come into conflict due to individual interpretation, I much prefer discussion, arbitration, and community consensus to bickering. I loathe personal bickering with a passion. I'm not here to do that, nor will I persist in any engagement which appears untlimately fruitless. MY real life is stressful enough.

Optional (not really though, we all know that) question from Keeper:

4.You mentioned above (Q1) that you are interested in helping new editors "understand notablity criteria". Two part question:

4.1:What are our notability criteria? purposely open ended, I'd like to see where you go with this :-)

A.:The guidelines are consistent in that articles must present, or follow-up editors must be able to find verifiable, reliable sources, which should be from unbiased or uninvolved parties with some notability of their own. The sources must not contain promotional material likely posted by the subject or interested parties, and the mention must not be trivial (i.e. an events listing). The subject of the article must also be clear. (Oftentimes a person is promoted when only his company might be notable.)

Specific categories of notability rely on standard, common reliable sources to confirm notable facts such as the existence of locations (per USGS or similar), or the charting peaks of individual songs.

4.2:How exactly do you plan on "helping" them?

A.:First, I'd like to create and utilize simpler, clearer template messages, so that even quick-fingered, light-reading teen contributors can catch on sooner that this is not a trivial effort, and perhaps even take their contributions a bit more seriously and learn to contribute effectively -- instead of inundating everyone with excessive text that can frustrate otherwise capable contributors. Second, I'd like to propose a new user automatic redirect feature for attempted recreations that clearly explains why the article was deleted (in as few words as possible) before allowing them the chance to recreate. I'd also like to use the term "vandal" much less, unless the content of contributors' entries warrants it.

Optional question from Balloonman (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

5. You are reviewing speedy deletions when you come across an article that was just created by an established editor. The article as it stands does not make a claim for notability and is about a person. What do you do?

A. Depends on how "established." To give the benefit of the doubt, I might immediately tag with {{notability|Biographies}} and Google the name. If I cannot find anything, I would then message the editor to quickly make an edit. If they do not and I cannot find anything, I may speedy it, or keep searching. Ultimately, if nothing can be found, the article must be deleted. (Just for reference, I usually Google a name if the article isn't silly or about someone's hot teacher.)

6. Your nominator did a superb job of introducing you to this community. Besides getting him, what (if anything) have you done to prepare for your RfA?

A. Well, first of all, he offered without my initiation. Second, I'm not sure what I should have been doing that I'm not doing now. (Is this a trick question?)

No, there is no correct answer. While I like to see people who have given some thought to the subject before their RfA, it is not required. I like it when I see people who have gone through Admin Coaching OR did some self study. I like it primarily because it it's a person who has given thought to the subject and considered it. That being said, responding to an offer is also perfectly acceptable. I know that when I ran, I increased my activity by 50% for the 6 weeks leading up to my RfA---I actively got inolved with places that I wasn't familiar to get some additional experience. (You can tell when I ran just by looking at my edit count history.)Balloonman (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

7. Please review the Leigh Bowery article. How, in general, would you address the concerns shown at the top? Are there any additional concerns that you have?

A. Immediately I notice that the importance of the individual is not clear in the introduction. "Early career" starts with the individual's birth. The "tone" tag is quite accurate, as well as this information not be relevant to his notability, nor his unique style (presuming this is notable as well). It's entirely a POV biography. There are some potentially offensive sentences as part of the POV, which should be stricken of everything except cold statement of facts.

The {{citations missing}} tag should be added, as the plethora of external links evidently being used as reference material are not properly linked into the individual statements or sections they might support. The MySpace link text is inappropriate; the link itself is marginally eligible if it contains unique subject-written material, as if the subject were using it as a blog.

All that being said, I'm not sure how this addresses my adminship...

Continuing... The reference tag can be addressed by review ALL of the external links and locating what statements they may support. The tone has to be addressed as a total rewrite, which may in fact release some of the external links from being needed. The sections tag can most easily addressed by modifying the career into decades or other significant eras. The MoS issues are minor, but included non-capitalization of common words in section headers except the first words. ... Is there more?

Questions from Chetblong^Talk_Sign

8. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A:A block is a technical mechanism; a ban is a community decision that basically tells an editor, 'we don't want you editing here for a while,' or, 'ever again.'

9. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A: Initiate discussion through talk pages, and determine which policies each of us are relying on for our viewpoints, and work for a resolution or compromise, inviting community input if desired or required.

10. When should "cool down blocks" be used?

A:They Blocks should be used when editors persist in making personal attacks and fail to assume good faith, or other blatant policy and civility violations that disrupt the community, maintenance, and the progress of article improvement. They shouldn't be used soley to shut up an angry user, as this simply makes them angrier. clarified

11. What is your opinion on WP:IAR?

A: IAR is meant to enforce the spirit of the rules here, and these rules are created by community consensus, which can change. Rules may outlive their usefulness, no longer be applicable, or otherwise no longer make sense. Breaking a rule will undoubtedly create a reaction, and that will generate a consensus, either for or against the action. HisSpaceResearch is experiencing this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbeat (Scouting for Girls song). I applied the strict rule for individual songs requiring some sort of charting, while HSR seems certain that the article subject is destined to meet the criteria anyway, and very soon, so "jumping the gun" on this one isn't a big deal. I think this AfD represents a test of those criteria, inasmuch as HSR has even cited IAR.

Question from Black Kite

12. The article Dragonlance modules (DL series) has problems with excessive fair-use images. How would you deal with the issue?

A: While I am not very educated on Wikipedia image usage, I believe this question addresses the value and encyclopedicity of images. Presuming all of this images are without any lingering issues, a concensus among users should be reached, with the hope that they will be willing to support and enforce a reasonable limit on the number of images in the articles. The relevant images should depict the topics in question in a manner that more easily illustrates the subject than could a narrative description, and be of an encyclopedic quality, or best possible.

Optional Question from Meldshal42

13. As an admin, how would you deal with new users in need? How will you teach them how to be ideal editors? Please remember that Admins are exemplary for new users.

A:If I am to build a more direct relationship with individual users, then I would not template them on mistakes (depending, of course, on their willingness to respond and express an interest in making improvements), but write notes from scratch citing policies, guidelines, and locating good examples of such for their reference. Some of the more complex policies also probably need to be simplified for newer users, so communicating them in such a way would help them grasp the concepts and improve their methods and encourage them to reference actual policies and guidelines on their own. I would also do my best to make them feel coached as by an associate, and not spied upon like some Orwellian bureaucrat, and most certainly would not use adminship as some sort of threat to get my way.

General comments

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

• Links for Cobaltbluetony: Cobaltbluetony (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Per nom. Rudget. 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong Support per nom. Editor has a strong need for the tools and I believe would use them responsibly. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - Yes, per the nom by far. Very detailed and informative. User participates evenly on the wiki, has a level head, engages in civil discussion and leaves me with a feeling of trust. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support, Tony has been very helpful on the antivandalism front for a long time. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong Support Seen him around a lot, and have been very impressed by his skill and judgement. Will be an excellent admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Very strong support. Someone who can be trusted to rescue/improve as their first instinct. MrPrada (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Yup.. Nice answers! I had already looked through your superb contribs, (and I'd seen you around anyway and had a postivite vibe). You answered question 4 superbly, as I also detest the word "vandal". Nail/Head/Hit. Easy support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

   Not that this is necessary, solicited, or even productive, let me assert, upon reading your answers to Balloonman, (as an admin coach no less!), that standing for adminship honestly has no prerequisites. You have done nothing wrong, based on my research of your edits/contribs, you have done a lot right, and for that matter admin coaching is not required, and I am happy to support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

   er, where did I say there were any requirements? In fact, I went out of my way to stress that preparation isn't required. I was just curious if he had done anything! And if so, what. I guess my bolding the comment, there is no correct answer was missed? or my comment, "That being said, responding to an offer is also perfectly acceptable." And I made my response BEFORE you responded here. His nomination and answers to questions are quite impressive, which is what led me to ask the question. I need to look at his contributions, but I would be very surprised if I find anything that would prevent me from supporting.Balloonman (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry, balloonman, you are absolutely right. I didn't mean to single you (or your questions) out, your question was a good one. I misread your question, and for that, I apologize. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

   Apology accepted and issue forgotten.Balloonman (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Support. Anthøny 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Good answers to questions. Seen him around. No apparent problems. --John (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support per the nom and answers to questions. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. Per obvious qualifications and my trust of Rudget's nom. Tan | 39 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support KTC (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Strong support -- I needn't really say much here..brilliant user all round...very friendly....--Camaeron (t/c) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Thought he was one! GlassCobra 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong support (Insert standard text here expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin). I've noticed this editor around a number of places on wikipedia -- judgement has always been good, and communication has always been excellent. No worries here.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Support: Seen him around, can definitely be trusted with the tools. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Support No problems here. --Sharkface217 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong Support. Good editor. I trust the nominator besides...Malinaccier (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Support per nom, well-rounded candidate. Spencer^T♦C 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - per excellent nomination details and great answers to questions. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - should have the tools.   jj137 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
26. -- Naerii 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Strong Support Color me sentimental but User:Cobaltbluetony welcomed me to wikipedia and I've been watching his page ever since. His energy is astounding and though I've neither interacted with him and nor have we edited the same articles, his discussion page is a model of fair comments without being wishy washy. No question that he'll make a great admin!--RegentsPark (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Strong Support It is excellent to see in the answer to Q1 that the candidate plans to "work with new editors in helping them understand notability criteria". It's great to see someone who says specifically that they want to work with new editors, rather than just delete things. Dean B (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. Impeccably trustworthy I think. I've scene him around and I've never had an issue with his judgement. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Great editor, file under "though he was already an admin." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Support on excellent potential. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Rudget gave one of the best introductions to an RfA candidate in a long time and his answers so far have been excellent... I didn't have to spend too much time reviewing his edits to become convinced that Cobalt not only knows the policies but lives them. Good luck.Balloonman (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - excellent answers to questions, great to see he wants to work with new users, mop-time for tony! Good luck! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
34. No big deal, and a Rudget endorsement that was close to some of my better ones :P dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Support, contributions seem solid enough, no evidence that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
36. Support have come across user often enough to base a positive judgment. Level headed - good admin material. Agathoclea (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Looks like tony will make a great admin. ArcAngel (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Supporting per a great nom and no evidence that he will be anything less then great. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - definitely deserving. I know it's a cliché, but I was surprised to learn he isn't already an admin. Deb (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Support - a good solid editor who is thoughtful and civil. No reason not to trust him with the tools. --BelovedFreak 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
41. Support As per Rudget and Track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
42. And good answers. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Tony does a lot of good work here and would make an excellent admin. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Excellent editor. Acalamari 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - Excellent answers. iMatthew 2008 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Support - good answers to questions, and I've seen him around here often enough that I can trust him. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Support TheProf | Talk 17:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Yes. Lawrence § t/e 17:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the issue raised by the opposer and find it to be insubstantial. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
50. Support A fine quality editor who has demonstrated the skills to be an excellent administrator. My only regret is that I have but one vote to stand opposite one of the most illegitimate excuses to oppose. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    If ignoring WP:BIO, overlooking WP:CRYSTAL and suggesting that he supports !vote counting as a method of closing an AfD is an illegitimate excuse for opposing, I'd like to know what is legitimate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

51. Support — per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen King (soccer). CobaltBlueTony has the common sense to get the job done, and is not keen on wikilawyering. He knows and understands policy and guidelines and will be a fine sysop. EJF (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - per answers to questions and my criteria. Good luck with the tools (though I'm sure you wont need it) :D. --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
53. Support -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - per wonderful nom by Rudget (like normal). Best of luck, Tiptoety ^talk 22:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
55. Support - He’ll make an excellent admin. —Travis^talk 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
56. Support via prima facie flaminglawyer^c 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
57. Support Jmlk17 01:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
58. Support Just a little worried over the mainspace edits (only a third of all the edits) but fine anyway. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
59. Support A no-brainer for me. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
60. Support Hell yes. About time. - KrakatoaKatie 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. The opposition here is very unconvincing. That someone thinks the notability guideline leads to bad results if enforced with an iron fist and with no flexibility, and should be applied with some common sense is a good thing. Nothing in this candidate's record which does not indicate a responsible use of the tools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
62. Support Per nom. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 11:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
63. Support a clear net positive to the project. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
64. Support after I got a short view over his work. abf /talk to me/ 13:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
65. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
66. Support. Some well-researched articles on local history, and sensible statements without getting hung up on pseudo-procedure at the footy AfD. Glad to support. Relata refero (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
67. Support Excellent editor. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
68. Support I trust his judgement. --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    NB I don't often feel the need to extensively explain a Support, but this seems to deserve it. My Support is despite my strongly-held utter disagreement with the user at the Stephen King AfD referred to by the opposers. I don't expect to agree with every AfD opinion a candidate expresses. And this candidate has an extensive track-record of impressive contributions that demonstrate the kind of things I want to see - consensus working, understanding of process and the humility/flexibility to change his mind on things. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

69. Strong support due to the answers given; very concise. Well done. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{I push my hand up to the sky} 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
70. Slade (TheJoker) 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
71. Support - no reason to believe this user will misuse the tools. - Philippe | Talk 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
72. Support Although Tony and I don't see eye to eye sometimes at AfD I've always had an excellent experience hearing his input and considering his points. He is always thoughtful toward what he feels is best for the project and I think he will do well as an admin.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
73. Support, trustworthy, excellent editor. Accurizer (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
74. Support Looks good. нмŵוτнτ 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
75. If Dweller vouches for him, he's trustworthy enough for me. The Transhumanist 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
76. Support Dedicated and experienced user. Kudos to Rudget for the extensive, well detailed nom. Húsönd 02:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
77. Support --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
78. Support Based on this user's history, I am reasonably comfortable that extending the community's trust in his judgment will not be abused. -- Avi (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
79. Support. A fine editor. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 10:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
80. Support - I'm not concerned by the AfD because he is displaying rational judgement. Some may disagree with his view but his stance is not outrageous. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
81. Support Good number of edits. Seems like abold editor. See my question below. Good luck! Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 15:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
82. Support The user is dedicated to help new contributors and not eager to delete, these are good qualities for an admin. Per nom too, Cenarium^Talk 16:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
83. Support - Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
84. Support Convinced by endorsements above. That, plus the truly weak rationale for the few opposes. I examined the afd in question and found him to be entirely reasonable. Jpmonroe (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
85. Support There is no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
86. Support. Zaxem (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
87. Support, good edit history, excellent answers and seems to be fairminded. Will make a good admin. Dreadstar † 06:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry, but the comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen King (soccer) (ignoring WP:BIO amongst other things) are a little worrying. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

   "Worrying"? I'd say you just disagree with him. Tan | 39 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

   I would note this more (as above) a disagreement rather than a cause for concern. The positives which are laid out heavily above outweigh this one instance, for me at least. Rudget. 16:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

   I've made my discontent with this tactic of connecting my opinion on one article to a negative prediction of my presumed future adminship known on this user's talk page. Hopefully, opposition is merely a strong reaction on this user's part, and does not reflect his/her careful review of the presentation above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

   So if I see someone making what I see as a poor judgement on an AfD, and then realise that they're currently going through an RfA, I should keep my mouth shut? I haven't come here to oppose in hope of getting the candidate to reconsider his !vote at the AfD (I actually waited until he had made a couple of replies to my concerns about his ignoring WP:BIO before making my comment here), and I am not trying to hide the fact that we are currently in a disagreement, but the whole point of an RfA is for editors who have been in contact with the candidate to come and make their views known; the fact that my contact has been very recent makes me look like I have a bad case of sour grapes, but I feel it is a legitimate concern. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

   Keep your mouth shut? Certainly not. We always welcome opinion, I just don't understand how one incident can over-rule everything else that has been shown above. Rudget. 17:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

   I can only go on my personal experiences with the candidate. Anyway, it's clear that this AfD is going to be successful (46-1 at the time I commented), but it's something that I feel needs to be mentioned; perhaps it will make the candidate think twice before applying WP:IAR in the future. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

   For the record, the AfD in question will probably be kept, as the ratio of Keeps to Opposes is about 3:1. There are 10+ editors in agreement with Cobaltbluetony. Kingturtle (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose This is why it's 'worrying'. It's long been established that sportsmen need to have made at least one appearance at the top or professional level to merit an article. The King AfD shows that Cobaltbluetony is happy to ignore this long standing convention. Were he to become an admin he'd have the power to act on this belief, in contravention of policies which nearly everyone else accepts. Allowing American soccer players to have articles before they make an appearance opens the flood gates to having every wannabe player on a teams 'roster' everywhere in the world and for every sport. This would be a terrible precedent. Obviously all those voting in favour either do not understand the implications of this or think them unimportant. If that's the case then fair enough, but it's also fair to raise this issue. It's not simply a matter about disagreeing on a borderline case, it's about one man's wish to change a oft cited policy which will affect innumerable articles in the future. Nick mallory (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

   Were he to become an admin, he'd have the power, just as all admins have, to not speedy delete an article. That happens all the time, and meanwhile another admin may decide to speedy delete said article. It is ok if an admin doesn't speedy delete an article. In this case, he is stating his case in an AfD to keep an article. He's not saying "If you delete this, then I'll create it again" or "I hate you all for doing this." He's participating in the process, civilly. Kingturtle (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

   I am not "happy to ignore," nor am I happy to be subjected to sarcastic humor just to prove a point. See my thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbeat (Scouting for Girls song). I'm not okay with the blind notion that a subject is likely to be notable. I need more convincing evidence; Stephen King's career and imminent scheduled participation in an MLS event in less than a week was enough for me to at least want to wait until that event happens before being so indifferent and stalwart on cold rule enforcement as to immediately demand its deletion. That, I think, is the point of IAR. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose sorry, but a wannabe admin should understand the current well-established guidelines instead to simply call WP:IAR with no justification. WP:IAR is policy but must be used reasonably, since it is not a trump card. --Angelo (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

   I believe my first ever invocation of IAR is reasonable because the player shows a very high probability of playing Saturday, and possesses other ancillary factors which add to his notability. Personally, I think that simply playing shouldn't make a person notable, but I'm not a sports enthusiast, and the community consensus differs. So then this player isn't just an established candidate for MLS, he's excelled in all the arenas leading up to his being signed, which makes creating his article technically four days premature not unreasonable, and will add to the quality of Wikipedia -- unlike the AfD debate. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

   So you don't think that playing in the league confers notability? Now I'm just confused. The areas he's 'excelled' at are all obviously less significant, in terms of playing soccer, than his supposed forthcoming appearance yet they count for more than actually playing in the league? This makes no sense whatsoever. My point is that muddying the waters about what constitutes notability for sportsmen or not will just create huge numbers of such speculative articles which will clog up AfD with no clear rules for their settlement if this sort of thing is allowed. Nick mallory (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

   I was expressing my own individual opinion of sports. I support the community's criteria over my own opinion. The timing of this is critical. If this article were to have appeared a year ago, I would immediately have marked it for CSD. Speculation is also a loose term. Should we disallow Olympian articles a week before the Games because they technically haven't competed yet? Or would good preparation create better articles, trumping the flood of junk that would overflow us as soon as those names become more prominent in the media? This isn't an article about an MLS hopeful. He's in the League. I have no intention of allowing "hopefuls" to get predictive articles, but a League player on the starting roster who just so happens to have not yet played a pro game doesn't immediately strike me as non-notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Cannot support based on answer to Q10, but cannot oppose due to great track record. Changed to support after below clarification. ArcAngel (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

With answer 10, Tony first addresses when a block is appropriate and then goes on to explain when it should be used as a CDB (i.e. never). Rudget. 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral this comment seems to show that the candidate seems to believe that AfD's can by judged by the !vote counting method, rather than an informed consideration of the issues. I would hate to see this candidate become yet another !vote counting AfD closer. I hope the candidate accepts that 100 !votes based on WP:ILIKEIT or WP:CRYSTAL should never outweigh one !vote based on policy guidelines. I will not oppose, because of the good track record and my assumption that the candidate will take note of my point. English peasant 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

   I think, if you put that comment in perspective, you'll see that Tony is using the vote count to illustrate his point that its not clear that this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue and not a policy statement that AfDs can be judged by the !vote counting method. It would appear that most of the users on that vote are willing to wait a few days to see if King plays or not before deleting the article. The record on this issue seems to show Tony at his best, reasonable and showing common sense. You're, of course, entitled to your opinion and vote, but you might want to take a second look at the exchange that you're basing your neutral vote on. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I'm a bit nervous about the WP:BIO issue. It's not enough to oppose, IMO, but it's tipped the balance away from support for me. I've got this on my watchlist, I may take another look at it in a day or two. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I know I've definitely seen this editor around, and had a negative reaction to him - I think for using revert tools to re-prod articles. (I remember going to his homepage and thinking, admin hopeful, huh? Not if I have anything to say about it!) However, I've been unable to find the examples, and I don't feel it would be fair to oppose without something specific to point to. It was long enough ago that he may have changed his ways, anyway. I also think he's probably too deletionist for my taste, but I have to applaud him for showing common sense in the soccer player's AFD. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

   A valid concern, but I should point out that I was not aware of the logistics behind prods early on; I've since taken to AfD's deprodded articles which I have felt should not be here. Also, is vandal-fighting and junk article deleting considered "deletionism"? I'm curious as to your take on it because I see myself as rather neutral, and can go either way. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:50, 31 March 2008 (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.