Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cullen328

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

Cullen328

Final: (316/2/3) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 16:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Cullen328 (talk · contribs) – Hi. Let me present Cullen328. It’s been a long time coming - I first spoke to Jim 2 years ago, and one can’t drag people of Cullen’s maturity kicking and yelling to RfA. However, due to changes in his domestic situation, he is now finally ready to stand up and be counted. Actually, Jim doesn’t need much presentation. Even with not so much time on his hands in the past he’s been seen everywhere and is a familiar name to many editors and certainly a familiar face to at least over 1,000 new users who received his perfect advice.
Solid content creation, 8 years unbroken regular editing for nearly 48,000 edits and not one single automated edit in his count, which by the way includes nearly 5,000 posts to the Teahouse, hundreds more to other help desks and noticeboards, and 2,400+ AfD with an accuracy >90%. which is certainly proof enough of his feeling for deletion policies. His polite manner is a model for us all - including me. All which demonstrate a very wide knowledge which needs no further elaboration from me as your own research will confirm. All you need to do is join me and lend your support to a person who I’m guessing will be one of our best admins ever. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

If I had to pick one editor who the phrase "I thought he was already an admin" would be written for, it's Cullen328. He is one of the most kindest, considerate and sensible editors I know, and has contributed beyond the call of duty in the Teahouse where he shows continued tolerance, understanding and patience towards new users. While he's not a heavy hitter in the FAC crowd, he's done some fine work on George Meany which he took to GA, and has created plenty of great short articles such as Marina Rustow and the Manetti Shrem Museum of Art, that clearly shows he deserves the autopatrolled right. His track record at AfD speaks for itself, but more importantly, you should look at the articles listed on his userpage that he improved to cement a "keep" consensus - this not only gives us a more appropriate result in the debate but improves the encyclopedia at the same time. Most importantly, whenever I see him express an opinion on a noticeboard, he always sounds like he has the project's best interests at heart. In short, I sincerely believe Cullen328 will become one of our best administrators, and I hope the community wholeheartedly endorses this view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination with gratitude. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I have quite a bit of experience with Articles for Deletion debates and am confident in my ability to evaluate consensus and close debates when appropriate. At the Teahouse where I am an active host, we are often asked "Why was my article deleted?" The power to view deleted content will give me the ability to tailor customized answers rather than generic responses to such questions, and to userfy any material that has the potential to develop into useful encyclopedic content. I am a strong supporter of our policy on biographies of living people. I am prepared to apply appropriate levels of protection to BLPs that have been the subject of sustained negative editing contrary to policy. I intend to ease slowly into use of the administrative tools, asking frequent advice of experienced administrators. I would be willing to expand, gradually, into other areas of administrative activity. I am unlikely, though, to get involved with areas requiring technical computer skills, since I am aware of my own strengths and weaknesses.

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

A: Since this is a project to create and improve a free encyclopedia, I believe that the articles that I have created and expanded are my best contributions. I list them on my user page.

I am proud of my contributions to these Good articles: George Meany was an important figure in mid 20th century American history, and I worked to transform a poor article into a much better article. Harry Yount is a fascinating figure in 19th century American history. Vaillancourt Fountain is a controversial San Francisco landmark. Salade niçoise is a recent effort, and I am confident that it is the most comprehensive discussion of this classic French dish readily available in English. Morleigh Steinberg is a dancer and that article was was a collaboration with a young Cuban editor working with limited internet access. Cedric Wright was the best friend of Ansel Adams, and this biography combined my interests in photography, California mountains and the Sierra Club. I am happy to discuss my contributions to any article, and feel good about my contributions in general.

I am also very proud of my contributions to the Teahouse, where we try to assist new editors in learning how to write acceptable articles. It gives me a lot of satisfaction to help send new editors in the right direction. My contributions are all for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, either directly or indirectly.

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

A: I think that any generalist editor who has been widely active for eight years has probably been in a few conflicts and experienced some stress. Personally, the conflicts have been infrequent and the stress relatively minor. I do not seek out conflict and I learned a long time ago that if I take a stand based on my best understanding of our policies and guidelines, I do not need to worry too much about the matter. It is my inclination to try to turn lemons into lemonade, so if consensus goes against me, I take a different direction to improve the encyclopedia in another way. I have described my attitude at the Teahouse as "friendly but firm", and I try to say some kind words to editors going through rough times. Kindness helps reduce stress, in my opinion.

Tryptofish has said that they prefer to see some specific examples of my response to stressful interactions, so here are four from my talk page. The first two are related.

• A closer look

• Divisive harrassing templating

• Following your advice has lead to an attempt to impose sanctions on me at ANI

• teahouse comment on iqperson

I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Andrew Davidson

4. Your user page commends the essay WP:OWB which includes, "Troublesome editors waste far more of the community's time than vandals. One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia. This is in part due to people's fascination with conflict. Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult." Do you expect to make a difference in this? If so, how? Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A:Thank you for your question, Andrew Davidson. I think that essay you quoted helps illuminate some of the common behavioral patterns that we see, but I do not agree with every word of it. I have no easy answers to the problem described in that quote and am under no illusions that I have unique abilities to correct such behavior. I believe that the best way is for me to model civility and to treat other people the way that I hope to be treated. That is why I am so active at the Teahouse, a place with a strong expectation of courtesy and helpfulness. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Gerda Arendt

5. If you read the last two RfAs you know my question already: An article was recently protected, - would you have done the same, and why, or not, and why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A: Thank you for your question, Gerda Arendt. I want to commend you for your consistent kind words to other editors, and I will comment that you and I have previously discussed infoboxes several times. It is striking to me that there is no discussion of the merits or disadvantages of an infobox on the article's talk page, although there is a warning to an IP editor about edit warring there. Perhaps the positions about infoboxes are so entrenched that nobody believes any longer that they can possibly persuade others. One week of protection did not resolve the issue and slow motion edit warring has continued. In that sense, protection was not successful, so, with the benefit of hindsight, I can tell you that I would not have done that. Most likely, if obligated to act as as administrator, I would have started with personalized warnings to those engaging in edit warring along with a plea for talk page discussion. As a general rule, in the case of a dispute between an IP editor and established editors, imposing semi-protection hands a defeat to the IP editor. Unless the IP editor is clearly violating policy, I am very concerned about the unfairness of using semi-protection that way. I am sorry that I have no magic bullet to offer that would resolve this intractible dispute. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that our weapons should not be magic bullets, but - as you said - kind words ;) There is no talk page discussion for Noye's Fludde (TFA 14 July) nor Mozart's C minor concerto (TFA 24 March) nor Reger's Requiem (TFA 16 July 2016), the three most recently shown top quality articles on classical music compositions. There is a talk page discussion on Ludwig van Beethoven, a classical composer, pianist and conductor, closed with kind words from Worm That Turned. There is one for Pierre Boulez (another composer and conductor). It happened in January 2016, when he died, and I decided then that it would be my last, - waste of time. There is a talk page discussion on Maritana (another composition) where the weapon of kind words was used by Voceditenore. There is an RfC on Harry Lauder, and the related thread on ANI was just closed. You can win bonus points by kind words in the RfC, but I support your candidacy already ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, in a discussion below with SchroCat, I learned that you declined to discuss your wish for an infobox at Talk:Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher. You really should have done so.If you had explained why there, your case would be much stronger. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about the protection, nothing else. I wanted to see what you see. Not sure I understand the rather complicated wording about "declined". I don't care if Jeanne has an infobox. I add one (to that article and others) because I think it's better for the reader, but if it's reverted, I usually don't take the time to discuss. There are hundreds of articles to improve. - I care about the treatment of an IP, that I - assuming good faith - believe had no idea about what you called an "intractible dispute". How can we expect an IP to read article history and edit summaries? Not a RFA question, just a general one. My last comment was also not a question. I remember singing Le Roi David as a highlight of my amateur chorus singing career. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Figureofnine

6. I was wondering what your view is on enforcement of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for long-term editors who are content creators, administrators, code-writers, or otherwise of greater-than-normal service to the community. Do you believe that such persons, when called to account for uncivil conduct, should not be held to the same standard of behavior as less senior, less valued editors? The rationale, for people who favor such a de facto exemption, is that their contributions to the project are of such immensity that a tendency toward incivility is over-weighted by their value to the project. Or do you believe that the principles set forth in WP:VESTED and WP:EQUALITY should be strictly adhered to? Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this, Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A: Thank you for your question, Figureofnine. Let me begin my answer to your tough question by stating clearly that no editor is exempt from our civility policy and no one is entitled to endless passes allowing them to engage in repeated personal attacks. That being said, an occasional infraction from a highly productive contributor can best be dealt with through a carefully worded warning and resolved with an apology. Also worth consideration is that some people enjoy engaging in passive aggressive behavior intended to push other people's buttons. This is akin to poking a caged bear with a stick, and it is ugly. Everyone should expect to be blocked or worse if they freely choose to engage in repeated personal attacks and provocations, and no one person is indispensable to this encyclopedia. But sanctions are ineffective unless they enjoy broad support from the community, and I do not intend to function as a one person civility enforcement patrol. Instead, I will continue advocating for civility whenever I think that I have something useful to contribute to the ongoing conversation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from SoWhy

7. In your own words, when can an article be speedy deleted under A7?

A: Thank you for your question, SoWhy. I am a slow moving (and perhaps slow thinking) person, so I participate at AfD as opposed to NPP, and therefore rarely invoke CSD myself. However, these processes are essential to the functioning of the encyclopedia, so this is my understanding: A7 has two elements. First, it applies only to biographies , individual animals (but not species), organizations (but not educational institutions), web content (but not software), or events. It does not apply to books, albums or other creative works. Second, the article cannot include a credible claim of significance, which is a lower threshold than notability. Here are two examples, based on the fact that I own a Boston Terrier named Dexter. An article that says only "Dexter is an extremely cute Boston Terrier" is eligible for A7, but an article that says "Dexter is a Boston Terrier who stars in the upcoming Hollywood film Triumph of the Terriers" is not eligible for A7, even if the content is unverified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions from George Ho

8. Hello, Jim. It's been a while since our encounter in 2014. Anyway, you declare yourself an advocate of "Civility" policy. I respect your stance. However, I read some criticisms toward the civility policy. How productive do you think is enforcing the civility policy?

A: Thank you for your questions, George Ho. I do not think that can properly be called an "encounter". You asked me to comment on an article title, and I declined because I did not care one way or the other. I discussed civility in Question #6 above. I emphasize practicing and encouraging civility rather than enforcement. Obviously, gross violations of policy need to be addressed by administrators and by the community, but that will not be my first priority as a new administrator since many other administrators work on that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

9. What are your thoughts on the CSD policy and its individual criteria, especially the highly discussed A7?

A: I discussed CSD and A7 in Question #7. I have no significant concerns about CSD policy but I do have broader concerns about how we manage and triage the flood of new articles of poor quality. I support efforts at reform, in general, such as Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Anoptimistix

10. Thanks for your contributions Cullen.you are an amazing contributor you often help new contributors and strive to save worthy articles from deletion at AfD. But after becoming administrator would you be that much polite and generous as you are now? And what would you do with a new contributor who unintentionally vandalize pages or add unsourced contents (as they may not be aware with citing sources process would you block them or help them?

A: Thank you for your question, Anoptimistix. My style of interaction will not change if I become an administrator because it is a reflection of my personality. I am 65 years old and fairly set in my ways. I intend to continue assisting at the Teahouse and writing and expanding articles. Except in egregious cases, I do not believe in rapid blocks, and would always start with repeated friendly advice followed by escalating warnings and would only consider a block when a pattern of disruptive behavior cannot be corrected through other means. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Forceradical

11. You find the following article in the New Pages what would you do?(Please do not take into consideration the fact that I created the article or the fact that the article has later revisions)

A: Thank you for your question, Forceradical. I have already discussed CSD in Questions #7 and #9, and have explained the reasons why I am not a new pages patroller, although I recognize the importance of the work that team does. Instead, I will answer as if this question had come to my attention at the Teahouse, where I am active. I do not recommend that experienced editors (or any editor for that matter) add brief unreferenced stubs to the encyclopedia main space. That imposes an unneeded burden on new page patrollers, and can lead to a conflict. Instead, I recommend that editors use sandbox or draft space to develop an article until it has at least three solid references that demonstrate notability. I have done this with all the articles that I have written, and none have been deleted. Another suggestion is to be aware that the word "bike" usually means a human powered bicycle in the US and possibly other countries, so you may want to use language that makes it clear to all readers that you are describing a motorized cycle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Darreg

12. One of the mechanism Wikipedia uses to ensure it is not clumped up with unnecessary, irrelevant and insignificant topics is the concept of notability. When the notability of a subject could be controversial, editors generally put the notability tag or nominate for deletion. When do you think each one of this methods (ie AFD and notability tag) is appropriate and do you think all articles with a notability tag should be nominated for deletion, if not why?

A: Thank you for your question, Darreg. Because I have been participating at AfD for so many years, your question goes to the heart of issues that I care about very much. No, I certainly do not think that every article with a notability tag should be nominated for deletion. When a productive editor encounters any article where notability is at issue, the first step should be to engage in a competent good faith search for coverage of the topic in reliable sources. This should go beyond a quick Google search of the title of the article. It should, at a minimum, include alternate names, additional keywords, and Google News and Google Books searches. When searching for coverage of a book title consisting of common words, for example, throw the author's surname and publisher into the search query. Editors must also consider language issues as certain topics may require searches in languages rendered in other scripts. I consider it a mistake to nominate articles for deletion without engaging in a competent notability search first. A good faith notability tag is better than a poor AfD nomination. All that being said, my record at AfD shows that I am not a blind inclusionist. I advocate keeping articles about topics that I truly believe are notable, while supporting the deletion of the detritus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please allow me to add to my own answer by recommending that any editor who discovers coverage in reliable sources that establishes notability should format those sources as references and add them to the article. If that editor finds the topic interesting and has the time, they should consider expanding and improving the article in more fundamental ways. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions from Callmemirela

13. If you were involved in a content dispute but found something actionable as an admin, what would you do? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A: Thank you for your question, Callmemirela. If I am involved with any content dispute acting as an ordinary editor, then I will not ever use the administrative tools in that dispute. Period. Instead, I would reach out to uninvolved administrators without advocating for an outcome. I would simply say something like, "Please take a look at this specific problematic situation. Thank you." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

14. If a long-standing user were to be involved in an dispute/edit war, what are your approaches to settle it as a neutral admin? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A: All long term editors know that edit warring is not acceptable so a firm and unambiguous warning is called for in such cases. But I prefer personalized discussion to standardized templates when dealing with established contributors. Warnings phrased in a friendly, kind fashion that indicates that the administrator has taken a look at the underlying dispute are most effective. I will always strive to encourage de-escalation, broader input, and sincere efforts to build consensus. Diplomacy works. Editors who have made mistakes deserve friendly, understanding words, and need them even more than those of us who are just plugging along avoiding trouble. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions from Mr rnddude

15. A couple of AfD specific questions. In your opinion, what role do supplementing notability guidelines (guidelines other than GNG basically) play in establishing notability during deletion discussions? Can an article be notable without meeting GNG? or even the opposite, not notable while meeting GNG.

A: Thank you for your questions, Mr rnddude. Notability is the overarching guideline, and both the General notability guideline and the various Special notability guidelines are tools for evaluating overall notability. A notable topic can qualify by one or another. Therefore, a topic can be notable without meeting the GNG. According to WP:ACADEMIC, for example, a professor whose published academic research is widely cited as influential by their academic peers is considered notable and eligible for an article even if no newspaper or magazine has published a journalistic profile of that person. Passing the GNG is no guarantee that a topic is eligible for an encyclopedia. For example, news outlets worldwide may report in gushing detail that Celebrity A went on a "date" with Celebrity B. One could argue that this date is now notable, but I consider it extremely unlikely that this encyclopedia should have an article about it. Editorial judgment is always important. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

16. This exhaustive AfD discussion resulted in such a covfefe that it spawned an equally exhaustive and protracted deletion review. I don't really want to make you read all of the discussion, there are to my quick ctrl-f count about 300 !votes, however as you are going into adminning at AfD, what I want to know is; do you think the close was a reasonable interpretation of policy and the discussion and was it adequately detailed in explanation? If no, what would you have done differently and why? (Basically, I'm asking; how would you have closed the discussion and why?)

A: I support the outcome of "merge" to Donald Trump on social media, which now covers Trump's Twitter typo in detail. A merge discussion was also underway when the AfD was closed. The closer should have offered a detailed explanation but later corrected that error. I endorse their explanation and the result of the deletion review. Unsurprisingly, debate was marred by !votes having nothing to do with policies and guidelines, but administrators have to separate the wheat from the chaff. I probably would have chosen to refrain from closing this particular debate, because of my very strong personal feelings about Donald Trump, which I express openly off Wikipedia. Here, I always strive for neutrality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Cullen328: Cullen328 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Cullen328 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support as co-nominator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Second. :D—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Third. :D Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Eleventh. (((The Quixotic Potato)))(talk) 16:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Support. Very easy decision, Cullen328 is one of the best we've got. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Support. Excellent candidate, no concerns. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
7. Support. A certain positive and not at all likely to abuse the tools.
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
8. Support - Cullen328 will be even more of an asset to the project if he is granted the extra buttons. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
9. Support - candidate shows the required temperament and ability that we should expect from our administrators -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
10. Support - I don't even need to read it. Make it happen.  :) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
11. Strongest support - Cullen328 is the epitome of all we seek and need in an admin. Clone him. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
12. Support we can skip the scrutiny. Someone please post at WP:BN to let them know of the election by acclamation. IAR and whatnot :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
13. Support Certainly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
14. Strongest support Hooray! I've been waiting years for this redlink to turn blue! Best possible candidate, already a great asset to the encyclopedia, will be even more so with tools. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
15. Support. No explanation needed. Biblio (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
16. Support. I haven't personally interacted with him all that much, but he's always impressed me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
17. (edit conflict) Support. Absolutely. Unequivocally. Without question. And long overdue. Mz7 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

    If any of you are interested, I recommend giving Cullen328's presentation on the Teahouse a watch. Here's a link. Mz7 (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

18. Support My goodness is it WP:SNOWing in July? Absolutely a great asset to the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
19. Support - no concerns whatsoever, and I second Rosiestep's request for Cullen clones. --bonadea contributions talk 17:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
20. Of course. Esquivalience (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
21. Yes! ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
22. (edit conflict × 2)Support Haven't !voted in an RfA recently, but this is a clear and obvious choice. --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 17:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
23. support of course!,--Kostas20142 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
24. Support. Careful, capable and helpful editor.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
25. Support Having looked, I could find no reason to oppose. Equineducklings (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
26. Support Based entirely on previous observations of the editor's work here. --joe decker^talk 17:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
27. Third for clones please. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
28. Support absolutely, will be a great benefit to enwiki.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
29. Support - Solid understanding of policies, appreciation for the WP:5P and an all-around asset to the project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
30. Strong Support - I've never ever thought of this about anyone but for this candidate I believe an admin should simply grant the mop to Cullen without any RFA - Cullen is quite honestly the perfect candidate for the mop - They're calm, civil (even under pressure), competent (Bizarrely I've never seen them do anything wrong ... at all), diligent ... the list can go on but in short the perfect candidate if there ever was one, Would be a great asset to the project. –Davey2010^Talk 18:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
31. Support I was wondering when he would run for RFA. Jakob (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
32. Support: Excellent candidate and they have done great work at the Teahouse. —MRD2014 18:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
33. Long overdue.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
34. Support No concerns at all, clear positive. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
35. Support. He is clearly a great choice for an admin. --Rlin8 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
36. Support. A great asset to Wikipedia and society in general. Funcrunch (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
37. Support, obviously. Having observed Cullen in action at the Teahouse over the past years, I know he will make an excellent administrator. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
38. Absolute Support as a clear net positive for the community. J947^{(c) (m)} 18:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
39. Support I'm pretty sure this is the quickest I've clicked on an RfA and headed to the support section. I've asked Cullen at least twice if I could nominate him but the time hasn't been right. Really glad to finally see his name here! Sam Walton (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
40. Support I've interacted with and come across Cullen at various Afds, even quoting his argument in one or the other Afd I've been closing. Solid editor. Solid experience. Apt for the administrative tools. Lourdes 19:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
41. Support - very nice editor. Should be a net positive. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
42. Support Yup. Katie^talk 19:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
43. Support A good egg. Andrew D. (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
44. Support Awesome editor. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
45. Support - With pleasure. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
46. Support. I've been waiting for this RfA for two years. Cullen is highly qualified for the mop. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
47. Support. Cullen328's AFD comments reveal an intelligent and thoughtful editor that will do well as an administrator. More than enough experience in all areas. Malinaccier (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
48. Support: contributions are extensive and impressive, what little interaction I've had with Cullen has been positive and usually at AfD. Clear net positive. DrStrauss talk 19:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
49. Support - Finally! After so many months, I'm glad to see this RfA happen. Cullen328 is patient and considerate with new editors, paid editors, and oldtimers alike. Will make an excellent administrator. Altamel (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
50. Support - An incredibly able and knowledgeable editor from what I can see with an impressive approach in supporting users. Kosack (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
51. Support. Count me as one of those who have prodded Cullen328 on his talk page to stand for adminship. He's consistently one of the most helpful and (as often as possible) encouraging Teahouse hosts; and he's a thoughtful and skilled editor. In addition, as one myself, I like to see other graybeard admins. Deor (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
52. Support- Yes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
53. Support- as nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
54. Support. Yes. Didn't even have to think about that one. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
55. Support — I'm one of those fortunate editors who received great advice from Cullen at the teahouse, several times, shortly after creating my account. It's also unecessary for me to do an investigation to see if Cullen has enough experience and reason to be an administrator, because I've done that months ago after first meeting this great person at the teahouse and wanting to know more. I also regularly see Cullen's respectable !votes at AfD discussions. This reminds me that Cullen is still on my to-award list... —PaleoNeonate - 20:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
56. Support unreservedly --Worldbruce (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
57. Support Great works, great editor. CrossTemple Jay 21:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
58. In case I'm not the first to say "wow, I already thought they were an admin", I won't say it. I'll merely say that behavior that admins should aspire to is a reason for giving editors the bit. This user passes that test. ◦ Trey Maturin 21:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
59. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
60. Support – I've mostly observed Jim's work in The Teahouse, but he has my unqualified support in this nomination. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
61. Support, but leans too much to the left; admins should be upright and balanced. Glrx (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
62. Support. Only three edits in the Category_talk namespace, though? Is this candidate even endorsed by a WikiProject? Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
63. Support. I have seen this candidate around and he does a great job. Also he has the demeanor and temperament for the job. The two nominators are rather strict in their standards and requirements so that also is a great endorsement. Glad to support this superb candidate. Donner60 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
64. (edit conflict) Strong Support: Having observed their edits at the Teahouse, I think he's a civil editor when interacting with newbies. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
65. Support Have seen him on multiple articles and discussion pages, always felt he was an extremely helpful editor. I do recall checking his user page to see if he was an admin, thinking he was before. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
66. Support, in fact, strongest possible support. This user is one whom I have met IRL as well as having worked with on WP and I cannot think of anyone better suited by both temperament and experience to have the mop. He's a big advocate of the Teahouse and developing new editors while also understanding how to work with established editors in the process of developing quality content in articles. I thought he already was an admin, this is long overdue. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
67. Support Experienced, welcoming, and civil editor. Just what we need in an admin. --Joshualouie711^talk 22:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
68. SupportPer WikiVirusC. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
69. Strongest possible Support - Per There'sNoTime. Excellent candidate, no concerns. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 23:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
70. Support. No hesitation. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
71. Strongest possible support — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
72. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
73. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 23:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
74. Support. One question though. How could this not nave happened for so long? Cullen is probably the best editor I've never really interacted with, but based on his reputation and my lurking over the years, I feel he would be a great admin. epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
75. Support. I had this page on my watchlist so that I could support when it finally happened, and I was glad to see it finally become active! No reservations at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
76. Support. I seldom !vote at RfA but I'm happy to support this exceptionally qualified candidate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
77. Support can't see a single reason not to hand over the mop, looks like a top candidate to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
78. Support -- A thoughtful, knowledgeable and even-tempered contributor. This is an easy support. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
79. Support. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
80. Support – Well-qualified. I had this page on my watchlist in case the candidate ever decided to run. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
81. Support. 100%. Incredibly well versed in policy and will make a fine addition to the admin corps. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
82. Support. Not at all the primary reason behind my vote, but I like your signature. I think "let's discuss it" is a good example of your approach to issues, and that's an approach we need more of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
83. Support – Prodego ^talk 02:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
84. Support Long overdue. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
85. Support. Per nom. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
86. Support I've seen him around, and he seems very qualified. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 03:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
87. Support I seriously thought he was a admin when I first bumped into him. —JJB^ers 03:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
88. Support Amazing. Almost makes one think of "why now"? Alex Shih^Talk 04:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
89. Support finally! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
90. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
91. Support Happily supporting. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
92. Strong Support Though I have asked a question from the nominated editor which is yet to be replied. But I strongly believe that editors who are generous and kind and often helps out newcomers and save worthy articles from deletion completely deserves to become administrator.Anoptimistix (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
93. Support precious relax and recharge (read again with pleasure) + answer to my question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
94. Support – Solid track record! Choard1895 (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
95. Support I am always pleased to see Cullen's signature because it brings with it more certainty that a dispute will be resolved civilly. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
96. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 07:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
97. Support - Experienced editor.  FITINDIA  07:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
98. Support Piling on... I'm really surprised Cullen is not already an admin. I've interacted with him in various places such as Teahouse and have full confidence in his competence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
99. Support. From all I have seen, I think this candidate is level-headed, friendly, clueful and an asset to the project and his answers to the questions indicate that as well, despite disagreeing with my actions in Q5. Having different opinions on how the protection policy should have been applied in this specific case is not a reason not to support, although of course I do still think semi-protecting the page was warranted to try and force the IP-hopping editor to discuss the question. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
100. From what I've seen of the candidate this is an easy support. —SpacemanSpiff 07:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
101. Support - Obviously a great choice. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
102. Support - No qualms in supporting the face of WP:TEAHOUSE. Jupitus Smart 08:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
103. Support Obvious candidate for mop-hood. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
104. Support per above. Graham87 09:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
105. Support, with slight concerns about the long tenure and high edit count. In other words, should have been made an admin ages ago. —Kusma (t·c) 09:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
106. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
107. Support - I'm delighted to see another highly-qualified RfA candidate. - MrX 10:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
108. Support. Strong contributions to the project and would evidently be a net positive —72 _talk 10:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
109. Support Always balanced, considerate and thoughtful in his contributions (even when I disagree with him). Thincat (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
110. Support - obvious decision. Jim is an excellent editor, and I see no red flags. His answer to Q5 does not concern me one bit; this editor is extremely civil, hardworking, and more than qualified for the part. My only question is this: why wasn't he made an admin circa 2012 or so? 65HCA7 11:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
111. Support it's all been said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
112. Support - No reservations about handing the tools over whatsoever. A good candidate IMO. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  12:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
113. Support Exceptionally well qualified, answered my question with great thoughtfulness. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
114. Support Gave up trying to vote here yesterday because of multiple edit conflicts:) Hard to imagine a better qualified candidate. Will make a great admin.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
115. Support. Sensible, long-time contributor. I trust him. 28bytes (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
116. Support. This was easy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
117. Support. Dedicated Wikipedians. Assumed they were an admin already :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
118. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
119. Support, my experience with Cullen matches those of the nominators, there's not much more to say. I have been looking forward to this for quite some time. I will say I've been on the opposite end of a !vote a couple times, but I can't think of anyone I'd rather have on the other side, his positions are always well thought-out and full of insight, and you won't find another editor who better embodies civility. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
120. Support - Would be worth a mop just to have another active admin at the Teahouse. Everything else is just a bonus. Keep em coming. TimothyJosephWood 14:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
121. Strong support. Exceptionally well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
122. Support - Looks like another great candidate. Use the mop well. Cthomas3 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
123. Support - No issues here. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
124. Support He is probabaly the only person I would give a mop without any questions. Please hit WP:300! Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 14:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
125. Support. Dont vote here often....4 or 5 times in 13 years...as I only vote for editors I have had interactions with. Was surprised to see they are not an admin. 100 percent support from this old timer. --Moxy (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
126. Support Have long admired Cullen's work, especially his knowledgeable and tactful interactions with new users. FourViolas (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
127. Support very good content creation and improvement, very helpful long service at teahouse, no problemsAtlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
128. Support I was not, in fact, going to vote, purely on account of the remarks I made at the bottom, which it occured to me, might have sounded sardonic. But there was me thinking User:Cullen328 might be too soft for the job  :) with kind words such as these, who needs magic bullets?! It will be good to to have an admin who treats disruptive editors like they are grandchildren who have been caught trying to sneak a peak at the christmas presents. Of course, the downside of this RfA is, that if it passes, I will probably have to unban Cullen from my talkpage :D — fortunavelut luna 16:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
129. Strong Support This is certainly one of the more enthusiastic supports I have given at RfA. I have had the pleasure of working with the editor on a number of occasions and count myself among those who tried to nudge him into running, even before my own RfA. And I expect him to be a great addition to the team. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
130. Support--Helping "send new editors in the right direction" is a lesson we all can learn. ―Buster7 ☎ 16:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
131. Support Long history of cluefulness. Will be a great addition to the admin list. The Interior (Talk) 16:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
132. Support Gamaliel (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
133. Finally. feminist 16:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
134. Support Kind, fair, thoughtful, knowledgeable, experienced.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC))
135. Support One of Wikipedia's best editors. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
136. Support with pleasure. I actually did think he was already an administrator. Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
137. Support His incredible patience as shown at the Teahouse will make him a wonderful addition. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
138. Support. It's a cliché to say "I thought he already was", but I really did until recently, when I happened to mouse over his username. A rare case where I don't have to run my full "background check". This user's demeanor toward his fellow Wikipedians is exemplary, and I have no doubt he'll use the tools carefully and fairly. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
139. Support Per noms and supporters, the candidate has the right disposition and judgement for adminship. Kirk Leonard (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
140. I've been desperately searching for a reason to oppose, mostly to trigger an entertaining massive wave of outraged badgering. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything. Sigh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
141. Support - I had to do a double-take, couldn't believe my eyes...we can't get any closer to a perfect candidate than this editor!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
142. Support No concerns. - Brojam (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
143. Support Fully qualified, lots of experience, good demeanor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
144. Support - great track record. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
145. Support as a clear and obvious choice. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
146. Support. You have the support of the cabal. We look forward to welcoming you to the cabal. Please keep in mind that there is no cabal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
147. Yes, thank you! Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
148. Support. An active and experienced editor who demonstrates a sound understanding of our project and its policies, exercises a cautious approach to speedy deletion, and actively participates in mentoring new editors - what's not to like? Throw the endorsements of two very well-regarded nominators in there, and I think it's a shame he's not an admin already!--Slon02 (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
149. Support Enthusiastically. Mduvekot (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
150. Support will be a good admin. Lepricavark (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
151. (edit conflict)Support Seems competent, and looks like someone we could trust with the tools. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
152. Support of course. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
153. Support a competent and trustworthy editor. Always patient and helpful in case of problems and questions. GermanJoe (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
154. Support unreservedly. Crow^Caw 22:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
155. Support as long overdue. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 22:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
156. Support Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
157. Strongest possible support More than qualified; also highly trusted noms. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
158. Support I agree with the co-nominator—"I thought he was already an admin". — Music1201 ^talk 00:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
159. Support I've always enjoyed Cullen's wit and wisdom. He will make a fine addition to the ranks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
160. Support Nabla's objection is potentially concerning but it dates from five years ago. I would need a good reason to look at it more closely then. Absent other objections I lean to support. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
161. Support Hell yes. Hope we don't loose his good offices at the Teahouse now, though... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
162. Support When an editor's conduct and record is so prolific and spotless that I believe them to be an admin already, it's an easy support. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
163. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
164. Support. Cullen is the consummate Wikipedian: knowledgeable, helpful, interested in learning new things and new people, and a fine human being to boot; surely I'm not the only one who calls in Cullen to help out some new editor. More than for his knowledge of policy y'all should support him because his heart is in the right place and his judgment is solid. I would trust this man with my kitchen counter, my dog, and my Prius. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

     .... but not your front lawn barbecue? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

165. Support, yes, a thousand times yes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC).
166. Support, without question. I've been involved at Teahouse since the beginning, and his skills and respect there are unchallenged. I virtually never come to RfA, but for Jim, hell yah! There are very few people in the Wikipedia community about whom I've ever thought, "Ya know, I'd kinda like to have this guy over for a cookout." How do you like your steak, Jim? John from Idegon (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
167. Support - No concerns. -- Dane ^talk 03:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
168. Support - Absolutely. Having seen Cullen around at the Teahouse and elsewhere, I have no doubts about him being a splendid admin for the project. Soni (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
169. I'll add my vote here, even though it's clearly not needed, as Cullen/Jim is someone I've seen around frequently and easily trust with these permissions. — Earwig ^talk 07:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
170. Support - Moved from neutral, given the discussion on the only query I had. Good luck with the mop when it comes your way. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
171. Support. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
172. Support it's about time. Thanks for running. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
173. Support. Darreg (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
174. Support Long overdue.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
175. Support I have never voted on a RfA before, and I am honoured to have this as my first. Like so many people here, my first (and still major) contact with him has been at the TeaHouse, and that is where deep knowledge, perspective, communication and negotiation skills, and that rare commodity of kindness have made him a standout. If he is willing to help out more broadly in an Admin capacity, then I say "please do". --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
176. Support-Per everyone who supported. No concernsRADICAL SODA^(FORCE) 10:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
177. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
178. Support. In the future, I would like the devs to include a feature in the software alerting me when an excellently qualified RfA candidate like this is up, so I can !vote first. bd2412 T 11:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
179. Support - I particularly liked the thoughtful answers you gave to the additional questions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
180. Support No concerns, and about time too! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
181. Support I've been waiting a long time to see this RFA. Nthep (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
182. why not --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
183. Support – Cullen has been all around Wikipedia for some time, and I have seen him at AfD through the years. He comes across as knowledgeable regarding various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, knows about source searching to determine topic notability, versus basing notability assessments upon sources in articles alone (e.g. AfD), and works to improve articles (e.g. see this page's Revision history). Well qualified for adminship, and I am very comfortable with Cullen using the tools per the reasons stated in his answer to question #1 atop, as well as other uses he may find for them in the future. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
184. Support – surprised Cullen isn't one already. Jonathunder (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
185. Support. Happy to pile on. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
186. Support Plenty of positives, no concerns.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
187. Support Firmly in the "surprised Cullen isn't one already" camp. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
188. Support No objections here following questions I've asked. Good luck Cullen! Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
189. Support based on answer to Q7 and very helpful work at the Teahouse. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
190. Support My full support and appreciation for accepting the responsibility. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
191. Support. At this point, there isn't much that I can add. But I'll raise a quibble about the answer to Q3: Anyone with this much editing history cannot help but to have had someone else get angry at them (even if it were unjustified). I prefer answers that acknowledge this reality more specifically, and come up with a specific example, instead of making it sound like there's nothing to see here, move on. But as I said, that's a quibble. And I like the answer to Q6 (as well as the question itself). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

     If there were such a thing as super-strong support, I would now be at that level of support, due to the very impressive addition to the answer to Q3 in response to my comment. Thank you very much for doing that; I am genuinely delighted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

192. Support. This is the third RfA I've voted in, and I once again find myself asking, "How are they not already an admin?" WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

     Because, despite his high level of contributions, he has resisted all previous attempts to coerce him to be an admin, claiming he has a life outside of Wikipedia. Being in a generous mood, the community seems to be currently willing to forgive this indiscretion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

193. Support Húsönd 19:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
194. Support RadiX∞ 20:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
195. Support. Having a difficult time imagining Cullen328 as anything but an asset in the role. Good answers the questions above, very solid editing history and experience, good AfD track record, civil and reasonable, and (important to me) not a "banhammer power-seeker" – we need more work-oriented rather than enforcement-focused admins. I am curious about the unusually high number of edits to "User" namespace (I assume it's draft article editing) and unusually low participation in "Wikipedia talk" (for someone seeking adminship), but I don't wonder enough to even budge a bit toward neutral. We need more well-experienced admins instead of "been here 18 months" candidates, who often have not actually absorbed WP community ways fully.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
196. Support. Very competent. I'd always assumed he was an admin. Maproom (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
197. Support It's about damn time pbp 21:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
198. Support Looks to be a strong candidate. Best of luck with the mop! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
199. Support: Happy to join this fine list. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
200. Support - Well qualified and experienced and a great editor as well. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
201. Seems trustworthy and sane. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 23:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
202. Support will put the extra tools to great use. Another overdue RfA. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
203. Support I couldnt be sure if I ever came across Cullen in the past. So I had to go through his contrib history. Based on my own check, and opinions of other editors that I consider as sane, I do not have any concerns. Half of the concerns were gone when I saw he is nominated by Kudpung. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
204. Support - Filed under "not already an admin?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
205. Support: Experienced, thoughtful, will be an asset to the project as an admin, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
206. Support - Cullen328 is worthy of pile-on support. I add mine gladly.--John Cline (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
207. Support: Making this decision was a no brainer, even for new users like us. TesLiszt (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
208. Support Good luck! GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 05:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
209. Support Very worthy candidate. Schwede66 07:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
210. Support There's a reason that this RfA has a 100% support ratio and yet virtually ever comment is brief; this contributor is a known quantity across many areas of the project. Get a mop in his hands already. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
211. Finally! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
212. Strongest possible Support for this long-term, excellent editor. He's highly experienced not only in content creation but also in Wikipedia space. Excellent interpersonals, especially when interacting with problematic editors, completely trustworthy, fair and... A great sense of humour. You'll need it, Cullen328. :) Voceditenore (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
213. Support – Let's get this nomination on top of the leaderboards: only 37 votes to go to equal Ealdgyth as most-supported unopposed candidacy. — JFG ^talk 10:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
214. Gosh, yes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
215. Support. Need more admins like Cullen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

     Support. I actually find myself sympathetic to the notion enacting sanctions for both parties where both have propagated a situation of conflict. Samsara 13:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn as there seem to be people voting now just to get this over some arbitrary number, rather than on the merits of the candidate. I do think we should take RfA a bit more seriously, so if this is a game, I will not lend my !vote. Samsara 14:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

     Samsara, I am more surprised than anyone at the support for me here and would have been honored with half as much. I assure you that I have done nothing to encourage hitting any arbitrary number of votes. Yes, some people do get a little silly sometimes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

216. Support Happy to support. Mop please! Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 14:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
217. Support - I see no reason to not be comfortable giving them the tools. Guettarda (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
218. Support - long overdue. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 14:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
219. Warm and strong support - A superb candidate. Irondome (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
220. Support: Yet another great candidate!! - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
221. Support Was this user not an admin already? I already thought they were... I am delighted to pile-on support. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) 21:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
222. Support have worked in conjunction with him at the Teahouse. He's an excellent candidate and reliable editor. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
223. Support - No concerns Tazerdadog (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
224. Support – Seen him around at the Teahouse, I've always admired his patience and willingness to help new editors learn the ropes. –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
225. Support without reservation, demonstrates a sound knowledge of policy and community interaction. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
226. Support - absolutely without reservation! I have worked with him on here and it has always been a pleasure, very open and patient. Jooojay (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
227. Support, absolutely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
228. Support Great candidate. Daphne Lantier 23:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
229. Support Exemplary candidate. Fraenir (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
230. Support No reason not to give out another mop. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
231. Support in the strongest language possible.--Jorm (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
232. Support a most worthy candidate. MarnetteD|Talk 01:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
233. Support Absolutely no reason not to. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
234. Support as it's borderline. Aiken D 06:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
235. Support a competent (soon to be) admin Kees08 (Talk) 07:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
236. Support. As an admin who mostly specialises in finding common ground in difficult content discussions, I'm very encouraged by this candidate's desire to plunge in to similar areas of work. Deryck C. 09:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
237. Support If none of the reasons above compel you to pile on then read them again to be sure! Enthusiastic support Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
238. Support Others have said it all. He's an editor you come across a lot, always giving good advice in a polite manner. Someone you just assume is already an admin. Neiltonks (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
239. Support Surprised he wasn't already an admin? WCM_email 13:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
240. Support Big Time. Can't think of any non-admin who deserves the community's trust more. Happy to support. Good representative for the pedia. Good knowledge, good relationships with others. Maturity and kindness demonstrated. BusterD (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
241. Support Happy to chime in for an editor with such strong community support. Fine contributions, and no apparent skeletons. Scr★pIron^IV 13:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
242. Support <insert smart comment here>. No such user (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
243. Support So many contributions, so few mistakes. Mamyles (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
244. Support because records are made to be broken! GAB^gab 15:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
245. Support. Cullen328 will use the tools ably and well. /wiae /tlk 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
246. Excellent candidate, now we just need to find a few who were as good as this candidate was three or four years ago. People should run when there is a good chance of getting consensus that they are qualified, not when they are already ready for cratship. ϢereSpielChequers 17:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
247. Support under the classic "he wasn't already?" rationale. Cullen328 has the mentality and personality to be beyond excellent at the job, his patience and collaborational demeanor are refreshing and will serve him well as an admin. --Jayron32 17:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
248. Support I can't find a reason as to why he hasn't been put up for an RfA earlier...TJH2018talk 18:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
249. Support. Yet another obvious choice during the flurry of successful RFAs we've been having lately. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
250. Support, pile-on. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
251. Support Occasional interactions uniformly positive. Is exceedingly clueful, civil, constructive and a real asset to the project. My confidence level is high that Cullen would be an exemplary admin. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
252. Support --I am One of Many (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
253. Support -- He's offered me (and many others) great guidance, he's incredibly fair-minded, and he's always willing to help. JSFarman (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
254. Support -- Jim has been most helpful to me and I admire his fair and balanced work here. Samf4u (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
255. Support - He has all the qualifications that I would want in an admin.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
256. Support - assumed you were an admin already. No concerns at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
257. Support - Per nom, strong candidate. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
258. Support There is no doubt about the outcome at this point but I just wanted to express my appreciation of the candidate's work here and wish them well. I've no doubt they will use the tools wisely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
259. Support Endlessly patient, good communicator. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
260. Support I don't think I've seen an RFA of the likes of this one before. With no real reason to oppose, and plenty of reasons to support, I don't see a reason not to be in this section. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
261. Support it's a pleasure to add my name to this list. st170e 00:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
262. Obvious Support, and good luck! ~Awilley (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
263. Support Trusted and experienced user. lNeverCry 02:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
264. Support When I saw this RfA, I must admit I had a moment of "wait, he's not an admin yet?" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
265. Suppport Welcome aboard. -- œ^™ 03:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
266. Support I thought I'd come out of the woodwork for this one. Understand that this is hesitant, grudging, and very reluctant support. Why? His userpage teahouse button is horribly off-centre. Of course, for most of us that is an instant deal-breaker. For me, that was not as egregious as this photo. He's not wearing a bow! Do you see a bow? I don't see any bow on that teeny, tiny, dear little dog. Seriously, Jim, you're amazing. I'd support you if you were running for administrator of the Milky Way Galaxy on a platform of "developing a lot of that unused, public space, and gravity cuts for the smaller planets". Also, I'm here to pile on for the push over 300 (Honestly, you deserve 600.). See you on the other side where it's all daiquiris and crappy t-shirts! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
267. Support -- Begoon 05:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
268. Stephen 06:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
269. Certainly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
270. Support This man should be an admin for the last ten years. MARK JHOMEL💣💥 09:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
271. Support – One of the wisest and most level-headed people I've run across here. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
272. Support – When I was a newcomer to Wikipedia and did not know what I was doing and no help appeared forthcoming, Cullen328 was the first editor I came into contact with and he went out of his way to be helpful. Some kindnesses are never forgotten. William Harris • (talk) • 10:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
273. Support He's not going to last forever being an admin (Well, no-one is to be really honest), but for the time being, might be worth supporting. Per Anna, I reckon it could get to 328. Minima© (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
274. Support – Good experienced editor.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
275. Support - I haven't looked in detail at the user's record, but I trust that those who nominated and supported have done so. And if no skeletons have been discovered yet, I doubt there are any. Best of luck, and welcome to the corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
276. More Support R3adyWrites 08:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3adyWrit3s (talk • contribs)
277. Support because If I do a joke oppose 3 times in a row I will be canned. IDK why having 0 SA edits is considered a good thing. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
278. Support --Garden9 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
279. Support – GSS (talk|c|em) 16:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
280. Support - will make a great admin Argento Surfer (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
281. Support - Long overdue, Cullen328 has the experience as well as the temperament. Razer(talk) 17:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
282. Support Has my trust; will be a benefit to the project as an admin. Spencer^T♦C 20:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
283. Support - Surprised they're not an admin already tbh EvergreenFir (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
284. support Prevan (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
285. Support Mélencron (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
286. Support ceranthor 02:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
287. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
288. Support -- excellent track record and experience. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
289. Support Boy am I glad to see this RfA! Cullen has good judgment, has always shown himself to be thoughtful in community discussions, and makes the time to provide guidance to editors. These are strong qualities for adminship, and I support his request without reservation. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
290. Support - Layzner (Talk) 07:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
291. Support Lectonar (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
292. Support--Cullen>Excellent candidate.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
293. Support I have read his comments[1] on BLP issues, and I agree he is well aware of policies. Capitals00 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
294. Support Knows what to do here, and has used the tools and facilities to benefit the project. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
295. Support Good responses to questions and history on the project.--Danaman5 (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
296. Support Fantastic editor: balanced, constructive, mature, polite. One of the very best. Ericoides (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
297. Support I am married to Cullen 328. The nomination has been a long time in coming. I have learned to edit Wikipedia from the best, for which I am grateful. Patience and fairness are two qualities which are important for being an effective administrator. Thank you for having faith in Jim's abilities to be an Administrator.ChesPal (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
298. Support I rarely get involved with pile-on !votes, but will do so here to help get a well-deserving admin-to-be up to the 300 figure. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
299. Support with best of luck. Widr (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
300. Support Already thought you were an admin. No issues found, so good luck! SkyWarrior 19:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
301. Support WP:300 — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
302. Support Congrats on becoming the most supported RfA candidate ever! -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
303. Support Per all the other supports and also the fact that I appreciate Cullen's work, and advice in diverse areas of the project, including the Teahouse. Dr. K. 23:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
304. Support No concerns, yadda yadda. Stikkyy t/c 23:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
305. Support. What they↑ say. Kablammo (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
306. Support. Well respected user with no problems. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
307. Support: This has been a difficult decision. Opposing because I didn't get to cast the 300th support would appear churlish as it is difficult to attribute fault to the candidate... and though I could call for the RfA to be kept open, my wanting to become the 400th !vote in support seems unlikely to be a persuasive reason in 'crat-land. Then, there's considering whether to offer a bare support, but that risks you not passing as it may be underweighted by the 'crats and tip you into the discretion zone, and how could I have that on my conscience? So, let's see... respected editor, major work with the Teahouse, substantial article-space contributions (though at a lower rate more recently, 519 (22% of all edits) in 2017 so far), trusted rollbacker since 2012, no blocks. Questions point to WP positives in his holding the tools and the judgement to use them cautiously and cluefully. There, now I've given reasons, your chances of not having to wait through a 'crat chat are improved. I hope, once you are empowered and hold a key to the sooper-seekrit admin meeting room and bathroom facility, you'll still be able to see the regular editors above whom you have been elevated as colleagues in encyclopaedia-building.  :) EdChem (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
308. Strong oppose because a candidate with so many well-deserved supports deserves way better than a crappy t-shirt. Joking of course, support per pillar 1! Linguist¹1¹ 06:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
309. Support. Vanamonde (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
310. Suppose - I suppose it would be unfair of me to ask two questions of the candidate and then not render an opinion on their RfA. Your answers to my questions were reasonable. I tend to agree that supplementing notability policies are sufficient to demonstrate notability even if an article doesn't pass GNG. It's a situational question. My second question was mostly about your opinion, there wasn't, necessarily, a right or wrong answer. I wanted to see your thinking. Both answers were satisfactory at least to myself. As I have no reason to oppose, and even have good reason(s) to support, I suppose I will. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
311. Support Graham Beards (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
312. Support - Will make an excellent Admin. JMHamo (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
313. Support - I fully expect this user to be an excellent admin. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
314. Support - An impressive record of work. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
315. Support. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
316. Support Excellent candidate. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

# oppose - when they disagree with someone, they push them out of the project: User_talk:Nabla/Archive_4#Your_resignation. We need admins that can communicate with users, we do not need admins who push users away. - Nabla (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Striked. ...it was five years ago? It was on the top of my talk page too long, so I thought it was more recent. We all do mistakes once in a while, I sure do, no point in highlighting that when there are more things to look at and so much time passed by. My apologies to Cullen328, and wishes that we all learn, from the mistakes and from the good things, and improve. - Nabla (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Nabla. I am happy to accept your apology, and am also pleased that you are still editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, even more so for your last words. - Nabla (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

People: it's 164-1. Relax. I am positive that further discussion along these lines is not going to be productive. For anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can't count how many people who've visited the Teahouse totally disagree with this, but it definitely numbers in the hundreds of users. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC) What preceded Cullen's comment was a childish (and moronic) string of edits by you on Jimbo Wales page [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. If anything, his calm and measured response to your edits convinces me he was more fit to be an admin than you were that week. Your oppose is meaningless in such a lopsided !vote, but your inability to accept any responsibility for your own tantrum makes it very difficult to take you serious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC) But... that was five and a half years ago. Are there any recent problems? Yintan  21:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC) when they disagree with someone, they push them out of the project Yet, here you are, still editing and using your tools. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Besides your single example that you felt personally insulted by, can you point to even one other diff that shows that Cullen328 has pushed people out of the project? --Joshualouie711talk 00:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Ahhh, the classic "this candidate has no opposes, so lets add one" strategy. A classic. —JJBers 01:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Thank you for providing that link, Nabla, the further reading of it explains that such exceedingly bad faith like your vote above is not out of character for you (as reiterated by Dennis). When are you going to voluntarily hand your tools in? Better still, when are you going to retire? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC) That diff sounds like the diff one would provide in support of a candidate. Could you please choose one that actually would support your conclusion? Or, are there none? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC) I understand that admins are people too, but sysops should not be casting revenge !votes on the basis of 5–year–old grudges. Lepricavark (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Sorry, the candidate posts to Drmies's talk page that Drmies is a "good administrator" immediately following Drmies calling an editor an "idiot" and telling the editor to "Fuck off". (I must have a higher expectation for admins. It seems to me that it isn't a trivial self-control issue, it's intentional. That's not acceptable from anyone who wants or wants to hold onto the bit, and neither is commending an admin after such a display.) Also about the cherished issue of maintaining a "pristine RfA" (one w/ all supports, zero opposes), please stop helping me lose my dinner. (Have seen more than one pristine RfA where the admin ends up desysopped, and *none* of the orig RfA supporters were around at Arbcom to post either in support or regret. So tell me again the value? As far as I'm concerned, it's a bad sign, having to do with something like groupthink, which is usually flawed, producing things something like systemic bias. Unanimity isn't possible here if truth be told. There are too many editors for that. So my guess is it's simple fear to be the sore thumb that accounts.) --IHTS (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

   → Moving the discussion to the talk page. It's getting way too long for it to continue here. SkyWarrior 01:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Being fully aware of the current standings, and without any prior interest in participating in this !voting, I am nevertheless triggered to oppose by the wording of the candidate: "... hope that no one gives you a hard time about it. Take care." in an unsolicited response to a neutrally commenting user. I perceive this as a possibly dangerous threat, especially the compassionate prompt to "take care", disguised in a mafia-like verbiage, fully inappropriate in this situation. I plead for more sensitivity in admin's circles. Purgy (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

   I didn't get that vibe from his comment there at all. What I read is that he saw that the person voted neutrally (instead of supporting or opposing), and he's saying he's fine with it and hopes other people don't give him crap for it. I see no "mafia-like..., fully inappropriate" verbiage at all, just a more verbose way of saying "I'm good with that." No lack of sensitivity involved. 65HCA7 11:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

   Wow, maybe we'll get a !vote from Jimbo himself? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

   Purgy, you have to be kidding me. He (or she?) made a completely civil response to a user who was upset about hassling of opposes and neutrals. You're completely misinterpreting that comment. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

   Hence the RfA catch-22: if a candidate provides responses outside of the Questions section, they are sometimes criticized, if a candidate does not provide responses, they are also sometimes criticized. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

   Cullen's sensitivity toward those casting opposes and neutrals throughout this RfA couldn't be more evident. Lepricavark (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

   Are we actually opposing users for civility now? I think Cullen's response to that !vote was far more appropriate and level headed than the "Fuck off" I'm sure many editors would probably fire back with. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Spent a while thinking about this. The arguments brought forward by supporters seem compelling, but I am wary about the !vote here - to me a statement that one endorses sanctions for one party only if the other party is also sanctioned seems like an invitation to an escalation sequence, or an encouragement of "if they broke the rules I am allowed to do so as well" attitudes so pervasive in deeply entrenched conflicts such as the Infobox ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

   But that's not quite accurate, is it Jo-Jo? The emphasis was on 'obsessive', making the comment perfectly measured under the circumstances. (Disclaimer: Although I have never once commented in a discussion on that particular topic, I am extremely familiar with it. It cost us a few content providers who retired in disgust, including one of our very best FA writers whose articles I now miss doing the peer reviews on.) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

   Jo-Jo Eumerus, I have long been concerned about the disruption caused by both the supporters and the opponents of infoboxes. I can assure you, though, that I do not think that bad behavior by one side justifies bad behavior by the other side. I promise you that any administrative action I take will be in support of policy and consensus, and that I will do my best to be fair and evenhanded. I do not intend to get involved with infobox disputes any time soon. Please do not hesitate to ask me for clarification. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

   Um, not sure if I understand what the remark on "obsessive" means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Concern about the answer to Qu 5. The IP-hopping editor in question edit warred beyond 3RR with several editors and did not bother to use the talk page to discuss their attempts to change the status quo, despite requests to go to the talk page. Page protection isn't a case of handing defeat to an IP, but stopping the disruption caused by an IP-hopping, edit warrior who refuses to discuss; that type of action is against policy. What magic silver bullet should they have used instead if the IP is not going to go to the talk page! It does raise the question of a neutrality of approach in certain areas. – SchroCat (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   SchroCat, nobody discussed the substance of the dispute on the talk page. Gerda Arendt first added the infobox, not the IP, and everyone involved declined to discuss it except in edit summaries, at least one of which was quite uncivil, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, I am aware of the chronology. I was the one who added something to the talk page to ask the IP about their reasons: they made no comments, despite being asked to do so on that page, two of their talk pages and in edit summary. You know how this place works (as well as the whoever was the IP was too): it needs discussion to get through disputed situations, and when an IP refuses to go to the page, but edit wars instead – completely contrary to all the policies and guidelines we have – there is little else left to do but stop the IPs disruption by temporary protection. Your answer said you don't like page protection unless an IP is "clearly violating policy": they were in this case. – SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   You are correct that the IP was edit warring so, in that sense, the protection was justified. But the dispute remains unresolved without any talk page discussion. Calling for talk page discussion in edit summaries is not the same as actually discussing.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Cullen, you seem to be selectively reading what I have written. I'll repeat: calls were made to use the talk page in edit summaries, on the IP talk pages and on the article talk page (it's a moot point whether the comments on their talk pages are of any use, considering they were IP hopping). If neither of the editors who wish to alter the article are prepared to discuss their thoughts on the talk page, despite the many invitations to do so, then the status quo remains. And when the editor who added the box in the first place states on the IPs talk page that "I don't discuss on talk pages, waste of time", it does make me wonder why your comments are aimed as they are. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   I think Jim is on point here. There are stylistic reasons not to have an infobox e.g.: choice of arbitrary information is inappropriate, takes up too much real estate on screen, cramping opening sections, information is prone to petty content disputes - but none of that was actually brought up on that talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Wrong way round Ritchie. The status quo on the page was that there was no IB to start with. Its addition was disputed and it is up to those who wish to make the addition to go to the talk page and discuss why their proposed changes are beneficial. You know that's how BRD works, and how things should go here, not entirely reverse the polarity because an IP wants to force in an IB. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Thank you for helping me think more deeply about this incident, SchroCat, and offering new information. I promise you that I will be very careful when dealing with any such situation.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks Cullen. Rules of thumb are how we all get through the day to cut through the noise, but (and it's one of the reasons I disagree with WP:NOBIGDEAL), admin decisions have an impact on real people. If all relevant factors are not weighed up accordingly, admins find themselves being dragged to dramah boards for little more than trying to make a difficult decision in all good faith. This RfA is obviously going to pass with flying colours and good luck with the mop when it comes your way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

2. I thought I'd weigh in just so that there is at least one more neutral comment. This editor was crabby once when I asked a question in the Teahouse but I probably deserved it. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

   @Barbara (WVS): Can you provide a link to the conversation you're referring to? Thanks. Samsara 07:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

   Heck no! I don't keep track of stuff like that. Besides after I responded with another crabby remark, we both were happy. I originally wanted to support this admin request, but thought I would round it out with a neutral comment. Cullen328 is a great editor. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

   I do not understand the point of this !vote in the least. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

   Barbara (WVS), I've looked in the Teahouse archives, and found the following:

   • A question from you on 12 Jan 2016 about wiki-coding, answered by GronkOz and solved by Happysquirrel
   • A question from you on 19 May 2016 about Blanking Content which drew a sharp response from Iridescent and Robert McClenon and confusion over your other account, Bfpage
   • A resurrection of that thread on 24 May 2016 where you commented on harsh words and drew a further response from Robert McClenon.

   Under your user name Bfpage, you have answered many questions and asked some. I have gone through 20 of the 66 archives in which your name appears, and these are the only threads I can find in which both you and Cullen posted: from October 2014, November 2014, June 2016, April 2017 (you were mentioned, Cullen posted).

   I wonder if you are remembering the incident with Iridescent and Robert McClenon, as I see no evidence of crabbiness between you and Cullen, and I don't want to search through the rest of the 45 archives unless you can suggest a time frame for whatever may have happened. EdChem (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

   Perhaps I am remembering another incident as you suggest. The circumstances were that I was asking a question about editing and reversions done over an extended period of time. Someone reminded me that I was an experienced editor and probably should not ask a question in the Teahouse. After I explained that the Teahouse was a place to ask about editing, the response was toned down. I knew the Teahouse was the place where other very experienced editors 'hang out' and thought they would be happy to answer my question. Like here, they doubted my good faith and practically demanded that I reveal the article to which I was referring. Since I had edited the article in question months before that, the comments from others indicated to me is that they wanted to evaluate the accuracy of my questions and long term reversions. My question was general in nature, but other responders wanted the specifics.

   Wow. I agree with the comment below mine. I've stayed away from discussions about administrators because sometimes they turn into something that might not be constructive. So now, since you are better at constructing my editing history, have a go. I like Mr. Cullenwithnumbers-after-his-user name. He seems like a good guy and probably will be an excellent administrator. I am a content-creator and realize that a lot of those who are 'regulars' in evaluating those who should and should not be administrators seem like experts in delving into editing histories. I guess I am here to build an encyclopedia. I appreciate how administrators block those who vandalize the things I write. I suppose if I were to do a check on the editing history of some of the editors here, I might be able to see if my last statement about some editors very active in deciding who should be an administrator was true. I don't really do that. I probably rely to much on my fallible human memory, just like I do in real life. Wouldn't it be fun and a complete waste of time for me to apply for administrator-ship? It would be a wonderful trip down memory lane for me. Fer sure, some juicy stuff could be found, don't ya think? ^{bad faith sarcasm intended} Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC) and Bfpage

3. Neutral - I'm neutral on this candidate, mostly because of the way dissenters and even others who declare neutrality have their !vote called into question by those adamant on supporting the candidate. (And I suspect someone will feel overwhelmingly compelled to do the same to this !vote). I get it... community and all that... and Cullen328 might be an incredible editor and might make a phenomenal admin. But it's a !vote, and if people can't express their opinion, why bother. You guys who all want to have your way, just get together and do what you want, so more and more editors get frustrated and leave. It's not a community if you're not willing to hear others out. So I remain... neutral on Cullen328's nomination. Not that a definitive support or oppose would matter anyway. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 19:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

   I have no problem with your neutrality, Vertium, and hope that no one gives you a hard time about it. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

   Just a comment, and no intention to provide anyone grief here, but this !vote is mostly based upon the actions of other users at this RfA, rather than the suitability of the actual candidate for adminship. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You are right - maybe I'll just write an essay. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Well this is going to be fun  :) can't we just IAR and apply WP:SNOW?! -Incidentally, on aminor, but not nit-picking, point: every editor who improves the encyclopaedia is standing up to be counted, so it could read as flying somewhat in the face of the spirit of WP:NOBIGDEAL. IMHO etc. — fortunavelut luna 17:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That's why it's no big deal - at least not for people of my and Jim's generation. The big deal is getting through the next 7 days. After that, it's just work like any other kind (except it's voluntary and with no compensation). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• We can (and should) use this opportunity to thank Cullen for his work. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Uh uh we should indeed. Incidentally, there's a 'Neutral' vote in the box; I came here to see who the heretic was, but it seems there isn't one? *confused* — fortunavelut luna 17:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • FIM, you were that heretic. The bot messes up anytime someone posts in general discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ooops! *hides* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)

• I'd like to see how high of a support tally we can generate before this is over. It would not surprise me if Cullen328 became our first ever editor to hit WP:300 (apart from Giggy, whose final tally was at 299). Kurtis ^(talk) 19:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kurtis: Leaving aside your plagarism :p any attempt to 'generate' support is unlikely to avoid WP:CANVASing, isn't it? — fortunavelut luna 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CABAL, I am obligated to publicly disavow any and all speculation pertaining to clandestine attempts at influencing public opinion. We I can assure you, no such canvassing is taking place. Wikipedia is truly your friend. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Leaving a note here; I had to give a lot of thought to how I worded my questions to avoid them becoming long multi-part questions. I did the job as best I could and tried to focus Cullen's attention to specific information I wanted to know. That said, you'll notice a number of question marks in my questions, implying each question is a new one. I'd like to think they are reasonanly connected and don't burden the candidate with a whole new question to answer, just require a small amount of additional thought to give me the information I'm looking for. Especially given that I gave a condensed version of my second question to help. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• I was trying to remember why i thought Cullen was already an admin. Then I looked back at an ANI discussion in which he was involved, very sensibly as always, and I noticed a very long-time user referred to him casually as an admin. So there. I usually am wary about making new admins but have no compunction concerning this editor. Coretheapple (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• If I had noticed that, Coretheapple, I would have made a correction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have no doubts whatsoever! Very pleased about your candidacy and also that it is one of the few I can support without reservation. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand the one-sided turnout for RfA. If more than a hundred people support and no one opposes, what's the marginal utility in the 102nd support vote? Chris Troutman (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It gets things closer to breaking a record for someone who clearly deserves it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It also means the candidate can see the weight of support, which lets them know if the community is very happy with what they are doing, or that they are okay with giving them the tools but they need to watch out for certain things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Chris, I think he's someone that has been here awhile, many got to know, and he is a good, helpful, well rounded editor, which is a bit rare. When all those people see you are up for the bit, they want to show support on a personal level, which (for some) makes them feel good as well. Some want to be a part of the wave that ushers him in. Nothing wrong with a little love at RfA. We don't get much, so enjoy the ride. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I find it all shameful. This is not the best moment for Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, you find what "shameful" - the idea someone could have a one-sided turnout? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Chris, I think some are a bit too excited (except Cullen, who is taking it in stride), but shameful? I work ANI and AE regularly, I've seen lots of behavior that is shameful. This is not the same thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

And now there are so many supports that even a single oppose isn't enough to make the automatic percentage tally read "99" instead of "100"! Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It's thanks to all the canvassing that's been taking place on the admin IRC channel :) — fortunavelut luna 07:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Shhh, we're not supposed to confirm the speculations! ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope that was a joke. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously a joke - because the people "spilling the beans" about it are not admins and wouldn't know. BTW like Ritchie, I have never used this thing either and wouldn't know how. I guess I'm not a REAL member of the Cabal. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Not being a cliquish kind of person is one of the reasons I like you. I just wanted to be sure, as I've seen some weird stuff at IRC, which is why I avoid it, so there is no question that I'm not a part of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have heard about this mythical admin IRC channel but have no idea where it is or why we need it. If I wanted real-time chat, I'd be on Facebook more often. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've used it when I was an SPI clerk. I don't care for it for a variety of reasons, some of which has crossed Arb's threshold in the past. I haven't used in years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled on its existence a few months ago. Unfortunately my command of tech peaked with the advent of the electric typewriter. So after spending about 45 minutes trying to figure out how to get on it, and failing, I decided it was likely an online forum for secret Masonic conspiracies which I am religiously barred from, and I moved on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I was using IRC (or equiv) since before the public had access to the internet, and continued through the 90s. You aren't missing much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't IRC basically obsolete at this point? Why do we even use it anymore? I guess that's just our way of being "old school cool". Kurtis ^(talk) 03:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess it's easier in a way, especially in -help, although I'm like Ritchie333 in that I'm always on Facebook, I wouldn't want to friend all of the helpees we get in -help. DrStrauss talk 12:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone mind if I create WP:RFX300 once this closes? GAB^gab 21:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Go for it! Lepricavark (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yo GeneralizationsAreBad, you done it already? — fortunavelut luna 10:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This support count is growing faster than the rate of CO₂ in the atmosphere… I am concerned that Cullen328 will precipitate global warming. — JFG ^talk 01:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Times that 300 or more Wikipedians supported something already exists and he is already listed there. The new page should probably be redirected there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:10, 23 July 2017 (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.