Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
(Redirected from User:Cyberpower678/RfA)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Cyberpower678 edit

Final (110/39/4). Closed @ 09:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC) - closed as no consensus following Bureaucrat discussion. @ 17:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination edit

Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) – If you asked me if I'd be nominating Cyberpower678 for adminship when I was first introduced to him - I'm have given a cautious 'no'. There are a lot of great attributes to say for the guy - but I was concerned a great deal about his...enthusiasm. I was concerned that he would get involved in technical matters that were above his talent, or processes that he hadn't fully understood, or in disputes that would cause him to shut down. I am so ashamed that I hadn't had more confidence in Cyberpower678 from the start. He deserved better than my ill-conceived judgements. He's made a fool out of me - proven me very wrong.

Cyberpower and I met shortly after User:X!'s retirement. X!'s toolserver account expired and I just happened to be on IRC with a toolserver account at the time it happened. I took over the tools out of necessity at the time and I had no intention of them becoming "TParis'" tools. I took great effort to remind everyone that they were X!'s and I merely hosted them. I performed very little maintence other than to keep them online. Along came skipperdy-do-da with lots of ideas and asking for my support to let him write for the tools. I was reluctant at first but he kept bugging me - over and over and over again. Finally, with WMFLabs coming along, we agreed to transfer the tools into a project that we both could manage. I should have handed over the project sooner - Cyber took those tools and ran and what he transformed them into is astounding.

I'm sorry, this is going to rattle on a bit.

Cyberpower678 is not a great "content creator" - I'll admit. But, he's also not your generic vandalism patroller either just looking for access to that block button. He's a technically competent and process-savvy asset to the project. He has undertaken Worm's adoption in 2012, he has helped moderate contentious discussions, he's been very active at the technical village pump, rewrote tools and operates User:Cyberbot_I and User:Cyberbot_II. His technical expertise with the MediaWiki database and API make him a superb candidate for writing admin bots, working with templates which require the admin bit, and within in contentious areas to help solve disputes where we'd normally require admins. I think Cyberpower has the calm demeanor, knowledge level, and persistence to handle admin functions. On top of that, he shows introspective capabilities to recognize when it's appropriate to back out of a situation that is overwhelming - a skill many admins (including myself when I had the bit) lack. Further, I hope this is a step for Cyberpower678 toward B'Cratship where he'd be a tremendous (read TREMENDOUS) asset at WP:BRFA. v/r - TP 20:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination edit

I've been waiting for this day for a while. When I first met Cyberpower678 four years ago I knew he would make a fantastic admin one day. I believe that day has come.

Back in 2011 he was an enthusiastic young editor who was eager to use his skills to improve the project to the best of his abilities. The only problem was that he had trouble reigning in that enthusiasm and it got him in trouble a few times. He even managed to get indefinitely blocked back in November 2011. But that's a long time ago and the editor we are asking you to consider for adminship has grown both in maturity and "cluefullness" to the extent that he is hardly recognisable as the same editor. Indeed, he has developed into one of the most helpful Wikipedia contributors that the project has. The only thing that has not changed is his enthusiasm. If only there were more like him.

It is my considered opinion that giving Cyberpower678 the mop and associated admin responsibilities is a no-brainer. Just do it! Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination edit

As a member of the xTools team, I have worked closely with Cyberpower678 for some time now. Myself an administrator, I can attest to how his work has had a direct and profound effect on the admin community. Maintenance and development of the WP:RFPP bot, for instance, or RFU report and {{adminstats}}, are wondrous clerking features us admins take for granted everyday. Any issues with his bots are promptly addressed, exemplifying his dedication toward the project and diligence to keep things running smoothly. I can only imagine how adminship would not only assist Cyberpower678 further with these efforts, but also open the door to put his technical talents to play with admin bots, or work within the MediaWiki namespace. From within the xTools team, Cyberpower678 has shown excellent leadership skills, with a strong commitment to consensus-driven administration and onboarding of new maintainers. He is also admirably humble about other projects, such as the popular supercount user analysis tool, where he took extra caution to get backing from the community before making some statistics publicly available. This for me contradicts any doubt he can handle the role of adminship responsibly, and won't impulsively mash buttons. The mainspace is surely not where he will shine, but I believe his specialized proclivity and initiative will excel in other areas where bearing a mop would benefit the entire project. — MusikAnimal talk 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'd like to thank TParis for his kind nomination and coming back to Wikipedia to nominate me. He's been offering for quite some time now, but I never felt ready to run for RfA, until now. Also a thank you to Catfish Jim and MusikAnimal for volunteering when the presence of this page became known and a thank you to kind words. So I graciously accept the nominations. —cyberpowerChat:Online 00:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate edit

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 would probably immediately start working in username areas such as WP:UAA. Even though I don't have any contribs there, my experience with ACC makes me more than familiar with username policy. Also having the admin bit will be useful if ACC has a mistaken account creation. It's rare, but known to happen. I do have a few ideas for potential admin bots. Operating an adminbot requires the op to have the sysop bit as well. I frequently lurk around WP:RFPP, so I would start taking up page protections as well. Having template editor rights, I tend to go around addressing template protected edit requests. Having the bit would allow me to expand to fully protected edit requests for pages, templates, and interface pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would like my contribution to speak for themselves. I'll admit, my content work isn't going to impress any FAC reviewer. I've been primarily involved with ACC, bot work, and maintaining tools such as xTools and Quentinv57's tools. I'm currently working on getting xTools completely rewritten in coordination with the xTools team. I feel my greatest contribution would be introducing a fully stable set of tools that is so popular among the community.
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: My biggest conflict got me indefinitly blocked for oversight issues, when I seriously lacked clue. I tried to be a moderator of a dispute, and ended up screwing up big time. ArbCom was generous enough to unblock me days later. Needless to say I learnt my lesson and avoided a repeat. In another conflict, I was edit warring, where I caught myself having crossed the 3RR limit. I immediately acknowledged that I violated policy and was admonished instead of blocked. Back in my earlier Wikipedia volunteer career, I see myself as having been pretty stubborn, and thick headed, I took offense easily when I didn't agree with something, and caused quite some drama sometimes. I was practically bordering WP:NOTHERE in my opinion. Reflecting on my past, I realized I needed to change. I'd like to think that I have mellowed, become more mature, responsible, and most importantly level-headed and reasonable. I'm bound to make mistakes, but I'd like to think that my editing history shows that I am capable of learning from my mistakes and improving.
Question from Biblioworm
4. If I'm not mistaken, you were "Retired" as recently as a few months ago. Why are you seeking adminship so soon after you became active again?
A: I'm honestly not sure what you are talking about. I don't recall retiring myself at all. If you could possibly elaborate, that would be very helpful. I might be missing something here.
Hmm. There must be something seriously wrong with my memory if you never did, because I'm absolutely certain that I once saw a "Retired" template on your page. I'll try to find it, if I can. But, then again, I'm approaching the age where that sort of thing starts to happen, so perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised... --Biblioworm 02:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His usage fell off to almost nothing for a few months last fall [1], maybe that's what you are thinking of. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative possibility was given by TParis here. Samsara 12:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Andrevan@
5. You were previously indef-blocked. Can you explain the conditions that led to the block and what won't go wrong in the future? Andrevan@ 02:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: Back when I still had a non-existent clue level, I decided to try and settle a dispute between two editors regarding some UFC article. I believe the concern was regarding the citizenship of one of the fighters. So thinking it was the smart thing to do I attempted to contact the person and then ended up WP:OUTing the person. WilliamH was oversighting my edits and then blocked me on Thanksgiving Day, 2011, when the dispute got out of control. Having to contact ArbCom to get unblocked they helped me to understand what I was doing wrong. When I read through relevant policies, I simply learnt my lesson and learnt to not do it again. Getting indefinitely blocked was something I felt horrible about. To simply put it, what won't go wrong in the future is that I will instead use secondary reliably sources and never out anyone. As an ACC member, I'm also always taking great care to not inadvertently divulge private information. As for my second block, that was a Twinkle misclick that glitched. I also create User:Cyberpower678/Why I was blocked a while ago, in case anyone was curious.
Question from Stuartyeates
6. On which topic do you consider yourself to be furthest from the general Wikipedia consensus?
A: The one topic that does immediately come to mind when answering this is RfA. It seems to be a process that many can agree on that needs changing. Countless discussions regarding it were started, but no one can ever seem to agree on how to change it. So RfA is always remains an unchanged process.
Optional questions from jc37
In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.
  • A: I've personally never been in an instance where I felt it was acceptable to invoke IAR. So my action if I felt it necessary would be to consult the community first for input. While being BOLD can work, it can also have unintended consequences. To be accurately able to gauge what all of the community is thinking at one time, or predict how they will react to being BOLD is impossible. In any case when it comes to IAR, I would rather have a voice from the community to back up my reason for wanting to invoke IAR. What are some possible instances I should want to invoke IAR? With the recent request for resysop on the 'crats noticeboard, seemed to have stirred up a lot of controversy even though the editor in question didn't really leave under a cloud. Policy wise the 'crats' hands are tied and the concerns mentioned aren't really grounds for declining resysop. What if a good deal of editors each brought up unique concerns, and if ArbCom didn't invoke a temporary injunction, would that be enough to invoke IAR and deny resysop? Perhaps, but I would still consult other 'crats in that regard. In any case IAR is something I would consider and use with care if I did feel the need IAR was necessary, and only if my intended actions are supported by community consensus.
  • 8. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation, such as when deciding whether you should close a discussion, or whether you should be the one to block (or unblock) an editor and/or protect (or unprotect) a page.
  • A: Being involved for me means that I have been active in an area which could result in a biased opinion. So if I took part in a discussion, it can indicate that I have enough interest in the subject to comment on it. As such I could have a biased opinion, and therefore am considered involved in the discussion. When it comes to blocking a user, or unblocking a user, it's important to consider if I've been active around the editor, whether I have a prejudged opinion against them, or if I have interacted with the user. An example would be an administrator and an editor are in a dispute over some edit on an article. The administrator sees the edit from the editor as disruptive but not enough to justify it as blatant vandalism. It would be improper of the administrator to block the editor. A thread on the talk page should be started and if necessary brought to ANI. The same thing applies to protecting pages. If I am a regular editor on an article, unless I am constantly reverting obvious vandalism I should not be protecting the page if I am seeing edits I do not agree with. This question does bring me back to the Pending Changes RfC. It was big, and I was still pretty eager back then, so I wanted to close, but I also already had expressed my support for. I was adamant on closing, and even prompted a discussion. I did eventually step down, but looking back, this was a perfect instance where I was involved and shouldn't have even offered to take part in the closing discussion.
  • 9. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.
  • A: The most important thing to keep in mind when determining consensus is that strength of an argument is key. No matter where consensus is being determined, that rule always applies, but determining consensus is also different in different areas. For example at an XfD, if many believe that the article should be deleted, but one editor comes by and provides an excellent reason, that reason should carry more weight in consideration. In an unlikely scenario if someone were to nominate for deletion for lacking notability, and there are 6 delete !votes, and then 1 keep. If the keep suddenly provided a plethora of sources demonstrating notability, that would be enough grounds to close as keep, as that editor has just proven notability. In an RfC, however, since the primary role is to request for comments and possibly a proposal, the overall community wishes need to be considered. One compelling support shouldn't override the obvious opposition it is receiving from other users. An RfC is a request for the opinions for other editors and it won't do any good to consider one editors opinion over another.
  • 10. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: I'd first investigate the situation. If they are clearly edit warring, without any attempts to discuss on the talk page, or have already crossed WP:3RR, I would block involved parties for 24 hours, to let them cool off and advise them to discuss the edit dispute before further editing. If the issue has already stopped and a discussion did start in the meantime, I would deem a block unnecessary. I would however warn them of it, especially if they crossed WP:3RR. If they end up warring again after my warning, I might need to consider a block. This is all provided I'm not already involved. EDIT: The scratched out term was a poor choice of words as cool off blocks are highly discouraged.
  • 11. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: While I have no objections to not being an administrator, I feel I could help out the admin corps in areas I feel strong in. This answer I feel has mostly been answered in number 1 however, I'm no content creator. With that, I don't really do much on wiki. Most of the work is bots, tools, and ACC which is more off wiki than onwiki. This may read a little weird, but being an admin would allow me to contribute more onwiki. I've noticed that editors that are prolific content creators, that become admins end up fading away as a content creator and start to focus primarily on cleaning up with the mop. As I'm not a content creator, I'm not fading from one circle and joining another. I feel with what I do on Wikipedia, I would be a better admin than a content editor.
  • 12. I've encountered you around many community discussions, and a theme that seemed to me to be recurring is that you would volunteer to close discussions which you were involved, or which you had voiced an opinion about. And then when others showed concern, it took some "discussion" for you to decide to withdraw from closing. Now, there are times when it may be necessary to close such a discussion, and we trust our admins to show discernment in that, as in most things. So here's my question (an addendum to #8): Concerning the sentence: "There's always another admin"? What does it mean to you, and under what circumstances, if ever, should it be applied? - jc37 03:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: I've actually mentioned something like that in question 8. This also goes to my answer for question 3, where I mentioned that I self reflect on my actions every time. That RfC was something I reflected on. I was clearly involved and should have never volunteered to close, especially since !voted to support it. To answer this specific question, the statement to me means there's another admin just as qualified to do the work. None of us irreplaceable. More to the point though, sometimes it's more desirable to leave the work in someone else's capable hands. However you don't always want, need, or have to push the work into someone else's hands. The RfC for example, I picked up the stick and never wanted to let go, but I eventually dropped it, once it became clear I shouldn't close an RfC I participated in. I should've let another admin pick up the stick instead. Letting go is another thing I took to heart from that RfC.
Additional question from Σ
13. You lead a busy life, full of activities, many of which are required of you. Tell about something you do for the pleasure of it.
A: I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to answer here. I study Electrical Engineering and it's quite demanding on time. But it's rewarding. In my free time, I hang out with friends, play games, and/or code stuff for me or Wikipedia. Family time for me is also important. I always keep up to date with my cousin by Skyping him. Because most of my family live in Europe while I live in America, I always try to find time to visit them.
Additional question from Leaky
14. Before your current identity (November 2011) you claim to have "been a contributor of Wikipedia for years. However, vandalism started getting out of control and so you developed this account". Please clarify whether that was a registered account and what the reference to vandalism getting out of control referred to.
A: Oh boy. I clearly remember doing little things such as fixing typos as an IP, when I read Wikipedia articles. Please don't ask me to recall the IP addresses. In any case I only really started getting involved when I created this account.
15. Do you still follow certain Admins. without hesitation or do you now think for yourself
A: If I hadn't thought for myself then, I certainly do now. Back then I considered myself to still be in the learning process, in which case I would have blindly taken an admin's word at face value. With my 4 years here, I can confidently say I have sufficient experience to generate my own educated opinion over matters, and I can most certainly think for myself. If your questioning whether I would let myself be manipulated by an admin, then my answer is no.
16. Is that stress indicator serious or a joke?
A. My stress indicator is quite serious. I feel it important users on Wikipedia know if I'm going through stress or not. When I started college, I really started to learn to cope with stress and relieve it. I find myself less stressed about things than before I started college.
17. This screed 2.5 years ago was a bit self-pitying. notice to leave the community. What changed your mind and what's changed with your temperament in the meantime?
A: Hmm...It's hard to remember what was going through my mind, but if I have my timeline still correct, I believe I was going through a stressful situation in RL, that I was having trouble coping with regarding family matters. With that stress on my chest, I felt I was screwing everything up on Wikipedia, and my judgement was off. The indefinite break allowed me to deal with RL situations and cool off. That's about all I could remember about it. The note could have been better worded, or not even worded at all. If I saw the need for a break, the best thing to do would simply go on break and try and grab attention to my self, and certainly not through a self-pitying notice like. I agree with you on that. Reading that post from 2.5 almost 3 years ago, it does seem self-pitying and perhaps WP:DIVAish.
Additional question from Northamerica1000
18. How do you perceive the overall state of Articles for deletion at this time?
A: Regarding the extent of your question, I'm not certain what you want me to answer about, but from what I'm seeing there, it could use more admins there.
Additional question from Philg88
19 When you say that you "have a few ideas for potential admin bots", what exactly would they do? Is the admin bit required such that they can carry out deletion/blocking operations without human interraction?
A The first adminbot I would probably create is a revived version of User:7SeriesBOT. From what I'm aware of, it is still approved but the botop lacks sysop rights. I saw it as quite a useful bot to have especially if a user is not a sysop. I would port the code and update it as necessary to get the bot functioning correctly again. User:Cyberbot III would assume adminbot roles. I created the page many whiles ago, so I would need to update it to reflect my latest intentions. Also another idea I've been working on is, since inactive sysops get their rights stripped, inactive users should too. This would be something I would run by the community before implementing such a bot. Adminbots have a potential to deal a massive amount of damage to the encyclopedia, which is why careful consideration, planning, and coding is needed. So the other ideas I will only mention and run by the community after carefully considering the ups and downs of such a bot. I hope this is a satisfactory answer to your question. If you have any follow questions, feel free to ask them.
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
20. What is your view of Process is important?
A: Process has been established for good reasons, and through community consensus. Wikipedia is a consensus driven process, and ignoring the process would be ignoring consensus, which is typically a disruption to Wikipedia, with a few rare cases. I agree with what WP:PI is saying and that if there is the need to do an out of process action, such as WP:IAR, that consensus should be sought out first.
21. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A: While my involvement in the use of CSDs is practically non-existent, I feel that the literal wording should be strictly applied. CSDs, prompt fast deletions and vague wording or interpretation can cause a legitimate article to be deleted. For the purposes of this answer, let's call a legitimate article being deleted, a false positive, while an article that should be deleted not getting deleted, a false negative. If the interpretation of the CSD is too vague, it could be responsible for false positives, whereas if the interpretation was strict, it would likely be responsible for false negatives. In my opinion, false negatives are addressed by simply expanding the wording of the deletion criteria. Any article that has a CSD must meet the CSD perfectly, otherwise a discussion over its deletion should be held. If necessary a new CSD criteria could be created, if consensus favors the criteria. In my overall, ensuring that premature deletion doesn't happen is a better option.
22. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A: This slightly ties into questions 7 and 20. I explained most of it in question 7 but as an administrator if there is a need to WP:IAR, there should be voice from the community backing that need. Else WP:WHEEL may happen following in an emergency desysop.
23. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A: Since I already work in WP:ACC I'm not only helping new users, I'm creating them. They come to us seeking help in getting started after they have their account. This requires me to be familiar with policy in regards to editing articles and being able to direct them to the proper locations to allow them to get things done. To answer your question, I'm already partially fulfilling that role. I shouldn't have much issue spreading out on that role. I also would like to think that I don't WP:BITE which is important, especially for new users.
Additional question from Ancheta Wis
24. Regarding xTools. I have tried to reply to the appeal for xTools volunteers by emailing user:C678, and now also via the xTools mailing list, and your link below. I guess we are on different channels? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: I believe this issue has been addressed. If you use an email address, be aware that Yahoo! users cannot send email through Wikpedia's EmailUser function.
Additional question from WereSpielChequers
25. Most candidates will include some examples of articles they have worked on in their answer to Q2, usually sufficient to judge whether they have yet demonstrated an understanding of reliable sourcing. I appreciate that your best contributions are elsewhere, but can you give us some diffs where you have added referenced content or referenced unreferenced content written by others? ϢereSpielChequers 16:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: The only thing I could say is that I was providing the English translations of titles based on the same official media sources for the television series Pokemon. Though I wasn't referencing it, I was using official sources that are listed on the bottom of the article.
Additional question from Bosstopher
26. Apologies for piling another question onto this already huge mountain of questions. You're browsing reddit one day when you see a post from someone with the username koskesh, boasting about how he's planning to disrupt Wikpedia in a certain way. You've also recently noticed a user:Koskesh on Wikipedia doing exactly what the reddit koskesh is boasting about. How do you approach this situation? Is it a violation of WP:OUTING to point out a connection between the two accounts?
A: Technically WP:OUTING allows the linking of wiki accounts to external accounts on a case by case basis. Personally though, I wouldn't link the two together. If the user is being persistently disruptive, regardless if they boasted about it elsewhere, the account would be blocked disruption. I'm always taking great care to not inadvertantly divulge private information about users. It's required of me at WP:ACC.
Additional question from Catfish Jim and the soapdish
27. You've been asked far more questions than most get during an RFA. Too many, perhaps. But I'm going to ask you another. Worm TT raised an interesting point about admin recall in his support !vote. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?
A: The infamous recall question. Yes I would be open to recall. Here's my criteria for recall. If a thread at AN or ANI gains consensus, where the topic is about whether I'm fit to retain the bit or not, any user may open a reconfirmation RfA, provided I am notified of the discussion. During the RfA, my sysop bits will be suspended until the RfA closes. The 'crats will then determine whether I should be given back the bit or not.
Additional question from Beyond My Ken
28. Please explain why 40.2% of your contributions are to User Talk pages.
A: Because I do tool and bot work, most of my user talk edits are me responding to questions, regarding them. Note that most of the user talk edits are my user talk page. Before xTools moved to Labs, I was frequently communicating to TParis regarding the maintenance of the code. I also took up WormTT's adoption program which also involved a lot of userspace edits. The remaining edits are normal conversation regarding miscellaneous matters on Wikipedia.
Another question from Biblioworm
29. Please explain what you meant when you said this in question 19: "Also another idea I've been working on is, since inactive sysops get their rights stripped, inactive users should too." Are you saying that inactive users should lose their ability to even edit?
A. Wait...what? Remove their ability to edit, as in, block? Absolutely not. I wouldn't even support a bot that blocks inactive users. I'm talking about proposing the idea of removing advanced permissions from inactive users, such as Template Editor, Autopatrolled, Reviewer, Rollbacker, Account Creator, and Abuse Filter. This idea for a bot still needs community consensus however and development of such a bot will not proceed until there is one. To clarify, this is simply an idea.

General comments edit

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion edit

Support edit
  1. Absolutely. — foxj 01:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nom.--v/r - TP 01:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As co-nom — MusikAnimal talk 01:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Happy to support your request for the admin toolset. Thanks for all your work. - NQ (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I completely agree with the nom. A couple years ago, I would have said he was too enthusiastic, but he has mellowed and proven he is an asset to the project, time after time. Most of the time, we want more content in a candidate's background, but he more than makes up for it with his technical experience, and frankly, we also need tech admin. Each of us admin can't be all things, and you can't fake tech. I'm comfortable giving him all the buttons, knowing he might only use some of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Dennis, he certainly has much needed technial skills, but he does not have the managerial/organisational skills to get things done. The tasks before him with Labs are enormous and he still does not have a competent team, nor is he part of a competent team that needs some solid leadership to address these problems with all the disfunctional tools and the ones that have been down completely for days or weeks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Having the admin bit is more likely to help than hinder him in this endeavor. And I hate to punish his hard work by telling him how to spend his time and denying him some tools he qualifies for out of my idea of how he should spend his time. We are all volunteers, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Thought he was an admin already, and no problems to make me oppose. KonveyorBelt 01:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support (moved to neutral) - He's a valuable asset to the project and good guy! I trust the candidate and I trust the nominators. Swarm we ♥ our hive 01:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Yep. he is an excellent editor. I trust the candidate fully and he will make a wonderful sysop. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per what is probably the best nom statement I have seen. I appreciate Kudpung's caution, but I have a feeling you need the tools to further your tech work. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support on the condition that he doesn't let his parrot block anyone...if he can figure out how to protect pages, well, that's another story. Seriously, I don't foresee any issues and it would be good for him to gain understanding of the admin tools so that his bot work may complement that.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I am using my phone in class to support. :P Trusted user and technically proficient. Why not? Jianhui67 T★C 01:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cautious support – and I strongly regret that this is a "cautious" support. From how I know CP678, he is a very enthusiastic, eager, skilled, technical user with generally good judgement   and he is a maintainer of xTools, a tool that I rely on tremendously. The enthusiastic and eager parts are both a blessing and a curse; too much of either or both is, from what I can tell, a bad thing for an admin to have. Regardless, I trust that CP678 will learn and not be over-eager in the first few months if this RfA succeeds. Cheers, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Cyberpower678, although not too many of the opposes are swaying enough for me to change my !vote, your newest bot's trial run and bugs with existing bots of yours during this RfA itself are making me nervous. Many of the supports are based on your technical ability, which may be called into question here. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to make it clear to the closing crat that this is (regretfully) a very weak support. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Surprisingly competent. Cloudchased (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, quite frankly I'm okay if there's not a ton of admin activity; he's a very trusted user who definitely won't use them for evil, and if he makes one good admin action that's a positive for everybody. After all, this is NOBIGDEAL. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Go for it. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I have long admired Cyberpower's technical skills (some of Wikipedia's most valuable bots are created and maintained by him), and the way he responds so promptly when something goes wrong - usually just a simple "fixed" next to the notification of the problem. But more than that, I admire his calm demeanor and even temper. On his talk page he often has people yelling at him over some technical problem or other, even though he is just a volunteer like the rest of us. But he stays calm and focused on the problem. He may not be a typical admin candidate, but I am very glad that he has applied and I look forward to his getting a mop. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ///EuroCarGT 02:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support This editor is a net positive. Mkdwtalk 02:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support; normally I would like to see some content editing, but with the work C678 intends to do, (i.e. not blocking people or patrolling the admin noticeboards) I don't think it's an issue. Candidate seems competent, has clue, and has genuinely learned from past mistakes. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - excellent work with your bots and xtools. Than you for your service, and I look forward to you serving in an administrative capacity. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support – has been patiently willing to answer some of my mostly-non-techie questions. His bots are an important part of the project, as are The XTools(!). Heck, we need more like him! I see absolutely no problems making him an Admin, even though I don't expect him to start hanging out at either ANI or XfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. (edit conflict) Support. Cyberpower's technical acumen is needed around here. While, normally, lack of content editing might be an issue, it is immaterial here, as English Wikipedia has only improved with Cyberpower's tech-related sagacity. Epic Genius (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Cyberpower is clearly a trusted member of the community, which is exactly the sort of person that should have that admin bit. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 03:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Good answers Andrevan@ 03:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. On of those "He isn't already?" candidates. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  25. Probably wouldn't have supported a few years ago, but I think he's ready. Though please be careful and take it slowly, per Kudpung. --Rschen7754 04:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Definite Support. I thought Cyber was an administrator when I first came across him. Although Kudpung does raise some valid concerns, I'm sure Cyber can handle a few extra tools. Good luck, Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 04:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support, hard working editor that'll do a great job with the tools. :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Cyberpower has shown his dedication to the project and would be an asset to the admin team. I have no concerns, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Admins who have both technical skills and the patience to use them here are much needed. I don't understand Kudpung's rationale; we're all volunteers who contribute where we choose, and not accepting an offer of help in one area in the hopes that some other problem might be solved instead would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    11th-hour upgrade to strong support with thanks to the candidate for level-headed and patient responses to an unreasonable number of questions and some poorly reasoned opposition. "I oppose because you might not follow my priorities about which tasks you should work on" is not a collegial way to treat a fellow volunteer. Treating primarily technical contributors dismissively, and acting as if the rest of us are somehow owed the product of their efforts in a way that's rarely applied to article writers, is another one of those long-term community behaviors that hasn't changed much over time despite being clearly counterproductive. As for worrying about when he's going to do his homework, that's squarely in the category of MYOB. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've tried to express the same sentiments but you seem to have nailed it. The opposers can't even decide on whether they'd rather have him do content work or work on tools. Many of them can't even decide which tool isn't up to their standards. And others are measuring their own minor obscure hardly-ever-used tools as comparisons despite Cyber's tools receiving some of the heaviest traffic. And still others presume to tell him where his time is best spent. *shrug*--v/r - TP 22:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Co-nom. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 05:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Software != adminship. Re Kudpung, if he's qualified to hold the tools, than support. I'm certain that Cyberpower is completely capable of managing his own time. Even if, hypothetically speaking, he wanted to stop maintaining his tools, what's the problem? We're volunteers, not paid employees. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support 100%. This will benefit us a lot. --Silver Samurai 06:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support It's been a while, but I used to work very closely with Cyberpower. Back then, he was not suitable for adminship. Anyone knows my history on wikipedia can probably work out where my involvement came in. Now, there is a niche that Cyberpower will fill very nicely, that of a technical admin. The progress he has made from there to here is exceptional, he's always willing to hear feedback. As long as he realises that there is extra responsibility with these tools and that he should remain open to feedback, I am sure he'll do well. I hope, too, that he opens himself to recall to keep himself in check. To this day, if he ever needs advice, my door is open. WormTT(talk) 06:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support because I see no good reason not to. My thoughts after reading the neutral/oppose votes: I trust Cyber with the tools - how he chooses to manage his time is up to him. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, everything checks out. Antrocent (♫♬) 07:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support a random sampling of past edits looked good. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support: I hate pile-on comments and "thought he was an admin already" comments, but this is one of them. If cyberpower678 is too busy at the moment to use the tools much, then that's fine: no harm done. There's no point dragging them through another RfA later, or preventing them from using tools because you think they have better things to work on. I trust cyberpower678 to be able to exercise judgement on which issues are the most important and balance tertiary education with work here. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support He isn't going to write any FAs any time soon, I get that, but also he's not likely to stir up trouble either. His technical expertise and dedication to the project in that area is unquestionable and very much appreciated. I don't really care about blocks in 2011/12 - ancient history as far as I'm concerned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak support Like a couple of others have said, I would have opposed a couple of years back when Cyberpower678 was too enthusiastic for his own good. As time passed however, he has grown to a more mature editor who's willing to listen to feedback and concerns before taking actions, which is an important attribute for an admin. Having said that, I do echo Kudpung's and others concerns that when the strength of this request is based on your technical work, your technical work still has areas which leave something to be desired. Learn to say no (or stop saying yes) to technical requests/ideas if you don't have time for it. Prioritise the maintenance of existing tools over the new fun idea even if bug fixes are boring or less fun. Other than that, you're doing great work, keep it up. -- KTC (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support For his technical expertise. Jim Carter 11:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Primarily per Ritchie333. Yes, he doesn't do a ton of article writing, but he has such amazing technical skills that could be really beneficial on the admin side. Also, only one legitimate block nearly four years ago that seemed to have been resolved with little to no issues. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 12:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I have seen no good reason to oppose this candidate and plenty of reason to support. Those suggesting that more article work is needed should understand than being an admin is about using a mop to clean stuff up, not write articles. Chillum 13:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is perhaps very true of admin work. But what better way is there to demonstrate a sense of what is good editing and what are good ways to navigate editorial conflicts before you start the admin work, where that experience will be given a new application? I can assume good faith on the part of the candidate, and still not feel sure that the candidate is suitable for telling editors how to edit. Italick (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As an administrator I need to be very careful that I don't impose my view of what good editing is in a dispute. Rather when wearing my admin hat I need to be neutral in editorial concerns and apply policy, consensus, and the intent of the community. When I wear my editor hat(which I confess is getting a bit dusty) it is a different story, I must be careful not to turn to any admin tool. These things must be seperated, which is why I don't think being a great article creator is a prerequisite. Wikipedia needs different types of contributions and administration one we are in dire need of. While I find your position to be reasonable I personally don't think it is a reason to disqualify an otherwise fine candidate. Chillum 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Not every admin has to be a content writer. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think that any faults with Cyberpower's tools are all that relevant - has anyone forgotten just how unstable the WMF servers for tools have traditionally been? The blocks were a long time ago, so I'm not worried about those. And if having admin tools will help CP improve the tools, why should I oppose that? I don't see how giving CP the admin tools is going to give us any serious problems. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Don't see any reason why not. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I like what I see. David Cannon (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - I continue to be baffled by those who oppose RFAs on the basis of "not a content creator" - there is more to being an admin than that. A level-head and detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policy, as well as technical skills, are far more important - and this candidate has all of them. GiantSnowman 16:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Cyberpower is trustworthy, capable and willing. There are no red flags or valid concerns presented (in my opinion) and I can't imagine a scenario where they would use the tools to do anything other than try to improve the encyclopedia. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - The opposes don't convince me in the slightest - Sure he doesn't create articles but he has brilliant technical skills which is a big help here, Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 21:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Absolutely. Cyberpower678 would be an asset with the tools. Glad to support. Kurtis (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the opposing points and found them to be entirely unconvincing. A few imperfect edits shouldn't preclude anyone's chances at RfA. If that were the case, we might as well desysop every single administrator on the site. Kurtis (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Responds to bot problems quickly in my experience, always civil - we need the helps, people. Give the guy the mop. KrakatoaKatie 04:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per noms and Dennis Brown. Looks like a good candidate to me. INeverCry 07:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support precious power to support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Moderate support With all the bots/tools my baseline criterium "Is dedicated to the project" is satisfied, but the lack of content contributions is regrettable. Nothing here or on their talkpage to suggest that cyberpower would end up POV-pushing or engage in any serious misbehaviour. The admittedly large number of issues with the tools that I see on their talkpage appear to get addressed in a speedy and professional fashion. An oversight block is obviously a serious issue but a successful BASC appeal (BASC does have a reputation for being extremely strict) as well as the conversations here and forward and here indicate to me that the issues are addressed (Also, the block was several years ago and happened only a few months into their editorship). Participation in admin areas is a bit low but not problematic enough to concern me. Also, running adminbots is a good suggestion and reason for seeking the mop the way I see it. I do recommend cyberpower to take the advice (esp. by Kudpung) regarding their activity levels, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I've got in touch with him in Account creations IRC. Being new to the the tool, he was very kind enough to explain stuff to me. Although I am not well aware of his past works, he's doing great. Working on ACC tool speaks for itself on how trustworthy he can be. Number of edits doesn't necessarily account for his experience. I'm sure that he is well aware of policies and he'll do great as an admin. --JAaron95 Talk 10:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I've been following Cyberpower's career for a long time, especially at RfPP, where he probably knows the process and the policy better than anyone but the handful of regular admins. He's a little rough around the edges still, and I might have waited another six months or a year before nominating him, just to be sure, but I have no doubt he'd make an excellent admin and would be a great asset to the project in that position. There can be no doubting that he has the competence and ability to do the job—he's spent a long time being an asset in various admin areas and has gained first-hand experience of how decisions are made there—the only question is over his judgement. Cyberpower's zeal sometimes gets him into trouble—he sometimes wades into complicated issues without assessing the situation beforehand—but I'm confident that he has mellowed (for want of a better word) and will continue to mellow with time and experience. He doesn't lack anything that can't be learnt on the job—adminship is always a learning curve, but Cyberpower has a significant headstart. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I think the observations that the candidate isn't fixing tool bugs fast enough or effectively organizing a team to do so are orthogonal to adminship. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Because I think Cyberpower is more than qualified for the areas he wants to work in and I trust him not to venture into administrator areas in which he currently lacks sufficient experience. Sam Walton (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I think Samwalton9 sums it up nicely (a) high level of expertise in certain areas (b) high level of community trust, leads to logical support for use of admin tools in these areas, and trust in their appropriate use. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per Opabinia regalis. --Laser brain (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - I remember once telling you that you will not pass your RfA but you would have my support. It was over two years ago, if I am not wrong. You have done some really nice work since. You have stayed out of trouble, worked well in the technical areas and most importantly, gained the trust of the community. I trusted you back then and I trust you now. You will be more than fine with the mop. — Yash! (Y) 12:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - lots of opposes for level of article activity ... but we're not !voting for editor of the year - we're !voting for someone to have access to admin tools and there is no evidence that he lacks either the requisite trust or competence. --B (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - We can trust this guy. I think ?11 shows his best reasons. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per WP:NETPOS. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support A high level of trust and experience in specialized areas without any reasonable reason to oppose this candidate. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support I just love the guy. Keep doing thankless tools and bot maintenance job for us.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 00:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Cautious support - lack of content work not a good thing, but contrition about past block is. Also, bots likely to be scrutinised and problems highlighted. I suspect a more than even chance will be a net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support User has been very helpful, has helped a lot in getting various tools up and running for the community. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support The variability in activity is a little concerning. But work is generally of high quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support A very technical admin, nothing wrong with that. No worries about abuse of tools or anything else. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Net positive. Pichpich (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75. support very helpful, always willing to listen--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Supoort. Giving Cyberpower the tools will benefit the encyclopedia. Malinaccier (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. The "oppose" arguments do not convince me, and I see no obvious issues. Yeah, he got blocked a few years ago, but I'm satisfied with the explanation offered. I'd prefer more experience at AfD and content creation, but if he's mostly going to hang out at UAA, RFPP, and technical areas, then I guess it's not really necessary. I think his technical skills will prove useful as an admin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support as we need more technically gifted admins and I see nothing wrong with this candidate unless you want to be nitpicky (remember that no one is perfect, not even admins!). -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support His technical expertise is a rare talent which we cannot afford to ignore. Comments about his lack of article creation seem to miss the point, which is that adminship is about maintaining and protecting the encyclopedia, with adding to it definitely secondary. I see that distant block as irrelevant except as a learning experience, which he is clearly benefitting from.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I thought you were one already, to be honest. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Weak Support Even if he is cautious about the exceptions to the OUTING policy himself due to the past experiences, he clearly understands its limits. Sadly he didn't get the "bonus point" answer to my question. "Koskesh" is an incredibly rude swear word in the persian language and therefore completely unsuitable as a username. But he wont be in charge of reporting usernames if sysoped just handling reports, so that's ok. Comes across as someone who means well, and who will be very cautious with their admin actions. Bosstopher (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support, despite an unconventional CV for adminship (which is why I—and perhaps others—were awaiting answers to the additional questions), as a net positive. Miniapolis 22:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, for anyone whom MusikAnimal trusts or sees fit, then, I feel will use the admin buttons in a discerning manner to the benefit of this encyclopedia, not to its hindrance or detriment.The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. There are valid concerns in the oppose section, but in my opinion Cyberpower has more than made up for this with his positive contributions, and I trust him not to abuse the tools. I agree with the others who think making him an admin would be a net positive, and I look forward to seeing more of his technical work. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support: For the reasons given by the nominator - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support I personally believe that, since administrators mostly do maintenance work and their tools have little to do with actual article development (not the deletion of articles), at least some technical knowledge in MediaWiki is an absolute must. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support per noms and an overall WP:NETPOS for the project. —  dainomite   15:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Q7 gives me a bit of pause, and I wonder what the nominee would do if confronted with a situation where another IAR'ed, and would urge the nominee to exercise caution in such a circumstance. Q21 is precisely on target. I am perpetually baffled by activity level concerns - an admin who is around only sometimes still helps the backlogs, etc. more than one who was never appointed in the first place. I suppose there may be some justification for them on the basis of ongoing change in policy and practice, but I would hope that any admin would have the good sense to be aware of such issues when returning from a period of reduced activity. Finally, while I don't know if we actually need technically-focused admins, I don't see how having another could possibly hurt! Not really seeing any red flags and not more yellow flags than I'm comfortable, so I'm going to support this candidacy.– Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support With your recovery from an indefinite block, you have shown yourself recovery. Your large amount of edits in the user talk pages concern me a bit about your role in creating templates for administrators, but your contributions are of high quality, and I am happy to accept. DSCrowned(talk) 04:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Not every admin needs to be an article writer. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Sure. Legoktm (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many other aspects to Wikipedia besides content creation, and I think Cyber will put these tools to good use where his skills shine. MJ94 (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Moving to oppose.[reply]
  92. More than "Obviously" --Pratyya (Hello!) 14:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support per nominations. Seems to be a competent guy that would be a good admin. Kaldari (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support There's more than one type of admin. Dan653 (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support I have some reservations based on a few of your answers but, weighing the pros and cons, I would like to see you at work with the tools. Liz Read! Talk! 17:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support: Even though he doesn't have much in the way of content creation, I think CP makes up for it with technical ability. Many of the opposes seem to be based on the fact that he doesn't live on Wikipedia. Everybody deserves a break, and I don't think that anybody in the community is entitled to have any of the bots that anybody creates for Wikipedia. They're doing this at their own free will; if he weren't here, would those bots even exist? Frood 18:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Weak support - I am not at all happy about the nominee's lack of edits in mainspace, or the fact that their primary focus in on tools, which are (obviously) a useful thing, but not primary to the project. Still, I'm satisfied by the answer to Q28, I don't really see any other really good reason to oppose, and (generally speaking) staying neutral to the end (as opposed to temporarily) feels like a cop-out to me. I hope that the respected editors on the support side are correct, and that I won't regret this vote. BMK (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Lack of content creation never affected me. [stwalkerster|talk] 00:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Why don't you already have the mop? Seriously seems to be a good candidate. Melody Concertotalk 00:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Per Dennis Brown, EpicGenius, Frood and others with similar comments. This is a case where technical ability and contributions overcome the lack of mainspace edits. It appears that Cyperpower678 can put the tools to good use. I see nothing to suggest the candidate will not be a net positive. Under those circumstances, the possibility the candidate would make fewer administrative contributions that other administrators is not a negative because I expect the contributions to be beneficial to the project. Donner60 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Very helpful user. Good luck. --Meno25 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - For his technical ability. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Like TParis, I didn't expect to ever support CP678 but I watched him mature and mellow and improve over time. His lack of content contribution concerned me. No one understands content creation until they do some. There's no substitute for experience. But for the foreseeable future, maybe he shouldn't contribute to articles; no one has ever accused him of writing elegant prose and I don't expect to see any in the near future. Needing Q29 to clarify the answer to Q19 is telling. I could go on but in the end, it's about trust. I trust that CP678 will never knowingly misuse administrator tools. I trust he'll avoid deletion or blocking until advised and mentored by experienced admin's. Yes, he will make mistakes and I trust he will do everything he can to fix them. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Technical skills combined with Administrative power, and the result will be positive. Aero Slicers 19:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support per Opa and TP. Alakzi (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - I've thought long and hard about this one before coming down firmly on the "support" side. Cyberpower is not my perfect RfA candidate, but that's not the standard. Too often we focus on the negatives of an admin candidate, especially when the pile-on !votes begin; we don't focus on the positives often enough. Cyber is a solid citizen who will be a positive addition, with little or no down side. Sometimes we forget that in the rush to show how tough we can be on candidates, and this candidate deserves better than that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Has an important role, has a lot of trust. Let's see how he does. →StaniStani 00:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - While the issues the opposers are valid, I feel like Cyperpower is a net positive and would do great work with the tools. TheMesquitobuzz 04:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - Largely based on previous observations and interactions. Best of luck. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1. Oppose I am somewhat swayed by Kudpung's argument regarding unfinished business in a major area of the applicant's contributions. I am aware that it may seem punitive to deny a candidate progression seemingly because they are actually contributing positively; however, as per biblioworm's comment that main space contributions are lacking (and, perhaps symptomatically, the tools are only 10% working and don't allow me to verify the relevant info), and this application feeling strongly predicated on the candidate's contributions in the tools arena, I feel it is appropriate. As noted by Kudpung, this should not reflect negatively on future application, but for now it may be the wrong time. Regards, Samsara 04:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Per Kudpung. Or, in other words:

    It's true, your content work isn't going to impress any FAC reviewer. Your primary focus is in software, so a criticism of your work in software is for the purposes of this RfA sufficient enough as a criticism of your work on WP in general.

    I'd like to see a rewrite of xtools. But you have a lot on your plate just for that, not to mention in real life as well. While we all deal with real life, it seems to greatly affect your ability to maintain bots while holding the quality to an industrial standard. Consider your talk page; a cursory look at it in its current state shows reports from other users asking about bug after bug after bug. Yes, you are quick to reply and make "quick dirty fix"es. However the fact that this is happening at all is very telling of the quality of your maintenance for your bots.

    So throughout your archives we can see people complaining about bots not functioning as intended, and at the same time you're quick to jump at requests for bots, while you're swamped by real life and planning to work on xtools. So we can see from this that you definitely are passionate for the technical aspects of Wikipedia. But we can also see that you're continually biting off more and more when your bots are breaking left, right, and center and xtools still isn't finished.

    In Archive 22 we see the point in a nutshell: You need to understand your own personal limitations, especially with school and all, before you think you're ready to take on any more work. All this (including the several times that you've retired, I'd tentatively wager) seems to be indicative of the stress you face from juggling so many things at once.

    As an editor in good standing (last I checked), I appreciate your continued contributions to the project and hope you continue to show your enthusiasm for it. But I cannot in good conscience support this RfA.

    →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Many of the outages can be explained by this: [2]. The bots that are not working are related to this outage - all of the cronjobs were lost and had to be recreated.--v/r - TP 04:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I too suffered from the outage. Looking through his talk archives, we see the same complaints about bugs in bots and tools again and again; see archive 15 or any of his other archives for examples. We're consistently seeing problem after problem with him maintaining his software. Though many things can be (and are sometimes rightfully) blamed on Labs, this one can not be. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and assume Cyber's tools have more lines of code, more complicated cronjobs, and more resource intensive scripts than what you're running. Comparing bug reports per lines of code might be more appropriate - but even the level of complication as well as the intensity of use by users impacts the number of bugs that will be discovered. Your argument doesn't account for any of this. And frankly, you should be aware of it. Blizzard Entertainment gets thousands of bug reports daily[3] - are you saying they can't maintain their software?--v/r - TP 17:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blizzard Customer support consists of hundreds of employees, and we take thousands of calls and tickets every day.[4] Only if you think most of Blizzard's support tickets are bug reports.
    I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and assume Cyber's tools have more lines of code, more complicated cronjobs, and more resource intensive scripts than what you're running. What I think you may be saying, rightly or wrongly, is that maybe the candidate's tasks are more complicated to execute than mine are, and therefore development can be expected to be more problematic. There's no proof of that, though, but suppose for a moment that this is the case:
    There are people in the oppose section opposing for the traditional reasons: lack of any significant content creation and lack of good judgement, to name a few. By contrast, there are people who support as a kind of "reward" for writing important bots, though that should actually be reason to oppose because he needs the time to focus on fixing his important bots instead of admin work.
    At any rate, you haven't addressed the argument. He's stressed. He's responding to that stress by trying to do more things (not wise), which is negatively affecting the quality of his work. On Wikipedia, that means the code, that is (apparently) of key importance to keeping WP working properly, is not receiving sufficient care. It's obvious that he is currently unable to handle the current workload he deals with on WP alongside real life given his performance in school and the already-mentioned issues about his code, much less all that plus admin work.
    →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly, if you don't like the level of support you are getting - then either join the team or write your own. If Cyber chose to drop all the tools today, that's his prerogative.--v/r - TP 21:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly the problem. He's not choosing to drop the tools, he's constantly seeking to take over more tools while also trying to burden himself with additional admin tools that he's ill-equipped to deal with. Meanwhile, we still see essential tools being unavailable for 30 days. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with this. The fact that when we try to use the essential X tools we are now getting messages like "The new xTools environment is being set up now. We estimate uptime in about 1 week." says in giant letters that Cyberpower678 has no business gunning for more tools. This is just common sense. Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize you're beating up a volunteer? After your comment, if I were Cyber, I'd drop the XTools project. Certainly, then, his volunteer work that he gets little appreciation for wouldn't be the source of such sour opposes.--v/r - TP 08:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    'Beating up a volunteer'? Really? He opposed and provided his reasoning. You argued, he elaborated, someone else agreed with the reason. How in the world is that 'beating up a volunteer' when the entire point of RfA is for folks to support or oppose candidates with reasons? -— Isarra ༆ 22:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Too many red flags for me, starting with very little article-space work, and no more than 8 edits on any article except Pokemon articles. Out of 4 years of editing and 15,000 edits (not really outstanding for an admin candidate), more than 3/4 are on user talk (40%), user page (18%), and Wikipedia space (16%). 15% semi-automated edits. Technical proficiency, tool creation and maintenance, and technical enthusiasm are insufficient qualifications for adminship, and in fact to me a sign that the user may be out of touch with Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and best practices. I dislike it when people are voted in with overly brief rationales such as "Why not?" and "Adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL" (a sentiment from over 12 years ago). As anyone should know given the amount of admin drama, abuse, and attempted recalls we've had in the last 5 or so years, adminship is a very big deal, should be very carefully considered, and entails an enormous amount of trust, responsibility, and power. I'm not impressed with the rationale of the nominators. One last matter clinches it for me: [5], which I find highly disturbing. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - per Softlavender above and Kudpung, in the neutral section below, who both make excellent cases. Supporters, in contrast, fail to convince. I thank the candidate for good intentions but cannot in good conscience !vote to give you lifetime access to admin buttons. Jusdafax 11:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose No apparent interest in AfDs at all -- and that is troubling indeed. No solid article creation either (yes I know Pokémon is a very important research oriented topic requiring knowledge of MEDRS and the like). I find little significant spoor at all on the noticeboards from him. (EIR is seemingly in bad shape today) No indication that the editor is directly conversant with BLP or other policy issues at all. No sign of being interested in anything much beyond xTools and vandalism reverts. I would not be able to support any candidacy where the person has such immense gaping holes in their experience on Wikipedia. (I saw him in action on a moderated discussion where, IMHO, he failed to see where policy makes certain requirements - being affable is insufficient where policy is concerned) Sorry. Collect (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC) In response to possible snark: an admin who shows little or no knowledge or understanding of the core policies of Wikipedia (including BLP, NPOV, etc.), but is great at writing bots, is not broadly experienced with issues impacting the "mop" a great deal. And note that I have seen his comments regarding an article where, indeed, the core policies were important. Collect (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I looked at the contribution history. There is not enough in that area for me to support. There is a reason why admins will ideally have a strong record of encyclopedic content creation here. It makes them look good, and the admin corps has to look good. First and foremost, the admin corps needs to look like it understands editors. Admins should be able to advise on editing and coping with editorial conflict, from an editor's perspective. The admins here as a whole must strive not to be stereotyped as clueless, tendentious people with ban-hammers who impose their august positions on the writers here. Considering the strong support so far, I can only suggest that Cyberpower work on some articles and then seek renomination. Italick (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not much of a writer myself. If you do not prefer to write new material but you have some skill in another language, you might translate other-language Wikipedia content for the English Wikipedia. Translations formed a large hunk of the article where my editing has been the most concentrated. Italick (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Moving same to neutral for the count, still skeptical. Italick (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd posit that "no interest in AfD" isn't actually a bad thing. Interest in AfD and lack of total understanding of AfD is a huge problem. Carrite (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, reluctantly. Not enough content contributions outside Pokemon. I recently supported NeilN who didn't have a lot of content creation either, but he had more than you. You don't even need FAs, just writing some Start class articles from scratch or improving a stub to B-class. Collect makes a good point above that lack of participation in AfDs is troubling since this shows familiarity with notability policies. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong oppose, applicant has created a total of three list articles, all on Pokemon characters, no quality content whatsoever that I can find. Absolutely not a content creator, nor is there any indication of work on articles at all. GregJackP Boomer! 16:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Technical 13 violated the community's trust in multiple ways, including sockpuppetry done by abusing the account creation tool. Despite this, you decide to AGF and say that you trust him not to abuse his powers on xtools, claiming that any disruption can easily be reversed without considering what happens during the disruption. If I'm not mistaken about the level of access T13 has to xtools, he can put whatever malicious code he wants on the site, and though it may be removed quickly after, this is a security risk. From a security standpoint, xtools is compromised for as long as T13 has the ability to make unreviewed changes. I don't think you can be trusted to accurately judge an editors intentions or the potential harm their actions could cause. ping in replies PHANTOMTECH (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone's like T13 - If we all thought the way you do no one would ever get the mop, I'm sure Cyberpower678 won't abuse our trust. –Davey2010Talk 21:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of any reason to think Cyberpower will intentionally do anything malicious, my opposition is based on their willingness to trust an editor like T13 with so much power. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of us have at one time or another trusted someone we should not have trusted--I know I have. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about having trusted T13 in the past, it is about continuing to trust T13 after all that's happened. Trusting someone who later turns out to abuse that trust isn't really an issue, as you've said, sometimes it happens. It is an issue when you continue to trust someone to not abuse power after they've abused power elsewhere and that is exactly what Cyberpower is doing with T13. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Cyberpower is trusting T13 a bit. But he's hardly alone in his beliefs on this project. Every single support in this RfA trusted Secret, User:PumpkinSky and User:Fæ happily edit with no problems, and many users enjoy a second chance. We're a project of forgiveness and growth. I think rather than show a fault of Cyber's, you've highlighted an area where he lines up with the rest of the community. I'm happy to see Cyberpower embrace that.--v/r - TP 00:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgiving someone a week after their ban is silly. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous—creating a sockpuppet and writing malicious code to infect users' machines are not even remotely on the same level. Want to guess how many tools / bots User:Betacommand still has access too? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not hard to imagine a user trying to attack others as "revenge" for being banned, I frequently see people do, or try to do, much worse for much less (unrelated to Wikipedia). There are also many other things that can be done with access to xtools, for example, despite xtools having no direct access to the username of who is using it, it wouldn't be too difficult to use the information xtools has available to it to connect many users with their IPs. I don't know much about Betacommand and it doesn't really matter, if another banned user exists with access to a bunch of bots and tools, that doesn't mean it should be that way. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, these are vastly different. Creating a sockpuppet is a violation of Wikipedia policy. So is disruptive and tendentious editing. Exploiting users' computers is illegal! One gets you banned from Wikipedia, while the other gets you arrested. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the internet, despite how untrue it is, some people, even ones who have willingly given much of their personal information out, feel like they can safely do just about anything they want without consequences in the real world. Sockpuppetry and a good will do not often come as a package, when they do, theirs a serious competence issue joining them. If someone abused a tool before a ban, it's not unreasonable to think that they would abuse another given the opportunity. Additionally, when someone is banned or blocked, they're not often happy which can push people to do things they would have otherwise not done. To a reasonable person, trying to compromise a bunch of users computers after being banned for something they did is silly, so is calling a SWAT team because they think it would be funny, (to be clear, I'm not saying T13 would swat anyone) but people do it anyway. Sure, there aren't many people who do it, there also aren't many people who abuse tool access to sock. On Wikipedia, we assume good faith for regular editors till they give us a reason to not, when you're banned, that's a reason to stop assuming good faith. When you're banned, unless the ban was a bad ban, you are either intentionally acting maliciously or don't have the competence or self control to know when you are causing problems and stop yourself, either option will result in problems if left long enough. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strongest possible oppose For now, doesn't answer questions on his RFA will do........(much more to come)..... Leaky Caldron 21:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations. You waited a grand total of 13 hours for him to answer your question. He has been answering questions in the meantime, just yours was further down the list. I'm thoroughly impressed with your patience. Some people have lives off Wikipedia and are not going to dedicate 168 hours to the RFA process. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment, as well as being factually incorrect is also proven total nonsense by the passage of time. A number of questions have been unanswered for over 30 hours – despite the editor contributing elsewhere in the meantime. More to the point, the fact that over 30 people would lend their support in a few hours to someone not only without any proven article-writing talent, but who also apparently dispenses incomplete automation tools and has a queue of dissatisfied customers lining up on his talk page is very troubling. Almost as troubling as imagining Cyber trying to use his newly awarded powers to settle a content dispute or (as he has frequently done) inserting himself into ANI disputes and instead of pouring oil onto troubled waters, ending up exacerbating the situation by declaring the contributions of one or other sides, as in this example: “the morality of putting such a comment on a nominators talk page is despicable”. An Admin. employing morality as a form of judgement sounds like a recipe for the highest possible drama. The lack of quality article contributions alone is unacceptable on a text-based medium. Wouldn't hire a dwarf as an bodyguard, don't want an admin on an encyclopaedia who can't write articles. As for the notion, promise or is it a threat, to develop “Admin Bots” – whatever they are and whatever they do – no thanks. There is more than enough drama created by “human” Admins., without some automated version of Madeye Moody searching out innocent editors who are about to transgress WP:3RR or have inadvertently used a dubiously accredited citation. Whatever, my main beef with this candidate is that he has been focused on gaining Admin. rights since his second TP edit, his track record is highly dubious and based on everything I have seen lacks sound temperament and judgement. I fear, personally, that he will seek retribution for past disputes with me by finding an excuse to sanction me. To paraphrase the famous song by The Who, “Don’t get fooled again”. Leaky Caldron 19:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse him if he's trying to take his time to give a full and reasoned answer. Let's look at RfAs from 2015 in this table. He's getting to them one by one. He's clearly well over the average for number of question on an RfA. Have patience.--v/r - TP 20:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose There seem to be too many negatives. For one thing, he makes drive-by edits to controversial articles in response to edit requests. For example, when browsing his contributions, I notice he edits 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. The edit summary is "Per edit request". This is not much of an explanation, so one then has to find the edit request. This seems to be a request by an IP editor. That refers in turn to a discussion on a noticeboard. But there is no discussion - just the same mysterious IP editor, making a long complaint. Now this IP editor seems quite sophisticated, understanding diffs, templates, noticeboards &c. So why haven't they got an account so they can make the edit themselves? Is this perhaps due to the heavy sanctions which apply to this topic? Why is the candidate doing the bidding of this IP editor in an uncritical way? My impression is that the candidate is too eager-to-please and naive to be given more power over such topics. Andrew D. (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per Kudpung; questions have also been raised in my mind over some memories i have of the candidate's actions and statements. This, despite the nominator, whom i admire and would have expected to follow. Cheers, LindsayHello 12:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose although weakly. Having worked with Cyberpower for around one and half years now, I've slowly developed the opinion that while he means well, he is perhaps too enthusiastic or 'too helpful' meant in a bad way. In the past, I had mentored Cyber for privacy violations/account compromise which he did learn from but in the words of others above (along with the oversight block which I just learned about), it does bring up red flags. I do trust Cyber but I don't trust them that much for a role of elevated permissions yet. The focus of his work on bots and tools also seems to take up a majority of his time and I feel he is stacking up too many responsibilities to be good. I've noticed him say before on IRC that he does not have much free time to dedicate to some projects with xTools so I don't feel he has enough time to dedicate to enwiki sysop-ship either. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding an addition that the concerns regarding their ability to communicate well when under criticisms and the apparently quality of said code as well is leaning me into a being confident that they are not ready for adminship now. The quality note, in my opinion, also makes the supports solely for technical gain have less weight personally to me. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose simply because of the lack of contribution in article space. It's not just that Cyber has only made three articles, but the edit history shows the mass majority of edits are outside of article space. Admins need to be very familiar with the disputes/challenges/disruptions editors encounter when trying to grow Wikipedia. This experience can only come from going through the process. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sorry. Along the lines of Andrew D's telling example above, there is this response to an edit request: puffing up a footballer's bio by reference to a Daily Mail PR piece about charity work. This is the kind of bad edit that many editors make every day, but we expect more from prospective admins responding to edit requests. I'm ok with supporting someone who isn't a content creator, but only with other evidence of proficiency in core content policies. That positive evidence just ain't here in this case; and the adverse edit-request evidence raises problems. Just in the last 12 months I see little content work, or even ancillary or related work (AfD, BLP, etc, per Collect above), other than low-range vandalism patrolling on Pokemon articles. Also telling for me is the lack of evidence in the three nominations and the support column. We have vague promises from nominators and supporters of the candidate's personal characteristics - leadership, commitment, humility, the works. But competence in core policy matters? No evidence at all. The compelling evidence, I'm afraid, is down this end of the page. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Cyberpower has done a lot of good work, but I do not think he is ready for the mop. His real–life obligations, lack of content work, lack of AFD experience, and his answer to question 11 (in general admins must be familiar with the content and the policies that revolve around content creation) give me pause. I also believe that he needs to learn how to reflect on his actions before making them, rather than after the fact as mentioned in his responses above, so that issues will be less likely to arise in the future. -Pax Verbum 06:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per (but not only) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Cyberbot_II.2C_take_2, I'm not sure about Cyberpower's maturity. If adminship were just about making bots and editing protected templates, etc., I wouldn't be too concerned. But with very little experience in article space behind them, I cannot sanction them closing complex AFDs and RfCs, protecting pages, threatening blocks, blocking, declining unblocks, etc. If Cyberpower were to promise not to do those latter things I would change my vote to support.
    I should add that I'm enormously grateful for the work you're doing, Cyberpower. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I read about this editor, the more impressed I am by their sincerity and commitment to this project. I am genuinely really sorry there isn't some way we can give them the technical tools they need (and clearly can be trusted with) without also having to give them people- and article-management tools (like blocking and deleting) while they have yet to demonstrate the necessary skills in those critical areas. CP, if this attempt is unsuccessful, I hope you'll not be too disheartened, and maybe spend some time researching and writing a bit more article content and apply again later. If you do succeed on this occasion, please heed the genuine concerns expressed in this and the next sections, and tread very, very slowly and carefully into anything involving editor control and content control. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anthonyhcole: You're right that this RfA is on the margin and shows that some folks have concern. Perhaps it might be an idea to find Cyber an admin-mentor that they could discuss areas they aren't comfortable with. That way, he could still participate in the areas he is strong in.--v/r - TP 21:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: The admin mentoring actually sounds like a very good idea, considering some of the oppose rationales. Should this RfA pass (which I'm guessing it will), this might not be a bad idea to pitch to cyber. Ж (Cncmaster) T/C/AVA/RfA-C 20:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: Too troubling a candidate and too many negatives not overridden by the supporting rationales. I also echo Softlavender's statement above and Kudpung's, in the neutral section below. Also, candidate's 'stress indicator' gives me great pause. My stress indicator is quite serious. I feel it important users on Wikipedia know if I'm going through stress or not. This may be acceptable as just an editor, but as an editor I can walk away and watch DVD's for a day. My decisions and actions under stress only cause typos. I am not reassured to know that I can monitor the stress of a admin, when stress can bring misjudgment and haste: This outburst: [6] was questioned above. Again answer is related to stress level and resultant lack of judgment. I believe I was going through a stressful situation in RL, that I was having trouble coping with regarding family matters. With that stress on my chest, I felt I was screwing everything up on Wikipedia, and my judgement was off.. Perhaps NOT NOW is the best summary I can give. Fylbecatulous talk 13:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look at the the events that led up to CP678 posting that message. It appears to have been triggered by Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ, which was one of the most impressively dramatic RFAs I've seen. CP678 was disappointed with the behaviour of some of the participants and rage-quit. Should we question his maturity in relation to that outburst? Sure, but we should be aware that it was three years ago and that, given his age, the level of maturity was entirely appropriate. He has certainly matured as an editor since then (as I noted in my co-nom statement). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - I don't doubt their sincerity. I'm more concerned about discernment, discretion, and judgement in general. While of course I am interested in their article-space edits, as this is rfa, I'm more interested in how they interact with others and how they put Wikipedia policies and process into practice. (From my past experiences with this editor, I know they can "talk-the-talk" but over-exuberance at the very least (I'm trying to be kind here) they all too often do not "walk-the-walk" as it were, and (like the pending changes example they brought up) almost need to be harangued by other editors to follow community conventions. And from that discussion - "When I voted in that RfC, I was merely curious on how it worked and wanted to see it in action." Gives me chills on several grounds and not in a good way.) And while I think edit counting is for the birds, I am concerned about the low level of activity in the lat 12 months. Especially when combined with others' concerns that the editor hasn't been updating/maintaining the tools they currently have been entrusted with. Use of any tool whatsoever requires community trust on some level. But let's set all that aside for the moment. What do they want with the extra tools and responsibilities of adminship? Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, edit templates, and maybe sometime in the future an adminbot and or other unnamed ideas for tools in the future? Well, I don't doubt UAA could use another admin, like any other area on Wikipedia. And you already have the templateeditor user-right. So I'll look at the rest: Adminbots are quite possibly one of the most controversial things on Wikipedia. And tools and bot "ideas" aren't something that meets any criteria for adminship. The last couple BRFAs I've seen, things were laid out very clearly on what are the purposes, limitations, access, etc of the bot. If you want us to grant you adminship merely for tool use, come to the community with more than a vague wave, and show that you're currently active in maintaining the tools you've already been entrusted with. And finally - In my estimation the candidate just doesn't meet my criteria. And a want to help out at UAA isn't enough of a balance. This is a NOTNOW Strong oppose. - jc37 18:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind WP:NOTNOTNOW. I think Cyberpower678 is plenty experienced enough to know what adminship is all about. Kurtis (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing the text of that essay to my attention. I seem to remember that when we were discussing NOTNOW (prior to the creation of that essay), it was used more broadly. But regardless, I think the meaning was conveyed. (I've now delinked from that essay.)
    As for knowing "...what adminship is all about", I will respectfully disagree. His IAR response alone shows the common misperception of what IAR means. In phrasing that question, I even try to help out the candidate with the helpful links. We, all of us, IAR nearly every time we edit. CON and BOLD are direct opposites and that is intentional. The "nous" looked for is understanding that, and discerning how editing falls between both. If someone doesn't understand that, then they REALLY should not have to tools and responsibilities of adminship.
    Which brings me back to notnow. I think these things can be developed/learned over time, but I don't think the candidate is anywhere near there.
    I know many are blowing off the lack of articlespace editing, but really, that's what the primary focus of the project IS. We should be able to remove every tool and still this is an encyclopedic project. But further, my guess is that that lack of experience in mainspace is likely why he doesn't appear to understand the policies in practice, as I noted above. Hence - NotNow. - jc37 18:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose While fully recognising the valuable work CP does on bots and tools, as a potential admin there are queries over (a) outlook: per Q19. To my mind bots are there to do more quickly or efficiently something that is done already, or that the community has decided should be done. You don't write a bot and then come to the community asking for a major change in policy (terminating - I assume - inactive accounts) to fit what the bot can do; (b) temperament - more recently than the retirement notice cited by others, here we find him shutting down all his bots in response to one hostile comment by one user: Noyster (talk), 20:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Noyster, when you say "here", which edit(s) specifically? There are 500 edits listed (going back to 14:14, 13 September 2013), including all of the candidate's comments on this RfA. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64, sorry, this is the diff that was meant: Noyster (talk), 22:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak oppose The work that the candidate has done in technical areas is to be applauded, but for me their lack of content work is enough of a problem to oppose. We're fundamentally a content building enterprise; an admin does not have to be a content builder, but does need to have done enough of it to understand the issues around it. I would be happy to support in the future if this issue were addressed. The concerns over AfD expressed by other people are also a minor reason for my oppose. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose (Moved from neutral). Sorry, but I'm not comfortable with the Dr. Strangelove approach to bot operation aside from the content creation and communication issues flagged elsewhere.  Philg88 ♦talk 22:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He operates bots like an ex-Nazi scientist who advises the President of the United States? Or his bot operation resembles a satirical 1964 film about nuclear war? Perhaps it's just me, but I'm struggling to get the reference here. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a reference to power and accountability, albeit an obscure one.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose -- I suspect he's a bit too eager to please and this could be taken advantage of. Inexperience in deletion is a big obstacle for me. I don't look for FAs or even GAs, but I do expect experience -- not merely theoretical knowledge -- of what it takes to create and maintain referenced content. His comment at Q11 "I've noticed that editors that are prolific content creators, that become admins end up fading away as a content creator and start to focus primarily on cleaning up with the mop" is strange. Could one not say the same about bot creators/operators? :) In summary, I think not quite ready. --Stfg (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Temperament concerns. —Emufarmers(T/C) 00:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Kudpung and Sigma both have made very good points that I agree with. I know that Cyberpower has done good work through xtools, but I cannot see why the project needs him to have the tools or why not having the tools would impede his good work with xtools. — kikichugirl oh hello! 00:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose (moved from 'neutral') per my comments in the 'neutral' section below. As this RfA progresses, as evidenced (to me at least) from his other work, I'm still not convinced that Cyberpower has fully understood that adminship needs someone with some sense of organisation and priorities, along with more than just a basic knowledge of programming languages if one is running at RfA on the premise of becoming a 'tech admin'. Cyber has neither, as demonstrated with his talk elswhere of still insisting on rewriting tools rather than porting perfectly functional versions by other devs to en.Wiki, and taking even more bot tasks from other people. He means well and he's a nice guy, but just does not have the capacity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of editors are citing your neutral (now oppose) so I will comment here. I don't understand this reasoning. the editor is not bound to create tools and could quit tomorrow. If he decided his interest moved to admin tools and bots or decided he wanted to contribute in an completely different admin area, this is option is available to all admins. Admins can choose to stop creating content, move from RPP to AfD or ANI or even move back to content creation. It seems to me that his contributions require organisation and priorities and he wears it on his sleave. On the other hand, most admins are willy-nilly and all over the map. Even arbcom flips hats and priorities like ADD kids on amphetamines. In what way do you see any "sense of organisation and priorities" being demonstrated by admins that really only complain that they lack time and resources? I see him in a current role where this quality is needed and on display being pigeon holed because no one will ever satisfy speed, quality and cost desires. The biggest excuse admins use to avoid taking action is "no one is compelled to act" yet it appears that is being used against this editor to prevent him from moving to a different area. I've seen engineers and programmers that get in a "he's too important to move out of his job and grow" and the result is always the same: they quit and grow somewhere else. If he wants to try making tools with the bit or even branch into a different area, let him go. We'll get better tools and happier editors. This type of opposition feels like punishment instead of empowerment. If there is no fear that he is going to break something with the bit or abuse it, why not give it to him? Heck, if it makes hime more excited to contribute for a month, it's worth it. --DHeyward (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns DHeyward, but it's just possible I have more insight into what's going on and the serious Wikipedia software issues he's trying to resove but is just not up to it - neither the coding, nor the organisation. Yes, we're all volunteers, but if we take something on that we have wrested from others, then we should see it through. With only a few hours to go, it looks very much as if this RfA will pass anyway and then I will be extremely cocerned that the new found 'powers' will, along with his bots, school homework and exams, detract from getting our essential Wikipedia software up and running again after all this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung, I'm going to chime in, without any comment on the merit of the oppose, and say that you have my assurances that I will continue to work with xTools, even if I get the bit in the next few hours. As we speak, I am working on the articleinfo program, and I feel I am making valuable progress in getting it to work again. I'm optimistic about getting it running tonight, tomorrow, or Saturday, depending on how many more hurdles I need to overcome in the code. I managed to get it partially functioning on my computer, which is a big step to debugging the root cause of the failure.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I'm very sorry, this is a valuable contributor (who hasn't used xtools...) However, the concerns raised are just a bit too much. I also don't really see a need for the tools. --Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose (moved from neutral) - Per my comments in the neutral section. Despite a positive opinion of this person and many of their supporters, this RfA has failed to convince me that they're ready for adminship. Answers to the questions are not satisfactory and that's troubling to me. Swarm we ♥ our hive 08:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose – Sorry, but not enough experience in content creation (only three articles), minimal XfD experience (five total AfD contributions) and not much speedy deletion work (CSD log). While I appreciate the work Cyberpower678 performs, my impression is that admins should have adequate experience in all areas involving potential use of the admin toolset. North America1000 13:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per above comment. Supdiop (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. This is the toughest RfA decision I've made to date, but regretfully I agree with Kudpung and Randykitty. If you had a need for the bit, in order to test and implement well-specified and desired technical enhancements to tools using Admin functions, I could support on that basis. Of course you aren't compelled to continue in your volunteer position as the lead developer on xTools. If you want to move out of that job and grow in content-creation and management, nothing stops you from doing that as a rank-and-file editor. But I hope you continue working on developing your technical expertise. You're "already an admin" on Labs. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. While I don't normally factor mainspace contributions into my RfA judgement (and quite frankly it bugs me when others do), and your technical skills are pretty impressive, I am somewhat concerned by your past history (particularly the outing incident), and Kudpung's points are also quite tempering. I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with my gut instinct here, which is to say "no". Sorry. WikiPuppies bark dig 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose, although very weakly. I really struggled with my decision on this RfA. There are some serious concerns raised by the opposers. In particular, I'm concerned about his attempted WP:INVOLVED closures, lack of appropriate judgement, and possible overload with all the responsibilities he wants. We need more admins at RFPP, and his account creation experience might be useful at UAA, but in this particular case I feel that the risk outweighs the potential benefit. However, I very much appreciate all the work that Cyber does to maintain the bots and tools. --Biblioworm 17:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. There is a lack of serious creation of article content. There is almost no participation in Articles for Deletion to demonstrate the candidate's understanding of policy and consensus in areas where administrator involvement is central. There are the maturity concerns well illustrated by the example provided by Anthonyhcole, that striking example being well under two years ago. I also see a lack of clear communication skills that would make adminship problematic, an example is the reply to Q20. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  34. With regret as a co-maintainer of xtools, Oppose. To Cyberpower678, I hope this oppose does not harm our relationship as we get xtools back up and running. However, I am not a fam of editors just !voting without thought or reason, and so I've decided to write my first !vote here in RfA.

    There are two main threads of thought going on here in this RfA. The first is about his abilities as a bot and tool developer and maintainer, and the second is about considering him for his abilities as an administrator. Unfortunately, Cyberpower does not have either going well for him in this RfA, and so the logical outcome of this RfA is NOTNOW.

    Regarding his nominations: TParis talks about this enthusiasm - I'm glad editors like him continue to make lasting, hopefully positive, contributions to the project. Unfortunately for Cyberpower678, it is this enthusiasm that keeps biting him in his arse - he maintains bots and tools, a good number of which are in broken or breaking states. He's currently undergoing a BRfA and Josve05a has had to write up details showing that the bot is making a mess - the kicker is Josve05a has stated what could go wrong and has recommended solutions, but they were not implemented. And just last week, the Germans offered their own clones of tools in response to the xtools problem, but Cyberpower678 insists on rewriting his own instead of just porting them.

    There's no doubt Cyberpower678 is contributing great changes to the project, but having administrator bits is not a big deal. However, it is much harder to take away than to give these bits. Cyberpower678 has done good work up to now without these tools, and therefore there is no need for them at present. Perhaps later, if Cyberpower678 decides to either up his game on tool and bot writing or starts contributing to what are considered typical activities wanted from potential administrator candidates. He's done a great job of nabbing tools that need maintainers, and I hope that as a new member of the xtools team I can provide what I know to make sure xtools is back up.

    TParis talks about Worm's adoption, but this was never finished. It appears to be that he's active in the village pump for the sake of defending his work as well as snapping up new projects. The fact that these old bots need to be maintained does not make him a superb candidate for writing admin bots - on the contrary, it's a bad idea to give such an expansive toolset to a bot writer who may cause wreckage and havoc on his first try. I agree with Kudpung and say that he doesn't, and I quote TParis: "...recognize when it's appropriate to back out of a situation that is overwhelming..."

    There are many supports here in this RfA raising praise to his technical aptitude. Cyberpower678 has written many bots, some of which break, which is a sign that 1. he's biting off more than he can chew, 2. he doesn't need admin bits to write bots, and 3. if he starts handling admin tasks, who will be maintaining his bots? While breakage is a part of the process that is software engineering, the amount of breakage that occurs is definitely above average. There is no need for adminbots that will cause major problems for the project.

    There's no need to grant the mop to Cyberpower678 for his abilities elsewhere - he says it himself: "I'll admit, my content work isn't going to impress...". He also says "...I have no objections to not being an administrator...". The person in the spotlight has said it themself - there's no need to be an administrator. Claiming this to be a "net positive" does not apply if many of the supports are about his technical abilities, not his abilities as an editor.

    Sincerely, E. Lee (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a small note: WP:NOTNOW is only for an RfA that "stands no chance of succeeding" and shouldn't be mentioned towards users who understand what adminship is, and have plenty of experience on Wikipedia. (See WP:NOTNOTNOW.) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I wrote NOTNOW in the sense that "the RfA shouldn't be successful now, but perhaps next time". I'll leave that there for posterity's sake. Thanks for pointing that out and giving me a chance to clarify. E. Lee (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose – Regretfully. He seems like a good guy and I'm not doubting his technical skills, but he doesn't have anything close to enough content work to sway me from opposing. Mojoworker (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose, per the reasoning offered by both Kudpung and Sigma. The combined lack of content creation, article space contributions, and experience in traditional administrative areas is compelling. I'm not sure I see any particular reason laid out here why the user would be well-served by having access to the tools as of yet. And with all due respect to them, I'm also not completely convinced that Cyberpower678 has a firm grasp on the policy required for the mop; while their answers were satisfactory enough, given the diffs provided by users throughout the discussion, I daresay that the editor has probably learned more during the nomination process than they had from their collective previous experience. That being said, I don't wish to undermine their technical contributions or (obvious) intrinsic value to the project. I'd be happy to support them, if and when the time comes, if they accumulate more experience in the relevant areas, and set their mind to becoming a more well-rounded editor. I sincerely hope you take both mine and the other oppose votes as helpful constructive criticism, and additional motivation to do just that. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. When this RfA started, I decided that I was not going to participate as I was on the fence regarding whether to support or oppose. I know Cyber very well over at ACC, where I have worked with him for a long while now, and it is because I know him so well that I felt it was important that I voice my opinion. Cyberpower is a kind and helpful Wikipedian and I have no doubt he does positively contribute to Wikipedia in many ways; that being said, what prevented me from a beat-the-nom-support was a part of me that lacked full confidence to support. After much consideration and time, I decided to support Cyber in the RfA, but as I continued to think about it, I felt a little bit uncomfortable in my choice. I know Cyber is a busy person, and between his technical work and ACC work, I am concerned he will be biting off more than he can chew at this time; if that happens, I am afraid Cyber may get too stressed to accurately and appropriately execute his duties as an administrator. In addition, Cyber has the potential to be hasty in his actions and/or not as thorough in his decision making, as shown in a one day suspension at ACC in January of 2015 for "recent errors and issues handling requests." At the time of his suspension, Cyber also requested an additional 14 day suspension as a forced break from ACC. I question if he is able to handle stressful situations with self-control rather than by technical enforcement; we can't block and desysop an admin every time a stressful situation, conflict, or concern arises. Cyberpower, you are a great person and I consider you a friend. I hope you do not take this personally and I would like you to know that I will likely support an RfA in the future, but for now I must oppose. MJ94 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose, regretfully. Cyberpower the editor is a net asset, no doubt (I am not able to weigh this xtools stuff--like many others I notice that stuff if broken all the damn time, but I have no idea if that's his fault or not, so that's not what I'm basing this on), but being an admin requires a set of extra skills and some knowledge of policies and guidelines, a knowledge that should be gained, in my opinion, through experience and interaction. That's missing, and so I cannot support. Sorry Cyberpower. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. While also wishing to express appreciation for Cyberpower's contributions, I'm sorry to say I am opposing, for reasons similar to Mkativerata at oppose #14. I would need to see more evidence of knowledge of policy. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral edit
Neutral, for now, until I can review Cyberpower's history. I'm somewhat unimpressed by his mainspace work (most of which seems to be on Pokemon articles). I would generally like to see at least 25% mainspace contributions, but I might be willing to make an exception for such a specialized editor upon whose bots we rely upon. --Biblioworm 01:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re Q4 above, the closest I can find to what you describe is this removal of a wiki-break message from January.--v/r - TP 01:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Neutral Moving to 'Oppose". If you were anyone else, this would probably be a clear 'Support'. I hate to do this Cyberpower, but you are so snarled up with all your bots and the work you have undertaken for the migration of important tools from the ToolServer to Labs and still nothing functioning at all as it should after all this time, plus the loss of your 'team' through retirement and being banned by Arbcom, and your admission that your newly begun tertiary studies leave you hard pressed for time, that I cannot see you having time at all for admin tasks (not to mention this RfA) on top of all that. As any admin knows, after passing RfA the temptationion to start using the tools is immense - even for a person of my advanced years who is not in the slightest bit interested in accumulating 'toys'. I would wholeheartedly support an application from you for the mop as soon as the issues with the Labs tools have finally been addressed once and for all, but for now, adminship is too soon. Sorry, but you can of course count on my continued support for getting those issued sorted as quickly as possible. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary neutral With all the bots/tools my baseline criterium "Is dedicated to the project" is satisfied, but the lack of content contributions is regrettable. Nothing here or on their talkpage to suggest that cyberpower would end up POV-pushing or engage in any serious misbehaviour. The admittedly large number of issues with the tools that I see on their talkpage appear to get addressed in a speedy and professional fashion. An oversight block is obviously a serious issue but a successful BASC appeal (BASC does have a reputation for being extremely strict) as well as the conversations here and forward and here indicate to me that the issues are addressed (Also, the block was several years ago and happened only a few months into their editorship). Participation on on-wiki admin venues is a bit low, though, hampering my assessment of their ability to handle these adminship chores. Also, Q12 is potentially an issue given the importance of impartiality in administrator actions. Filing this as "preliminary" because not all questions are answered yet and some of these are important for me to gauge.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Moving to Support per the answers provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I looked at the contribution history. There is not enough in that area for me to support. There is a reason why admins will ideally have a strong record of encyclopedic content creation here. It makes them look good, and the admin corps has to look good. First and foremost, the admin corps needs to look like it understands editors. Admins should be able to advise on editing and coping with editorial conflict, from an editor's perspective. The admins here as a whole must strive not to be stereotyped as clueless, tendentious people with ban-hammers who impose their august positions on the writers here. Considering the strong support so far, I can only suggest that Cyberpower work on some articles and then seek renomination. Italick (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not much of a writer myself. If you do not prefer to write new material but you have some skill in another language, you might translate other-language Wikipedia content for the English Wikipedia. Translations formed a large hunk of the article where my editing has been the most concentrated. Italick (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, leaning toward support While I'm grateful for all of Cyberpower's technical skills and his bots, a lot of questions have been posed above that I'd like to see the answers to. Try not to feel overwhelmed, Cyberpower,this is just the first day of a week-long process. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I still have some reservations but I'm getting off the fence and moving to Support. Liz Read! Talk! 17:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I was originally neutral leaning oppose due to what I consider weak answers to Q1-3, particularly Q1 where you seem to say you only really plan to work at UAA, which is already pretty heavily staffed. Some of the later opposes seem quite weak as well, though. Bringing in Tech13 and the candidate's minor role in Σ's RFA seem to me like people are searching for excuses to oppose. Still neutral for now though. —Soap— 03:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very torn about this. On the one hand, this appears to be a very valuable contributor, doing great work on tools that we all use (and I really don't understand the griping about having to wait for things to be done, we're all volunteers here, aren't we?) However, when I look at the CSD log, it is basically empty (mostly some maintenance-related CCDs) and AfD participation is very low (for an admin candidate). There are 19 NAC closures, one of which went to DRV, where the candidate was admonished that their NAC closure had been inappropriate and which has a strange offer by the candidate to "step down from my position" if found to having been wrong (what position would that be?), but all of that is pretty old stuff, too. I went through the contribution history of the article that received most of the candidate's edits and don't see any referencing. Indeed, the article as a whole, despite more than 100 edits by the candidate, is not well-referenced (several refs were bare links to amazon.com; I just used the Reflinks tool to at least correct that). Granted, most list articles are sourced only sparsely and these edits were a while ago, but going through the candidate's more recent edit history, I didn't really see much content work, so this is all I could go by. I'll be interested to see the answer to Q25. --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Moved to "oppose". --Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now, pending answers to the remaining questions. Miniapolis 13:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Moving to support. Miniapolis 22:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So what's the point in this vote, then? Rcsprinter123 (pitch) @ 23:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See the link in my vote; an unwillingness (or inability) to answer questions during an RfA doesn't inspire confidence in a candidate's potential behavior with the mop. Miniapolis 14:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Moved to Oppose. Pending answers to my and other questions, although I have to say that the lack of content creation is currently pushing me towards oppose.  Philg88 ♦talk 13:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning support. Technically-focused editor. I'll sit this one out unless it is close at the close. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Opinions that imply the candidate can't prioritise or manage their time are not persuasive without more evidence: many of the current problems with bots appear to be due to actions by WMF, not by their owners. As the candidate seems to want to be involved in only a restricted subset of admin activities, I'm keen to know more about one of these - the envisaged "adminbots", thus awaiting an answer to Q19: Noyster (talk), 14:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Moved to oppose: Noyster (talk), 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Here's a post that just showed up on the Plant Wikimedia aggregation blog, complaining that "xTools, maintained by this user is also constantly broken, almost every single time you want to use them", and opposing adminship. I don't have a good sense as to whether the main assertions in the post are accurate, but since it seems relevant, I'm linking to it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    XTools does have problems at times but it usually works for me, for what it's worth. The talkpage thing was mentioned on ANI here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That blog is fully of gloss overs, misconceptions, and repeating snark about a language they know nothing about. I'd take the blog with a grain of salt. They haven't touched at all on the conditions that the tools have to operate in, the constant downtime on Tools-Labs, or the pure size and complexity of the code Cyber has to maintain all by himself. It also doesn't mention that xTools was written by 4 different programmers over the years, constantly suffers from out-of-date code that he didn't write, and he's expected to know every line as if he did write it. It is infinitely more complex to maintain someone else's code. That blog is a load of nonsense. Someone trying to canvass votes against Cyberpower by blogging about it on Wikimedia.--v/r - TP 19:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus and TParis: Thanks - very helpful information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Moved to Oppose - Although I certainly stand by my positive sentiments about this person, I am unfortunately striking my support after reading their answers. I sympathize with the overwhelming slew of questioning, but throughout all of it I am simply not seeing an admin-level understanding of policy. The candidate is a competent writer but their answers are weak. There are many supporters whose judgment I trust implicitly, and not too many great rationales have been presented for opposing, so I'm just going to leave my thoughts here in the neutral section. Swarm we ♥ our hive 17:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning oppose - Awaiting answer to Q28. BMK (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "weak support" BMK (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cyberpower678&oldid=1178669814"