Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 10:22, 4 July 2015 (rv ban-evading sock IP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:22, 4 July 2015 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) (rv ban-evading sock IP)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Cyberpower678

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (56/10/5); Scheduled to end 00:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

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)

Co-nomination

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Co-nomination

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 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'd like to thank TParis for his kind nomination and coming back to Misplaced Pages 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. —Chat:Online 00:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
His usage fell off to almost nothing for a few months last fall , maybe that's what you are thinking of. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
An alternative possibility was given by TParis here. Samsara 12:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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.
  • 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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:
15. Do you still follow certain Admins. without hesitation or do you now think for yourself
A:
16. Is that stress indicator serious or a joke?
A.
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:
Additional question from Northamerica1000
18. How do you perceive the overall state of Articles for deletion at this time?
A:
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
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
20. What is your view of Process is important?
A:
21. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A:
22. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A:
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:


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)

General comments

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

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
Support
  1. Absolutely. — foxj 01:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Nom.--v/r - TP 01:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. As co-nom — MusikAnimal 01:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Happy to support your request for the admin toolset. Thanks for all your work. - NQ (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  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)
    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)
    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)
  6. Support Thought he was an admin already, and no problems to make me oppose. KonveyorBelt 01:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support - He's a valuable asset to the project and good guy! I trust the candidate and I trust the nominators. Swarm 01:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  10. 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)
  11. I am using my phone in class to support. :P Trusted user and technically proficient. Why not? Jianhui67 01:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  12. 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)
  13. Surprisingly competent. Cloudchased (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  14. 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)
  15. Go for it. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support I have long admired Cyberpower's technical skills (some of Misplaced Pages'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)
  17. ///EuroCarGT 02:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  18. Support This editor is a net positive. Mkdw 02:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  19. 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)
  20. 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)
  21. 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)
  22. (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 Misplaced Pages has only improved with Cyberpower's tech-related sagacity. Epic Genius (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  23. 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)
  24. Good answers Andrevan@ 03:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  25. On of those "He isn't already?" candidates. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
  26. 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)
  27. 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! review me... 04:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  28. Strong Support, hard working editor that'll do a great job with the tools. :) --AmaryllisGardener 05:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  29. 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)
  30. 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)
  31. Support Co-nom. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 05:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  32. 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  06:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  33. Support 100%. This will benefit us a lot. --Silver Samurai 06:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  34. 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. Worm(talk) 06:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  35. 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)
  36. Support, everything checks out. Antrocent (♫♬) 07:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  37. Support a random sampling of past edits looked good. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  38. 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) 08:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  39. 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 09:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  40. 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)
  41. Support For his technical expertise. Jim Carter 11:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  42. 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)
  43. 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)
    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)
    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. Misplaced Pages 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)
  44. 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)
  45. Support Don't see any reason why not. Armbrust 14:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  46. Support I like what I see. David Cannon (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  47. 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 Misplaced Pages policy, as well as technical skills, are far more important - and this candidate has all of them. GiantSnowman 16:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  48. 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 Ponyo 16:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  49. 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 :) –Davey2010 21:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  50. Absolutely. Cyberpower678 would be an asset with the tools. Glad to support. Kurtis 23:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  51. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  52. 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)
  53. Support per noms and Dennis Brown. Looks like a good candidate to me. INeverCry 07:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  54. Support precious power to support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  55. 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)
  56. 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 10:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  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)

  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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

    Many of the outages can be explained by this: . 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)
    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)
    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 - are you saying they can't maintain their software?--v/r - TP 17:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: , which I find highly disturbing. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  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)
  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 Misplaced Pages. (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 Misplaced Pages (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)
    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)
    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 Misplaced Pages content for the English Misplaced Pages. 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)
  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 ~ 16:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
    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. –Davey2010 21:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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 Misplaced Pages). 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)
    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)
    Forgiving someone a week after their ban is silly. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  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)
    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 Misplaced Pages and are not going to dedicate 168 hours to the RFA process. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  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)
Neutral
  1. 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)
    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)
  2. (edit conflict) Neutral. 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)
    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)
  3. 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)
    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 Misplaced Pages content for the English Misplaced Pages. Translations formed a large hunk of the article where my editing has been the most concentrated. Italick (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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 18:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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)