Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678

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. –Davey2010^Talk 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

   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, Lindsay^Hello 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.
    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.

    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.
    YO 😜 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

    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.—

    Chat: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.
    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
    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: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
    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

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

   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.