Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2

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

Cyberpower678

Final (181/6/3); ended 21:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 21:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) – I would like to present Cyberpower as a candidate for adminship. Cyberpower has been here since mid-2011 and focuses his work on the technical aspects of Wikipedia - specialising in bot work and developing tools that make everything run more smoothly around here. He also helps out new users at WP:ACC and - demonstrating a high level of trust - holds the global renamer right on meta, performing user renames (previously a task reserved to bureaucrats before accounts were unified globally). His interactions with other editors, including new users still getting to grips with how Wikipedia works, show good communication skills and the sort of patience that admins often need. Cyberpower has also demonstrated the kind of analysis of consensus expected of admins over numerous RfC closes.

As some of you may remember, this is not Cyberpower's first RfA. He ran previously in July 2015, leading to a razor close result that required a bureaucrat discussion. Cyberpower withdrew with the participating bureaucrats split as to whether or not there was a consensus for promotion. I didn't think he was quite there 18 months ago, but I have no such reservations now and think that an RfA from him is if anything overdue.

Cyberpower has done great work since his previous RfA and addressed many of the concerns raised previously. Something that Cyberpower has not done - and I don't fault him for it - is radically changed the way in which he contributes to Wikipedia (which would have been necessary for him to address the rest of the opposing comments). Cyberpower remains someone who enjoys the technical and process side of the project. His chief contribution to the project therefore remains on the technical side, through bots and tools which that take of many repetitive tasks we rarely think about (and are glad don't need to trouble human editors who have better things to do). I am conscious that this means that Cyberpower doesn't fit the mold of some people's ideal admin candidate. I would say however that I believe that our admin pool is made stronger by reflecting the diversity of the interests and editing patterns of our contributors, and we should keep that in mind when evaluating candidates. Balance is a good thing - we shouldn't be looking for an identikit admin corps.

I believe that Cyberpower would make an excellent addition to the admin team. He has shown that he can be relied upon to think carefully before using the tools, to explain his decisions clearly and to ask for help when in doubt - those are for me the most important characteristics of a good admin. WJBscribe (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I was delighted to hear that Cyberpower was going to run for RfA and immediately volunteered to co-nominate him. WJBscribe has done an excellent job of describing his qualifications, so I would like to speak to Cyberpower's personal qualities. I admire him for his technical skill, as I think we all do. He not only writes useful cyber-assistants for us; he also maintains and fixes a huge number of programs written by other people. But I also admire him for his positive attitude and level head. His talk page is always filled with people wanting technical advice, and he responds with a competence, patience, and maturity that many of us might envy. He knows what he is good at and knows his limits, and I am confident that will continue to be the case when he has tools. It is sometimes said, in support of a admin candidate, "I trust them not to break the wiki." I would modify that to say that, if someone does break the wiki, I trust Cyberpower to fix it! Seriously, he is a very valuable Wikipedian now, but I believe he would become even more valuable as an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'm not a fan of multiple nominations but in this case because I was possibly largely instrumental for the previous RfA ending in 'non consensus', I would like to say now that Cyber has matured immensely since the ups and downs of his private life a year ago and the challenge of starting college, and that at his age 18 months can make a huge difference. No, his priority is not in adding content, but in many ways his expertise might even be just as important. His IT work helps hold the content together and provides indispensable tools that enable us to, well, among other things, assess potential for adminship. He needs admin tools for a lot of that work. It's time now for him to have them and after all the hassle I once gave him, I'm honoured that he mentioned that he would like me to be a nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I would first like to thank my 3 nominators above for putting in their good word in nominating me for adminship, I would also like to thank the other nominators of the other currently running RfAs, for making the effort of recruiting active users, if this can be kept up, it's an important step to fixing the declining admin issue. I am happy to accept this nomination.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: My core experience is in renaming, bot work, templates, and ACC. I'm therefore intending to focus on WP:UAA, WP:AIV, and community approved adminbots, as well as adminbots that need a new maintainer. I feel that I can confidently be productive there. It's a simple answer, yes, but I don't intend on using the tools in areas I need to learn in first. If I ever have an interest in participating in those areas, I would be a participant there first, before I would start acting as an admin. I have no interest in WP:CSDs however.

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

A: Since my last RfA, I have started the bot project called "InternetArchiveBot". It's an active project that I continuously work on, some of you may familiar with it. To those that aren't, the purpose is to build a community bot that goes around Wikipedia to fix the ongoing problems of WP:LINKROT. It's a really complex project in that it involves being able to handle references formatted in a variety of ways, and properly alter them as to not break them. It's an ongoing project, and something I will not stop working on until it's "right". What makes this a community bot is that community can get involved its maintenance using the tools I am developing on tool labs. Right now users can easily report false positives and modify URL data the bot uses on Wikipedia. This allows the bot to become even more reliable in the future, helping the bot to understand what works, and what doesn't. It's an ongoing project, that I'm having lot's of fun doing and I hope the community will see the benefit of this bot in the months to come.

Granted this isn't content, I would argue that content creation and bot work have more in common than people often realize. With content, one writes an article that needs to comply with several policies, and for GAs and FAs must adhere to even stricter standards down to page formatting. For bots, users write code that must adhere to proper syntax in order, must be pushed through approval, and must have the consensus of the community. There's the glamour of having ones article live, just as there is the glamour of being able to let a newly written bot run. There's also the frustration of having the bot code become obsolete and needs to be shut off because consensus has changed, or it's too old and not worth fixing, and that can be compared to the frustration of having an article one wrote get deleted.

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: Aside from the recent on and off wiki harassment/death threats I had starting Christmas Eve. I haven't had any significant conflicts worth mentioning since the last RfA. I usually try to be reasonable and try to see the other's perspective when in a conflict. So I will discuss how I feel I have matured since my last RfA. One of the major concerns was temperament, how I tend to make rash decision, judge too quick, or quite overly emotional during a stressful situation. I recall someone opposing my previous RfA because of said temperament issues, because in a heated dispute, I just switched all of my bots off and left. Ever since temperament concerns were brought up to me, I have worked on them. I would like to think that if someone is being confrontational, that I can remain calm, civil, and rational. I would like to think the interactions I've had with users since my last RfA can prove that. I'm always working to improve myself as an editor who can be easily communicated with, and trust to receive a civil response in return.

---

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

Additional questions from Leaky

4. Specifically related to the Bot-related functions you already perform, what additional capability will you have that will extend the level of approval you already have as the expert in your chosen area of expertise?

A: I'm not sure if I am interpreting your question correctly, but the quick answer is that I am not granted any additional powers to running bots. All I can do is run a bot with admin capabilities. I am still required to seek a community consensus, I am still required to have BAG approve it, and I am still held accountable for the damage it causes, which can be as severe as a cloud desysop.

Follow up In which case, per co-nom. statement He needs admin tools for a lot of that work. - how does being an Admin help as far as your BOT work is concerned? Thanks.

I believe you may be misreading the intended meaning of Kudpung's statement in regards to my current bots. Becoming an admin will allow me to run an admin bot, but without the admin bit, no matter how much support an adminbot may get, I wouldn't be able to run one since running an adminbot requires the operator to be an admin themselves. To clarify, I am not solely running this RfA to simply be able to run an adminbot however, as they would require community consensus first before even being allowed to run at all. Also, supposedly if I were to extend the sysop bit to IABot, for instance, I would seek community consensus for that first as well, although it would only allow it to edit through fully protected articles, since IABot is designed to combat WP:LINKROT as best as possible. IABot has hit quite a few of those in the past, though not certain about the present.

Follow up. I cannot misread an intended meaning. I took the nom. statement for its everyday meaning. His IT work helps hold the content together and provides indispensable tools that enable us to, well, among other things, assess potential for adminship. He needs admin tools for a lot of that work. Do you indeed need admin. tools for a lot of that work, or not?

The quick answer to this question is that all of my bots in operation have been just dandy without the admin bit, but I certainly have been wondering if some of them could be expanded to be more helpful in an admin capacity. Mind you that before I were to implement any of these ideas, I would seek out a consensus for such a function. Take for example my RfPP clerking task which clerks at RfPP. I tend to find that sometimes an admin misses a page when protecting a collection of pages in one request, or that they mistakenly applied the wrong protection. The clerking task can detect those inconsistencies and correct the protection automatically in those cases, or apply the missing protection that was supposed to be applied. This would of course be opt-in so it's not forced. Another example is that we now have a watchlist notice show up every time a new RfA is transcluded. Well it requires cycling a cookie on the interface page which requires an admin to do. Granted it's a simple task to do but it could easily be expanded into my current RfX reporter task, if granted admin capability. I've been wondering if User:7SeriesBOT should be revived as it was performing admin tasks that were approved. The only reason it died, from what I gather, is because the operator of it lost the bit. So can I do bot work without the admin toolkit? Yes, I have been doing so all this time. Have I encountered situation were I found giving the bot the bit would be useful? Yes. Is it an absolute requirement that I need to be an admin to develop my bots? No, but I could be more useful as a bot op that way. I'm only on Wikipedia because it's an open, diverse, community where I feel I can be of use and contribute productively. It's all I wish to do.

Thanks for that clarification. Leaky Caldron 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, if felt like you were pulling teeth. :-)

5. Your prime nominator refers to your numerous RFC closes. Please link to the latest 5 or 6 of these.

A: This is a rather hard question for me to answer, as this answer may likely hurt my RfA, but it's the truth. My latest one, that I can remember and I believe you remember it too, was the one regarding RfA reform, and after that fiasco, I retreated from RfC closures to reflect on my judgement and how that could have been dealt better. Though, to be fair, my close of the RfC was the exact same result as the final close, but it did have me reflecting how users can perceive me being WP:INVOLVED in matters when closing highly visible and important RfCs like that. Though I didn't consider myself involved, having been a recent participant in an RfA at the time had other users thinking I was closing to affect the outcome of my next RfA. I retracted my close, but when it was closed again by another user, the result was the same. All of my other RfCs I can recall were before my previous RfA. I don't think this has put me out of touch of establishing a consensus from discussions. I know I'm not listing the latest 5, so feel free to follow up.

Follow up. This is simple. Your nominator clearly states Cyberpower has also demonstrated the kind of analysis of consensus expected of admins over numerous RfC closes. It is reasonable to assume that there are more than 1 and not from 5 years ago - a closed issue as far as anyone is concerned. If skills are claimed it is expected that proof is available, it is after all relevant to an Admin. if you were to be involved in Admin. closures. So if you can work with your nominator @WJBscribe: to strike the relevant claim and explain it's presence (you did review the nomination statement) I believe that would settle the issue. Thanks.

@Leaky: Glad to see you're keeping the noms honest... As this question is really directed at my nomination, I hope you don't mind if I reply to your follow up question. I said in my statement above, Cyperpower has closed numerous RfCs - I didn't say they were particularly recent and didn't mean to give that impression. There was a time when RfAs were run within 4-12 months of users becoming active, so this issue wouldn't arise (all activity being fairly recent), but I think with "older" candidates it is fair to look back at their work from a couple of years ago if it's relevant. Anyway, I think the following are the 5 most recent RfC closes (if I have missed one or two in the sequence please forgive me) and were about 12-18 months ago:

1. Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC (December 2015) - discussed by Cyberpower and later reverted - but as I recall on the basis of timing and whether he was the correct person to make the close. You will notice that his rationale fairly closely tracks the ultimate outcome.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/5 millionth article logo (October 2015)
3. RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series) (August 2015)
4. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comment (August 2015)
5. RfC:Increasing the activity requirement for retaining administrator rights (August 2015)

Although Cyberpower has explained why this isn't area of Wikipedia he has been involved with in the last year, I hope he'll consider making himself available as an RfC closer. It's a pretty thankless task, but an important one and we tend to have a shortage of available closers. WJBscribe (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

WJB - thanks very much, that's fine. Leaky Caldron 14:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions from xaosflux

6. You mentioned maintaining adminbots in Q1. Please explain how you view accountability for bot edits, and how that may related to WP:ADMINACCT:

A: In my personal sense, all bot ops are accountable for the edits a bot makes. When that bot is an adminbot, that accountability is even more strict. While normal bot edits gone wrong can simply be reversed by any user, admin actions cannot so easily, and can do irreperable damage. All adminbots need extensive testing based on the functions it's supposed to perform and more trials before they can be allowed to run autonomously. A failure to do so can cause serious repercussions to both the bot op and the affected targets.

6.1 (adminbot follow up question) Should a bot account of yours be blocked by another administrator, under what conditions would it be appropriate for you to unblock it yourself?

A: So this is a very contentious area, in my opinion. I feel a bot op shouldn't under normal circumstances unblock their own bot if it was legitimately blocked for malfunctioning, and should have another admin do it my opinion. This is because if the bot was misbehaving enough to even warrant an immediate block, it should be shown in some manner that the underlying problem has been resolved and that the bot is safe to operate on Wikipedia again. For illegitimate reasons, such as an obvious mistake such as wrong user getting blocked, or an out of control admin going on a block spree, those can simply be reversed. However, when in doubt, it's best to contact the blocking admin first about why the bot was blocked if not mentioned in the block reason, fix the underlying problem, run tests, and confirm that the bot has been repaired and should be safe to run.

7 As a more technical maintainer, when do you feel it is appropriate to edit non-article protected areas requiring admin access via (edituserjs), (editinterface), etc?

A: Admins shouldn't ever edit a user JS unless it is to fix the code and the user is not active, or the user gives explicit permission, but even then it should be ported to the local user space or to a gadget. The most recent example would be when IABot's on wiki configuration page was edited by another admin which broke the bot. Moving on to interface editing, my experience in filing edit requests is that there needs to be consensus for the change, or if it's not controversial, at least a 3 day waiting period to see if there are objections, as it will impact all of Wikipedia. Also, common sense should be exercised. If I didn't touch on the point you wanted me to touch feel free to follow up. I'm not too stingy on the question limit.

Additional question from BU Rob13

8. As you're largely a technical editor, I feel it's "fair game" to ask you about your technical qualifications. What's your current involvement in XTools? Assuming it's still non-zero, as you're still listed as a developer, what the heck is going on with it? It seems down regularly. I've seen many editors question whether you have a tendency to start projects that you never finish, and you may perhaps want to respond to that in this question, although that's optional.

A: So when I first took on xTools, then known as X!'s Tools, it was when User:X! retired and left SoxBot and his tools unmaintained. At the time I was a really eager bot op just wishing to be able to contribute something so I took on X!'s Tools and helped User:TParis to maintain them. I took over completely when Toolserver was announced to be shutdown, and began porting the code to Tool Labs. I renamed the tools to xTools to honor X!, and to give it an easier name. As the tool labs infrastructure kept getting changed, the code became too deprecated to run correctly. At that point I had invited User:Hedonil on board who then radically rewrote xTools, and made it way too environment specific to run right, and in the middle of it he left the project leaving me with code I could no longer follow for the life me. :/ The only option was to rewrite the tools, again, but with the constant ongoing pressure of absolutely having working tools, and stuck with code I couldn't comprehend because it was half finished, I ended up giving up and working on projects I wrote myself, and/or taking over dead bots by writing my own equivalent if I need to. At this point xTools still needs a rewrite, but I'm not the right person for this job. That honor has now gone to User:Matthewrbowker, and will also be handed off to the Community Tech Team, per T153112. So now we have a paid staff of WMF, in conjunction with Matthew to rewrite the tools into a stable state as a goal for 2017. So yes, I did back away from xTools, because it was simply too impossible to maintain and at that time my time was overbooked in RL. It has since then calmed down, and now my project that I am focusing on is InternetArchiveBot, and I'm having way too much fun to back away from it any time in the future. The reason I am still listed as a maintainer is to pretty much grant access to developers who wish to contribute to ensure xTools isn't left as an unmaintained tool.

Additional question from Glrx

9. Should bot maintainers be held to stricter standards than editors? In particular, an editor who runs AWB is responsible for all the edits that the script makes on the page (curiously, I have had a bot maintainer imply that he is not responsible for an erroneous AWB edit). My current watchlist has 20 entries where InternetArchiveBot made the last edit to a page. Ten of those entries are edits to an article page, and ten entries are to the corresponding article talk page. Consequently, I must access both the article and talk page. The talk page is a solicitation asking me to check the URLs that IABot changed. Should bots be assigning thousands of tasks to human volunteer editors? You are not a content editor, but put yourself in a content editor's shoes. Would you appreciate these talk page messages continually coming across your desk? I have no problem with bots making unexpected errors, but I expect the error rate to be extremely small. That raises another issue. If the bot error rate is high and the talk page messages are necessary, then why has the bot been turned loose? On the other hand, if the error rate is acceptably low, then why is the bot putting essentially unneeded messages on the talk page?

A: By policy all bot ops are responsible for every edit that comes from an account they own, automated or not, and they must be held accountable for it. So the definition of stricter standards is a bit ambiguous in this case. If you write a bot that's disruptive, it gets blocked and the owner warned/reprimanded/blocked depending on severity and intention. If you do it again, the owner will likely face sanctions of sorts, which violating can lead to blocks, again, depending on intention. If an editor is being directly disruptive, they tend to receive 4 warnings before getting blocked. I'm all for policy that keep bot operators in check, and even more so for adminbots. Now regarding the user you encountered and not owning up to his erroneous AWB edit, he is wrong. If it's making errors, he should either fix the bug to prevent it from happening again, or stop using altogether. Now moving on to IABot, the talk page message is on original function from initial approval that I added to attract more attention to bugs needing to be fixed. After time, my impression is it kind of became a "thing", for lack of a better word, that users expected when they encounter IABot. IABot is definitely not very error prone, if I had to estimate, less than 0.01% of them have an error. Of the roughly 500k edits it has made since moving from Cyberbot II to InternetArchiveBot, the bug reports received in comparison is small. The talk message is an option that can be changed with its on wiki configuration page. At this point, I'm not inclined to turn it off unless there is evidence from the community that the messages are not helpful, but my current sense is that they are. I will soon be releasing a new version of the bot, v1.3, which hopefully remove almost all of the remaining problems left behind by older versions of the bot. If you feel the messages are unhelpful, I am more than happy shutting them off, but I do need to make sure other users don't object to such a change.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 01:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Ivanvector

10. In both your previous and current RfAs you've mentioned a desire to work at WP:UAA, so we can't let you get away without the [in]famous usernames question! You see the following accounts reported at UAA, what is your response as patrolling administrator?

• EdelmanRick
• Bushdid711
• Sockingtonfan8662466453
• HRHElizabethRegina
• Kitties!!!🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱
• InternetArchiveBob
• Rms125@hotmail.com

A: Haha, I was wondering when these questions would crop up.

• EdelmanRick: It simply appears to be a name that is similar to a couple of notable entries on Wikipedia. Richard Edelman and Ric Edelman. The name Edelman appears to be common enough to AGF and allow, but I would look out for promotional edits and address any possible WP:COI.
• Bushdid711: I believe you may have been going for bushdid911. Going for both, 711 is a store name Seven Eleven, so this is a case of WP:DISRUPTNAME, because it can likely still offend others. Dealing with 911, which is a very tragic moment in American history, I could imagine a plethora of users taking offense to the name. The username is a clear WP:BLPABUSE. If the account is being disruptive, it can be immediately blocked for said disruption, as it's clear they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. If the user is making good edits, I would instruct the user to get their accounts renamed to something less controversial, and suggest they stop editing until they are renamed. If they choose to refuse, I would issue a soft username block.
• Sockington8662466453: A yellow flag is that I believe the string of numbers is a phone number of sorts. This is either an advertisement of the phone number or can possibly open the target user up to harassment. If it is a phone number, I would advise the user to rename to a name without it, but that's personal preference. It's not anything that can be actioned on. All in all, the username is okay otherwise and there's nothing to merit a username block.
• HRHElizabethRegina: I had to think about this a bit. We are dealing with a notable position and a notable name. This is potentially a case of WP:IMPERSONATION. Granted the username is not an exact real name, but it's quite obvious that it implies Elizabeth II. I would ask the user to provide proof of identity to info-enwikimedia.org, or to provide a new username to be renamed to using a username block.
• Kitties!!!🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱: It ultimately depends on how the account is behaving. I personally don't feel emojis are appropriate for usernames, because they make it hard to find the user. Then again, non-latin characters are allowed in the username. We have Japanese, arabic, and greek symbols in usernames of English Wikipedia users. As long as they can easily be reached and provide a clear link to their userspace in their signature, and as long they're being productive, there is no policy based reason to block the user and ask for a username change, as emojis can be classified as non-latin characters. I would however ask to reconsider the emojis in the username. With that being said, it could fall under WP:DISRUPTNAME if the first edit that comes out of the account is an act of vandalism.
• InternetArchiveBob: This account is clearly intended to impersonate my bot account, and that in itself is disruptive. It's more than likely that this user will be disruptive and will most likely end up blocked as an impersonation account. However if it is a genuine user, I would probably ask if they can choose another name to use on Wikipedia. Since I would likely not be impartial about this, block judgement should be deferred to another admin, as it would be inappropriate for me to block this user.
• Rms125@hotmail.com: Not a violation of the username policy. It may not be private but that's just user preference. I would advise the user to consider a rename however.

  Per the comments on the bottom of the page, I made this answer while missing a vital piece of information I was not aware of. There exists an account User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. Because the user never signed with his username, I never seen or even thought that this user existed, to my recollection. I am therefore revising my answer to state that the username would be a clear impersonation account, and will block as such if their edits support that assessment of impersonation, which will most likely be the case. In the unlikely event that this was an honest mistake, I would urge the new user to change their username, or make it abundantly clear that there is no connection with the account User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. If this were actually reported to WP:UAA, and if the given reason was impersonation, I would have investigated the claim in regards to impersonation instead of if it's promotional or not.

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678
• Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion
• Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2

• Links for Cyberpower678: Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Cyberpower678 can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support. I trust him not to break the wiki. Bradv 21:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Support: candidate is in pillar 2 of my RfA criteria. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 21:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Great civil user. Tools could help. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Support. I supported last time, and I'm happy to support again. We need more admins with a technical calibre and Cyberpower678 would fit that mold perfectly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Support for the sake of Wikipedia's crumbling technological infrastructure. Esquivalience (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Strong Support (edit conflict). Seven RFA's are now going on! That must be a record. And they're all awesome candidates. Cyberpower is very good with the technical aspect on Wikipedia as well, and I did already think he was an administrator when i first ran into him, when he renamed my account. I think he will suit the role of administrator perfectly. Good Luck! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Supported last time, strongly supporting this time. Cyberpower is a great user who I believe will wield the tools with care. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
8. Support (edit conflict × 4) - there's not enough room in this section to give detailed reasons as to how Cyberpower678 has the technical prowess to be an asset to the mop corp, but thankfully I think everyone knows that ;) -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 21:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
9. Support - didn't get around to supporting last time, so making up for that today. Excellent technical skills and a long term enthusiasm for improving the encyclopaedia. No reason to believe they will misuse the tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
10. Support as nom. WJBscribe (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
11. Strongest Support I had only been editing a few months when I saw Cyberpower's first RfA, so I didn't voice my opinion then, but I will now. I enjoy content creation and I think it is an important attribute for admins to have; I'm concerned about the lack of focus on addressing the content-related concerns of the last RfA, but Cyberpower's strengths are a clear net positive. Cyberpower has the demeanor, clue, and competence for the tools, but the bit will also allow them to expand their contributions. Only administrators can run admin bots, and Cyberpower is one of the best bot writers we have, so giving them the bit also means they can begin to write and operate bots to automate some administrator tasks. Not only is there no reason to think there will be no harm, there is a potential boon here. Given that, I can't possibly think that Cyberpower's content creation should be an obstacle to a candidate that has the potential to greatly help the encyclopedia in other ways. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
12. Support So many good candidates for RFA at once! An excellent candidate I feel in this case, especially on the technical side. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
13. Support - I supported then, I have only more reasons to support now. Excellent noms, exceptional need for the tools. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
14. Weak support - I'm not concerned with edit count percentages or anything like that - almost all admin work is outside the article space, so if a candidate is already focused on that then I don't see a problem. He is a very active global renamer, and can obviously be trusted with access to advanced permissions. My concern comes with his sometimes combative nature in discussions, and I hope that he pays attention to this whether or not he is elected. Thanks for volunteering, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
15. Support because I see no good reason not to. I supported his first RFA, because I was unmoved by any of the oppose votes. I will keep an eye on this RFA, but I don't expect anything different to happen this time around. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
16. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
17. Support. Clearly has clue, and runs a rather helpful and busy bot that gets a lot done. All of the interactions I've had with the nominee have always been cordial and receptive. (That, and I'm pretty sure the headache I gave the nominee with trying to fix an issue their bot repeatedly creating an erroneous certain "Book talk:" namespace page was no walk in the park either! For the record, the issue did get fixed.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
18. Support Civil, smart, helpful and enormously skilled in the technological stuff I can barely fathom. I've seen the work done by his linkrot-bot and find it a huge benefit to the project. I feel comfortable predicting that there's a lot more to come from this editor that will improve our encyclopedia. Having administrative rights will surely help in this regard. David in DC (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
19. Support more admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
20. Support No significant issues, a record of needed work and accomplished programming, and a need for the tools. Why not? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
21. Support Always see this users name around everywhere, seems very dedicated to the project. Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 22:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
22. Support This user has already made great contributions to Wikipedia through his work with bots, which I believe perform great assistance to the community. Looking through some of the discussion on his talk page, I see no red flags or incivility. For me at RfA, a low mainspace percentage of edit counts doesn't indicate incapability, just someone who spends a lot of time with behind-the-scenes work, which is what most of adminship is in any case. I see enough experience in the areas he says he plans to work in, so I see no issue with supporting. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
23. Persuasive nomination statement + competent and trustworthy user. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
24. Support, from a history of great interactions with him. Obviously a net positive. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
25. Support, as co-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
26. Support. I was a little undecided last time, and I left it too late after doing my checking. This time I have no hesitation in supporting, especially considering the three nomination statements. Cyberpower678 will make a very capable and trustworthy admin, I think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

    I just want to add that the apparent bot failure rate of 0.02% which has led people to oppose is, in fact, astonishingly good, and it only serves to strengthen my support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

    That failure rate was not actually cited by anyone opposing. Samsara 16:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

27. Support - I thought his previous RFA should have been closed as promoted. I disagreed with the reasons for opposing him before. We're picking janitors, not chief editors, and someone who has done as much work as Cyberpower678 could clearly help the project by being an admin. --B (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
28. Support, again. And by that, I mean that I support Cyberpower for the same reason as I did last time. epicgenius (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
29. Support, I feel as though 18 months is enough time... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
30. Support If there was one editor who I would WP:IAR for the usual content requirements, it's Cyberpower. His dedication to technical issues and keeping bits of the project alive, not least the tools on this very RfA process, in the face of sometimes difficult circumstances, is duty beyond the cause. More importantly, he has never shown any interest of wanting the tools for powermongering or wanting to boss people about - he just wants to knuckle down and get on with the job. I'd like to thank Kudpung, who was a key opposer last time, for putting forward a co-nomination, which shows more people now trust him with the tools. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
31. Support as I did in the first RfA. I still believe that giving him the bit is very likely to constitute a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
32. Support. I supported the previous run, and I've often thought about suggesting he run again. We need technically proficient admins, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
33. Support I have worked with Cyberpower678 in global renaming, and they've shown themselves to be an excellent colleague. Plus, his knowledge with the technical aspects of Wikipedia is invaluable, given that many people who edit don't know much about the underlying workings of MediaWiki. I wholeheartedly trust him with the mop, since his bots certainly haven't destroyed every single page on Wikipedia, have they? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
34. Support Clear net positive to the project. THe opposes are supremely unconvincing. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
35. Support We could definitely do with more admins that are willing and capable of running admin bots. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
36. Support - I supported with the utmost confidence at the first RfA and thought that the result there was one of the most disappointing RfA results I had seen at the time. Cyberpower has been a dedicated member to this project, and while content creation is important, content can't be created without the technology driving the project being improved and maintained. Cyberpower will be an even bigger asset to the project with the tools than he already is now, and I almost hate to say that, because I cannot emphasize enough how much of an asset I already believe he is. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
37. Support as co-nom. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
38. Support Duh.--v/r - TP 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
39. Support. Great candidate. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
40. Support should've passed last time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
41. Support - respected editor and having working with him over at ACC I believe he would make a good administrator. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
42. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
43. Support I thinks should suppose to keep the WP:VD and aired WP:SPECULATION are called not confirmed episodes. It since to worked at WP:POKE try to create WP:LISTCRUFT makes new series anime. I know what's happening to change character for example Satoshi instead (Ash) should not be aired in USA. I don't think all episodes now speculate aired but no reference in Japan but I read magazine before adding source took time to end episode will add another episodes. Oripaypaykim (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
44. Trusted. --Rschen7754 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
45. Support - Net positive to the mop brigade, especially with the mad l33t bot skillz. Kudpung's co-nom also means a great deal. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
46. Support per Wugapodes, who says almost exactly what I would have. I would have put less emphasis on content creation, but that's about all I would change. Cyberpower's answer to my question is more than adequate. I have no problem with a dev backing away from an important project after handing it off to other developers. That's just a sensible recognition of strengths and weaknesses, and it's an important trait in administrators. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
47. Support because they should have passed the first one. kennethaw88 • talk 02:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
48. SupportPretty much agree with kennethaw88, the first one should have passed. → Call me Razr Nation 02:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
49. Support --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Babymissfortune (talk • contribs) 02:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
50. Support User has my trust with the mop. ^Avic_ennasis @ 03:07, 7 Tevet 5777 / 03:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
51. Support Cyberpower678 will clearly be a net positive with the tools and the oppose are unpersuasive, to put it mildly. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
52. Support I trust Cyberpower678 not to break Wikipedia. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 03:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
53. Support First, I am not concerned with the mainspace edit count - the candidate is more focused on the technical aspects of the project and I don't doubt his statement that he doesn't want to dive in to some of the more traditional admin areas that benefit most from vast article development experience. As far as wanting to possibly work with admin bots - these types of bots have the strictest scrutiny and the entire community is welcome to comment at any such future BRFA's and they must be supported by community consensus for any tasks - I warn that you may be disappointed that some bot ideas you could have may not get support to run, but others likely will so don't get frustrated with the process. All that being said, C678 has demonstrated rationality and trustworthiness over the last several years and I support him for administrative permissions. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
54. Support - as I did the last time around. Cyberpower678 is truly one of en-Wikipedia's success stories (I really liked that line, Kelapstick). I have seen his development from a kind of an immature editor to this fine and level-headed person. I believe his work speaks for himself and his contributions to the project are very crucial. The work with bots and the software is very important and Cyberpower678 has done a fabulous job with that. Apart from that, withdrawing the previous RfA and to not put the bureaucrats in an awkward situation showed a really mature behavior - that was the point where I strongly believed that he should've rather passed. Yash! 04:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
55. Strong Support, IABot, the creation of this candidate, is incredibly useful for maintaining the verifiability of the encyclopedia. For some perspective that may mean different things to different editors: IABot was the beneficiary of one of last year's community wishlist items. WP:LINKROT is a real problem, and IABot has done some amazing work combatting it. I have no doubt that the candidate's work as a botop will only be enhanced by the mop, and I trust that that quality of work will continue on with the admin roles mentioned above. Lack of AfD participation doesn't concern me: obviously, we want an excess of admins manning the AfD backlog, but this user's lack of content creation (see oppose section) partnered with his avoidance of deletion if he doesn't know the true toil of being a content creator (a concept that I'm skeptical about) makes me confident that they will do what they know best and learn anything else along the way. Cheers! Icebob99 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
56. Strong Hell Yes! SQL^{Query me!} 05:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
57. Support A perfect example of admin candidates who need not be made up of the square box we have come to expect. We need candidates like cyberpower to do voluntary work in areas where there's not much competence. I'm thankful that cyberpower continues to commit his skills to Wikipedia; well, I too depend on some of his bot lists to keep a track of areas I am interested in. And I'm thankful cyberpower has a most pleasant disposition, despite the attack messages he gets. Pleasure to support such a skilled editor. Lourdes 05:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
58. Of course: I know this editor for quite some time now. Whenever I have worked with him, I have found that he is quite helpful, and always eager to improve the project. I have not found anything to worry. I believe that he will be a great admin and he deserves the extra buttons and tools. My only suggestion would be (which has been told in the oppose votes also, please increase your mainspace edits/works. All the best. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
59. Support The user is civil, competent in their chosen area, and has a need for the tools. The lack of content work is a concern, but I trust that Cyberpower knows what they don't know, and will act appropriately. Vanamonde (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
60. Support Sure. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
61. Support - After a careful review, I do not see any risk in giving him the tools. His activity levels as of recent have been lower than i'd like for an administrative candidate - but this is virtually the only concern I hold and I will not change my vote on that single concern alone when he has shown good judgement with everything else. -- Dane ^talk 07:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
62. Support Nom statements make a good case. Candidate seems not to intend to exert themselves in areas where they have no experience, and very valuable in those they are already engaged in. Previous "tech-specialized" admins seem to have worked out nicely. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
63. Support a great editor - civil, level-headed, res,ponsive and contributes to the encyclopedia overall. I would feel safe with this editor having admin tools and in past interactions have felt they have a good and reasonable grasp of our policies and guidelines. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
64. Support technical skills are outstanding, hasn't broken the wiki thus far, despite significant power to do so. Limited scope of work, but why is that a problem? I'll always be happier with admins that have runs on the board, content creation-wise, but I'm willing to make an exception here, esp with Kudpung as a nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
65. Support - For the same reasons as last time. I felt he was qualified then; he's even more so now. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
66. Support Overdue. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
67. Support Trusted and experienced editor. I see bot operation skills as a plus for a potential admin, not a concern. lNeverCry 09:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
68. Support Per the nomination statements, and per [1] where the candidate was able to see the "right" route even when (obviously) involved. Pedro :  Chat  10:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
69. Support Cyberpower678 has done excellent work in the programming and bot space and will continue to do great work in this area and beyond with the admin tools. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
70. Support Cyberpower does very important work and the admin privileges will assist him greatly in performing his tasks. Karst (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
71. Support - per nom, what Pedro said, and my own respect for Cyberpower678.--John Cline (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
72. Support. Will be a net positive. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
73. Support- no concerns here. Reyk _YO! 12:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
74. Support of course, long overdue. —Kusma (t·c) 12:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
75. Support With zero concern. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
76. Support will be a net gain for sure. How many of those opposed by Colonel Warden subsequently pass and then go on to abuse their position? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
77. Support About time. Patient Zero^talk 13:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
78. Support: Now he is more than ready! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
79. Support Super easy to support, Sadads (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
80. Strong support. Yes please. I was impressed by Cyberpower's bot work at WP:RFP. Previously his somewhat shallow experience with administrative discussion made me hesitate and end up missing the boat on that RfA altogether, but Kudpung's co-nomination makes it beyond reasonable doubt that I should support his RfA this time. All the best with the mop. Deryck C. 15:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
81. Support, about as good a technical editor as it gets, and the tools will only help him do even better. GAB^gab 15:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
82. Support: I see no issues for a reason to not to support. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
83. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
84. No qualms. Not buying the argument that his bot work would be harmful. — foxj 15:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
85. Support I would be remiss if I didn't support him, he's always been culpable for his faults I've found and could do a lot of good with the tools. tutterMouse (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
86. Support - 'bout time :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

    Mlpearc: About time?!? Some people have been waiting for your second RfA for over 4 years... WJBscribe (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

87. Support - He will be better than some existing ones. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
88. Of course – I have no concerns at all with this candidate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
89. Support with complete peace of mind. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
90. Support' – I trust this user not to break things if he gets the admin tools. That's all I need. Graham87 17:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
91. Support - Good candidate who appears genuinely introspective and has a desire to be better tomorrow than he is today. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
92. Support I am confident that giving this editor additional tools will benefit the project. Mamyles (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
93. Support He's a great guy. I'm very confident that he will do an excellent job being an admin. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
94. Support. He wasn't one? bd2412 T 19:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
95. Support—does good work, seems level-headed, and I specifically like to support specialist admins. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
96. Support Good honest answers to the questions. An asset to the project that could make use of the tools. AIRcorn (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
97. Support: A hardworking editor with superior skills. Should have been an admin long ago. --Drmargi (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
98. Very Strong Support - Very good editor with a lot of experience and is excellent on the technical side of things. An asset to the project. Has shown to have learned from the two blocks early on in his career. I would have supported in 2015 and was disappointed it didn't pass, and the case is even stronger in his favour now. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 22:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
99. Support Supported then, supporting now. Katie^talk 22:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
100. Support I think he'll be a good admin L3X1 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
101. Support To me, this is an easy support. Cyberpower is the kind of admin that we desperately need on the project—one with technical expertise. Based on the work he has done already, I trust that he will use the tools correctly and to the benefit of Wikipedia. That, along with the excellent statements of support from well-respected editors, means you don't need to hear anything more from me. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
102. Support As I did in the previous candidacy. --joe decker^talk 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
103. Support Why not? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
104. Support I see no issues with handing out another mop Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
105. Support. Although AfD participation could be better, Cyberpower678's technical work will make the user a net positive. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
106. all the yes --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
107. Support - oppose rationales are weak. Even if this is a hasty attempt to bandwagon on the recent successful surge in RfAs, does that make Cyberpower678 more likely to misuse admin tools? Does that make him less trustworthy? Does that make him more likely to bite newcomers? If not, then the next question would be: So what if it is a hasty attempt to bandwagon on the recent successful surge in RfAs? Banedon (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
108. Support - Looking to the user's contributions, the user seems trusted and is a great technical editor. Would be good if have a mop. NgYShung ^huh? 04:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
109. Support. Looks like a net positive. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

     Accidentally !voted again below, so copying up to here.Oppose !votes based on content are unconvincing, since while there is not a lot of breadth of content creation, one a few article, there has been significant depth [2]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

110. Support I supported Cyberpower's first RFA and am glad to support again. I am especially convinced that Cyperpower is a good candidate and is now ready for the mop by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง's change not only to support but to co-nominate. Cyberpower can use the tools to contribute even more than he already does with his great technical skills. Civil. Trustworthiness established. Also per the other nominators and xaosflux's support and rationale. Donner60 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
111. Support - as per last time. GiantSnowman 08:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
112. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
113. Support Enough in the Q&A section now to reassure us that Cyberpower will benefit from admin tools in the work he does on our behalf, and that he will use them with all necessary circumspection: Noyster (talk), 10:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
114. Support YES YES YES YES. I've interacted with Cyberpower a lot over the years and he's always been courteous, respectful, and most importantly, willing to learn if he makes mistakes. I don't think the opposes below about bot error rates are grounded in reality. There are plenty of reasons a bot task can go wrong, some of which will break one page or a thousand pages. Personally I think template editing and the MediaWiki namespace is way scarier since it has the potential to break millions of pages at once with way less visibility or review. In any case, I think the main thing to consider is whether Cyberpower learns from his mistakes and avoids them in the future. In my experience, that's usually been the case. Legoktm (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
115. Support. I supported last time though noting it was perhaps a little premature. I'm glad to see it passing this time. Sure, Cyberpower's not perfect. He could spend more time in the mainspace and he still has a lot to learn, but most admin work is learnt on the job anyway and he undoubtedky knows the areas he wants to work in. The rest comes down to whether you trust his judgement. Personally, I do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
116. Support. Qualified. -- œ^™ 12:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
117. Support - I would prefer a candidate to have more experience in some form of dispute resolution *somewhere*. However on this occasion I feel their other skills make up for it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
118. Support So the candidate's bots make a few hundred mistakes out of millions of edits; that doesn't make them seem likely to break the wiki. Joshualouie711^talk 14:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
119. Support, no concerns as I supported last time. --Laser brain (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
120. Support Trusted. -- 1989 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
121. Support No reservations. Mkdw ^talk 19:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
122. Support. I'm seeing strong nominations, a significant skill set and a good rationale for adding admin tools in a few specific areas, and a good demeanor during this RfA. This is a good example of a fully qualified candidate who does not need a lot of content experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
123. Support — I don't normally get involved with RFAs (my free time is limited to begin with), but I feel it necessary to speak to Cyberpower's past eagerness to help at WP:BRFA on bot-related issues, too. I feel it extremely important to note things like that (as well as bot development as a whole) when people show up to say things like "not enough content contributions." The main thing that matters with admins, at least in my opinion, is demonstrating effort, drive, support, and basically just general care and respect for the creative process as well as the people involved in it. Sure, content creation is one creative process, but engineering/development work is another process that facilitates content creation as a whole. And he does that. I mean, some people can use "janitorial" tools to paint, but at the end of the day, most mopholders are still expected—entrusted—to just help keep the damn lights on and the machinery lubricated per the wishes of the tenants. :P --slakr^\ talk / 00:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
124. Support because the bureaucrats got it wrong here. Mihirpmehta (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
125. Support. Net asset to the project. - Nellis 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
126. Support. Piling on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
127. Strong Support - Thought he was already - an excellent, well-qualified candidate with a 10/10 understanding of the technical aspects of Wikipedia. J947 05:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
128. Strong support. Of course. — Mediran [talk] 06:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
129. Support. As a newbie with a mere eight months experience, Cyberpower678 offered to close an RfC on one of the most contentious proposals in WP's history—one in which they arguably weren't disinterested. Although they didn't seem to grasp why that appeared problematic, they did accept consensus and ultimately withdraw their offer, which I found commendable. Since then, they've gained considerable experience and, I believe, demonstrated solid judgment in a variety of areas, some of them arcanely technical. (If they break the Internet, they'll probably know how to fix it, too.) I really don't think they would misuse the tools, and I'm glad to support their RfA today. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
130. Support Trustworthy, has good judgement and clueful will be a great admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
131. Support. Jamiebally (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
132. Support No red flags + impressive record = net positive. Oppose votes and rationals are unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
133. Support - Usually I would want the candidate to work at AIV & all that crap however they make up for that by working on the technical side of the 'pedia which is a massive help here, I also support per my comment in the prev RFA which was "Sure he doesn't create articles but he has brilliant technical skills which is a big help here, Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) " and quite honestly a year later and notihng's change - Excellent candidate who would make a great admin. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
134. Support: The nominee has show that they are trustworthy and there seems to be a clear need for the kind of skill set among the admincorps.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
135. Support. Hardworking coder, won't break the wiki. If the mop makes his work on admin bots easier, then give him one. Yintan  21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
136. Support. I'm very impressed with the time and attention contributed by this editor, and trust him with the tools. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
137. Support IT skills should be a great help to the admin corps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzspaniel (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
138. Support - I'm happy to pile on for this candidate. I know the candidate and have worked with the candidate on some WP issues. I have confidence in this candidate's abilities, knowledge of the project, and clue. - tucoxn\^talk 22:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
139. Support per noms. VegaDark (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
140. Support per past interactions. One can certainly be here to build an encyclopedia yet be a technical contributor. "Pepper" @ 03:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
141. Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
142. Support I supported last time, and see no reason not to now. Miniapolis 15:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
143. Support Will provide useful help in needed areas. Spencer^T♦C 17:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
144. Support Trustworthy and brings expertise to the admin corps. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
145. Support. I concur with the nominators. I find several of the oppose votes have the feel of looking for something, anything to oppose; really, we're worried about five-year-old AFD votes? Risker (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
146. Support I'm sure 100% Trusted. Just not 99.8% :) ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
147. Support Believe a highly competent job will be done within the areas of interest, which is much needed in this wiki.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
148. Support of course. Would have supported anyway, really just wanted to see how someone who obviously has experience in the username policy would respond to some less-clearly-obvious username situations (I did pick "bushdid711" deliberately). Perfectly sensible answers as expected, and no concerns here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
149. Support. No concerns whatsoever.   Aloha27  talk  01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
150. SupportNo evidence they will abuse the tools.--MONGO 03:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
151. Support Seen him around and seems to be truthworthy. Good work on bots. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
152. Support we need folks with the right skills and the right tools, provided that they have learned how this project works and that they have the judgment required of those with increased capability; I think this user fits that bill nicely. Net positive with a mop. — soupvector (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
153. Support - Not the strongest content contributor, but they make up for it in all the other wiki work they do. Their bots do a lot of different wiki work, which I won't pretend to understand in complete detail. I did notice that issues crop up regularly but we're talking about bots, there are bugs and issues that come with them. That said you bring up UAA and AIV as additional reasons for adminship. You have limited experience in those departments, so caution advised. Study the admins over there and username and vandalism policies. UAA can be more complicated in some cases. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
154. Support. — sparklism ^hey! 10:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
155. Support essentially per Donner60. Overdue. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
156. Support I see no reason to oppose here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
157. Support I trust this user. For what it is worth, if an user with lots of experience on the technical side wants to be an admin, I'm generally in favor in spite of possibly low main-space edits, as the work that bots and scripts do gives content creators more space to work and, in that way, can allow for a good deal of content creation to occur.Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
158. Support No concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
159. Support WP:NETPOSITIVE, extensive technical work, quite unconvincing opposes. --JustBerry (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
160. Support Highly competent, no problematic behavior in evidence. The only time I'm perturbed by a busy editor with a lower-than-usual percentage of mainspace contributions is when it's someone who spends all their time at drama boards and clearly wants adminship so they can play "wikicop". This editor, like me, is a technician and infrastructuralist, doing a lot of sometimes thankless work that is necessary but much less glorious that producing GAs and FAs. We need some more of these people as admins (and, yes, more content-focused ones too; both together reduce the percentage of candidates who are "politicians" and "enforcers", so yes please!). I like that the candidate responds well to criticism (by getting to work rather than just being defensive), has some content areas in which they have done significant work as well as all their site-wide (tool-building) focus, has been around a long time, knows how to take a wikibreak, and isn't a jerk. Definitely a net positive here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
161. Support. Trusted user, with lots of valuable technical IT expertise. A clear net positive to the project. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
162. Support Cyberpower is a trusted user and will make an excellent admin. Overall a WP:NETPOS for the project. —  dainomite   07:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
163. Support - I have seen Cyberpower's work for several years and have no concern with their ability to handle administrator tasks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
164. Support - Looks good.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
165. Suppport- fine work so far. Already has reviewer, rollbacker, etc., rights. Runs three bots. Over 20,000 edits in five and a half years. Only minus is lax work at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
166. Support I've been waiting for this, I need to thank you for all your tools and bots, may you become the best technical Admins on en.wp. I will just go ignore every peeps that saying you are a bit lacking on content creation.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 22:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
167. Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
168. Long trusted, highly qualified. Acalamari 01:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
169. Hey, congrats in advance. Just take care with your bots, particularly InternetArchiveBot, so they don't rise too high in the ranks at User:AnomieBOT/Nobots Hall of Shame §Pages excluding certain bots. I'd hate to see you called to Arbcom for automated editing, as one of the bots above yours currently is. Take a look at each of those 16 exclusions and try to understand why they excluded you, if you haven't done that yet. Good luck. wbm1058 (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
170. Support. Trustworthy user with good IT skills. RadiX∞ 03:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
171. Support. Tech users who are trustworthy are a blessing. Hope he continues with the good work.Jupitus Smart 05:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
172. Support TheGeneralUser (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
173. Support. Mediocre content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
174. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
175. Support precious power to support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
176. Support pretty much along the same lines as  SMcCandlish - Cyberpower678 has shown commitment to the project, so can be trusted, and there's no evidence he is unstable or unreasonable or biased. Becoming an admin isn't a job, it is more that the community trust a user with some useful additional tools. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
177. Support and with no issues whatsoever...TJH2018talk 18:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
178. Support as appears trustworthy and fully prepared. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
179. Support - Good editor, no concerns. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
180. Support—per above; highly qualified. —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
181. Support, apparently, I almost forgot to vote--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose upon examination of all relevant factors. Mainspace contributions are 15.7%, which is completely unacceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   The candidate is a global renamer. Whenever they rename a user that has many user/usertalk subpages their edit count in those userspaces will inflate, lowering their mainspace contribution percentage. Accordingly, looking simply at the percentage of mainspace edits is probably not ideal in this case. –xeno^talk 21:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   True, but even considering raw numbers instead of percentages, 3K mainspace edits in 5 1/2 years is underwhelming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   Do you think that a low mainspace edit % (as you have described) would mean that this individual would not be a net asset to the project as an admin, given their experience in all other aspects of Wikpiedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   It is my stated position that content creation is the most important aspect of editing Wikipedia, and that all admins should have enough experience at content creation to understand the problems faced by those editors. Regardless of their other experience, I see no real evidence of the nom filling that criteria. Further, to address another concern of mine, bot operators are, by definition, "super editors", who strongly affect the encyclopedia with their edits, and are not adequately policed under our current regime. Thus I'm beginning to see that giving the bit to a bot operator can be a dangerous thing. There's not much that can be done about current operators who are already admins, but I think that make a "super editor" even more powerful is not a good idea. That's independent of Cyberpower's history, and not in any way meant to cast any aspersions upon them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   Incidentally, in regard to my second point, I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but the mainspace numbers are what they are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   If I may comment, I would agree with you that bot operators aren't kept on as tight of a leash as they should be in some cases, but I'm certainly not power hungry to being driven to exploit that. I would like to think I listen to users and write bots in accordance to how they wish the bot to run. Now everyone has their own opinions, so I try to balance them by establishing a consensus between the conflicting requests. If it makes you feel better, I do have access to the global rename bit on meta, which is a really dangerous bit to have in the wrong hands as you can literally lock up a Wikipedia server with it when used improperly. I haven't broken anything so far. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 22:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   I have no personal grudge against you, Cyperpower, nor any reason to doubt that what you say about your relationships with other editors is true. It's probably unfortunate that your RfA came up at this very moment, when I (for one) am reeling with the volume of candidates, and the question of the behaviors of admins who run bots has surfaced in an Arbitration case. If it seem unfair that you should be penalized for this, well, I might not disagree with you about that, but that's the reality of the situation at this moment in time. I thank you for your comment, and hope that whether or not you get the bit (which it looks like you probably will) you will continue dealing with other editors in the fashion you have described. Best of luck to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose (ec) Looking at the candidate's edits since the last RfA, there seem to be too many cases where they are cleaning up after one of their bots that has gone wrong or dealing with the complaints. Powerful software should be tested on a copy so that it is not buggy in the production system. Also, giving a bot-driver admin rights too is too great a concentration of power, contrary to the principle of segregation of duties. Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Andrew Davidson: "Also, giving a bot-driver admin rights too is too great a concentration of power, contrary to the principle of segregation of duties." What? Please go ahead and call for the desysopping of the existing administrators who create bots if you genuinely believe this is something to be concerned about. Sam Walton (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   But there isn't a desysop process, is there? Nor are there term limits, probation, supervisors, audits, or other standard features of good governance. In such circumstances, it is prudent to be cautious. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   Mildly, the desysop process is to lodge a case request with Arbcom. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   This oppose falls flat on its face. C678 is a prolific bot developer. In fact, one of our most dedicated. There are two reasons bot developers SHOULD have the admin bit: 1) Duh, admin bots. We have a lot of bots that do non-controversial admin work and you must be an admin to operate an admin bot. 2) Because we need more bot developers as crats. 'Crats are the only ones who can issue the bot flag and it requires knowledge of programming and the BRFA process. This oppose flies in the face of long standing community practices and there is significant consensus against this oppose.--v/r - TP 23:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   Consensus can change. It used to be that admin rights were given to anyone who wanted them, such as the notorious case of Cyp. This open-door policy has been steadily tightened over the years and the threats continue to escalate. See JAR_16-20296A, "Threat actors are increasingly focused on gaining control of legitimate credentials, especially those associated with highly privileged accounts. Reduce privileges to only those needed for a user’s duties. Separate administrators into privilege tiers with limited access to other tiers." Andrew D. (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   Consensus won't change on this. We need admin bots, and we need 'Crats. Your ideology would deprive us of both were the community to adopt it.--v/r - TP 00:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   What exactly do we need admin bots for? To block editors? To delete stuff automatically? To edit through protection? I'm not convinced. Andrew D. (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Andrew Davidson: "To block editors?" yep. "To delete stuff automatically?" yes. "To edit through protection?" also yes. Sam Walton (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   That first example relates to system security – proxy rights. We should not allow unqualified, unaccountable, anonymous amateurs to tinker with the system's security – that's just asking for trouble. As a recent example of such trouble, notice that Mike V tinkered with this area (WP:IPBE) and seemed to upset hundreds of users. Mike V is also an unqualified student and, even though there was considerable dissatisfaction with his actions and accountability, he still has a massive collection of privileges and so is quite free to do it all over again. My view is that such operational, security and technical functions should be managed by the systems programmers of the WMF – experienced and qualified professionals who are presumably paid to monitor and maintain the system 24x7 and are properly trained, supervised, audited and accountable. This is the way that most serious organisations manage their vital systems. Organisations that don't do this properly tend to suffer accordingly. See Yahoo, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   Either put your money where your mouth is and pay for the WMF developers to write such plugins, or rethink your criteria and accept that some volunteer bot writers need admin rights.--v/r - TP 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Andrew Davidson: We don't need term limits, nor do we need to follow the principle of segregation of duties. Anyone who tries to become the Dictator of English Wikipedia (e.g., through hat‐collecting) will probably be stopped by a Meta‐Wiki steward, the Wikimedia Foundation, or the true Dictator of Wikipedia. —MartinZ02 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

   Testing on a copy is an important part of bot production, and Cyberpower has almost 300 edits on testwiki which is set up explicitly for testing. As a second point, there are a number of bugs that only occur "in the wild" or functions that only work because they were run on copies rather than live. Look at a recent bug I had which only occurred because a user had an unexpected signature format, or the bug brought up here by MusikAnimal that broke the test page but would work when live because of how the testing was set up. Are there any particular edits that you saw that you think are evidence of negligence or incompetence rather than unexpected, emergent bugs? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   Let's start with all the reverts of edits of railways stations on 1 Sep 2015 which then seem to be repeated the following day, e.g. Reading; repeat. Andrew D. (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   Let's start with asking you if you do it deliberately, Andrew - it's beginning to raise a concern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   I wouldn't call Andrew D's participation at RfA trolling, but I would call it observationally equivalent to trolling. We're rapidly reaching the point where the community will need to evaluate whether Andrew D's continued participation at RfA is a net positive. Andrew has always leaned heavily toward opposing, but until recently, the percentages seemed reasonable. Up until the end of June 2016, 14 supports and 40 opposes. That includes 4 supports and 7 opposes in the first half of 2016. After that, it goes off the rails with a single support and 14 opposes, mostly with extremely reaching rationales that are well removed from what the community requires of an administrator. Such a serious departure from past practices of supporting a reasonable percentage of candidates suggests something has changed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   In recent memory he has opposed candidates for such crimes as editing articles on topics that Andrew D is not interested in, being a fan of Hunter S. Thompson, and not being a native English speaker. His opposes don't have to be fair, persuasive, or accurate; they don't have to make sense; they don't even have to pass the giggle test. They only have to be annoying. His participation at RfA has been a net negative for over a year, IMO. Recently, another troll was topic banned from RfA and I would support similar measures to deal with the disruption caused by this one. Reyk _YO! 12:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   What's changed lately is that we have so many RfAs and they are prominently displayed at the head of my watch list so they keep attracting attention. I see that Onel5969 has just been withdrawn. I was undecided about that one as I could see reasons to both support and oppose. I didn't post a neutral !vote as that has little effect and so was waiting to see what others said. I have high standards and apply them to each case as it appears to me. Sometimes, like that, I'm undecided. That's all. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   That doesn't explain the dramatically altered percentage of supports. Unless you were previously being canvassed to RfAs you'd support, there's no reason why the watchlist notice should alter the percentage of supports so drastically. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose I share Andrew D's concerns about code quality, and therefore if admin bot creation is going to be bundled up in this nom, I have to oppose. Cyberpower is a fine contributor that will not do harm to the project through his own direct actions. I do not have the same confidence of his bot work. Samsara 02:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   Overall, Cyberpower's bots have 1,824,280 edits. Andrew D has demonstrated a couple hundred reverted test edits. Giving Andrew a very generous 500 failed edit count, that amounts to a 0.02% failure rate. What level of accuracy do you require to support? PLEASE tell me you do not work in information technology if 0.02% scares you. By comparison, NASA has a 1.64% fail rate for manned spaceflights (0.79% in the last 20 years) and a 8.08% fail rate for unmanned flights (6.68% in the last 20 years).--v/r - TP 03:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure I revert myself more often, per edit, than Cyber reverts his bots. I'm glad he's checking up on his bots too. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   NASA's target for reliability was an overall failure rate of 0.001% for manned missions. Only achieving about 1% was a major failure and that's why there were Presidential Commissions when things went wrong. Many organisations expect to do better than this and Six Sigma is a common goal. Wikipedia gets away with low levels of accuracy and reliability because it's free, it's not taken seriously and the disclaimer makes it clear that there's no guarantee of quality. But we'd like to do better, wouldn't we? Andrew D. (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   You could have picked a better example than Six Sigma [3] [4] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) There is quite a difference between sending a person into space, a moon or another planet and editing an article on a website. There is no risk to the health or lives of human beings (with a tiny exception of extreme cyber-bullying which can be done without the buttons and freely elsewhere on the internet anyway) nor will billions of dollars go down the drain. Anecdotally in the organisations where I've worked (ranging from small businesses to large companies and the public sector), the maximum failure rate set in the KPIs has never been that low or close to it. It was high as 30% in one place and even that was reasonable in the context of the type of work being done. Wikipedia will never strive for perfectionism in a way that say Citizendium does, but there is a reason why the latter failed miserably. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   It doesn't matter what NASA strives for. What matters is what they achieve, which is far less accuracy on than C678. C678 "target for reliability" is 0.0001% which still beats NASA. See what I did there? Made up imaginary numbers don't matter. Real results matter. But keep digging your holes and demonstrating that you're beyond reason on these matters. You're only building the case for the rest of us that you need to be removed from this process.--v/r - TP 19:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   Andrew, What's changed lately is that we have so many RfAs and they are prominently displayed at the head of my watch list so they keep attracting attention - that statement is as hollow as most of your oppose votes. You follow every RfA just as avidly you did way back in your days as user:Colonel Warden when multiple RfAs were the order of the day. Your participation at RfA is archetypal of the reason so many potential candidates of the right calibre are reluctant to come forward. As TParis says, if need be, there are sufficient grounds to escalate - and there have been for a very long time already as evidenced by the numerous remarks you chose to ignore. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   Threatening people you disagree with sets a bad precedent imo. Samsara 15:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   Samsara, as a linguist, I fail to see how parsing my post in any way I know comes to a conclusion that it can conceivably be interpreted as a threat. I'm not disagreeing in a disagreeable manner either. What I am doing however, is making the observation that I am clearly not alone in having noted that there is a pattern in Andrew's participation stretching over many years that has now also come to the attention of other users including, but not only, TParis, BU Rob13, who consider that it may be a concern requiring possible further examination. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   Andrew is a bona fide content contributor, and in this debate has responded only when his argument was challenged. He ticks all the boxes needed for suffrage. Samsara 16:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose A total of 5 AfD !votes all from a short period in 2011 does not give me confidence that the person understands the policies involved. Nor do the massive total of essentially nil actual BLP substantive edits give me confidence that the person knows about WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose Let me say this first. The candidate is a prolific, valuable and indispensable volunteer. Now to this RFA. It looks like a hastily put together attempt to jump on the current surge in successful RFAs. Evidence? Following this flyby edit 3 days ago [5] the nomination was drafted 24 hours later and launched a futher day afterwards so there is no obvious well thought out plan or more important, preparation. The nomination statement makes claims which the candidate themselves could not initially justify or adequately explain. To the extent that the candidate is duty bound to have read the nominator’s statements while the RfA was in their user space they must accept responsibility for misleading assertions that support to their qualification. They have to expect questions about their nomination statements and, candidly, without causing offence, tell their nominators when statements are factually incorrect. However, it is for concerns relating to quality and accuracy that I oppose this RfA. That the candidate is a prodigious BOT maintainer is not is question. However, a point noted elsewhere rang bells and on checking the previous RfA, mirror a concern I raised at the time. To check for myself if the situation had improved I have examined recent TP archives. I would draw attention to #39 [6] as a recent, representative example. It contains 53 entries, many related to BOT defect queries. The word “bug” appears 20 times. The candidate appears by way of responses to accept that some of these bugs are the result of work for which they are / were / maybe responsible. The expressed concerns from users are clearly stated. We all make mistakes, so what has this to do with the RfA? If errors are being introduced I fear that the impact could be amplified if they were introduced via Admin tools. I do not support the “bugs in the wild” response. For the frequency of reported defects on a single page covering a month the level of bugs reported is high. Let me make one thing clear, I see immense improvement in personal development and actually wish he were not so dedicated to WP – but that is his choice. In the past there were other reasons to oppose the candidate. I am now concerned only with extra tools inadvertently causing issues in an environment where too few volunteers are available. Before nominators and supporters jump in here – it is my personal opinion / !vote. Others can be assured by whatever assures them. Leaky Caldron 17:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   I respect your opinion here. I don't feel the nomination statement the way it is worded would appear misleading. It certainly isn't my intention. To shed some light InternetArchiveBot has an incredibly complex parsing engine that it uses to try to parse sources and references that are formatted in countless possible ways, and to handle them correctly. You could call it somewhat intelligent in how it handles it, but for those oddities it encounters, it can goof up. I've been working almost non-stop to factor in almost every contingency when it comes to formatting. I think it's gotten pretty far. This is not meant to change your vote, but simply shed light on the fact that less complex bots are easier to test and check than InternetArchiveBot is.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 18:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

   I don't know if you work in software, Leaky caldron; I happen to work in software testing automation. Bugs happen despite our best efforts, even with a dedicated QA department. Having bugs in your code (even in live versions) is not a sign of carelessness but an invitation to think creatively. I don't see anything in Cyberpower's work that I would not see in the most skilled developers I have worked with, and I therefore see no need to judge him harshly on this topic. Additionally, I would like to point out that the number of times the word "bug" appears in a page is not a valid way of counting how many bug reports there are. On archive #39, only seven bugs were filed (not twenty). One was dismissed, two went unanswered, and the remaining four were worked on. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   @AlexEng: 30 years. Large scale government and financial services regression testing and program management, fully ITIL qualified. My assessment criteria is based on my industry experience. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 18:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

6. Oppose - see arguments of Collect above, I agree. I'm so tired (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral- He has some important characteristics of an administrator, but he does not quite have the experience in all of the areas I would want an administrator to. CLCStudent (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Very weak oppose: I hate to be down here, but just watching this candidate pop up over the last few years and witnessing interactions and technical issues that have arisen gives me pause. I wish C678 all the best with the bit, and I would just caution him or her to be cautious with the expanded toolset. Go Phightins! 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Go Phightins: Did you intend to place your !vote in the Neutral section? — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 07:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC) @Go Phightins!: Fixing the ping. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 07:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   I did intend to be in the neutral section as opposing would be ineffectual. Go Phightins! 18:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Putting this here solely due to a concern about adminbot operation; for whatever reason cyberpower678's bots seem to constantly have issues. I do not see any other issues, and namespace percentages are so hideously unreliable - and manipulatable - that I am surprised people still use them as !vote arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Support - a delightful and fairly experienced editor. Lack of content creation, in my opinion, shouldn't be a problem for a candidate who isn't a vandal fighter. No interest in AfDs (as noted by Collect in the previous RfA) is something that I see as a positive - because it indicates that as an admin, he will show no interest in participating in content disputes as well - which he shouldn't be doing anyway giving his lack of familiarity with content. I trust cyberpower that he shall not wield the mop at areas unfamiliar to him. By the way of technical maintenance and running of adminbots, Wikipedia definitely stands to benefit from cyberpower being an admin. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Regarding second follow-up to Q4

I know the question's not directed at me, but I'll chip in and give one example. User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report is a popular page that is transcluded in lots of places, most obviously WP:RFA, WT:RFA and WP:BN. It's such a useful and widely-used template, that it really should be in project space, and given the transclusions it would be appropriate to at least put template protection on it. Since I don't believe we have any policy or process to grant TE permissions to bots, Cyberbot I would need an adminbot's level of trust to be able to operate. Frankly, that report has probably only avoided vandalism by obscurity and pure chance - I believe an IP could wander in off the street and replace the template with a "colourful" image on Commons, for example (and no, I haven't tried it). Indeed, looking through the logs I see that 178.42.215.223 (talk · contribs) has had a pretty good go at vandalising it, putting nonsense on one of the most widely-viewed project pages in the whole of the site. Oops. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion not pertinent to the candidacy moved to talk page

---

• Comment @Ivanvector and Cyberpower678: For the record, your answer to Ivanvector's question #10 was incorrect on the last username for two reasons: Rms125@hotmail.com could easily be interpreted as an WP:IMPERSONATOR of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com who is a prolific editor; additionally, email addresses in usernames are prohibited by the username policy. Rms125a has a specific exception up on his talk page because he has been around since 2005, before the policy was implemented. Doesn't change my support. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing up that point. I was not aware there was an account by that name, and if it was reported to UAA as being an impersonation account, I would certainly investigate and act on that claim. As for the email, I may be interpreting the wording of the policy wrong, but my impression was that it was okay to have an email username as long as it simply identifies the user and isn't blatantly promotional, like samiam@intel.com. What made me, as such, consider this username acceptable, moving the impersonation issues aside, is that hotmail is a public email platform that anyone can use, while intel does not hand out email addresses to the public. If I am mistaken about this, please do tell me since usernames is an area I work in.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Curious: we used to disallow all email addresses but it was actually changed in 2014 following a fairly sparsely-attended talk page thread. –xeno^talk 17:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Interesting. I was unaware of the change. Thanks for clearing that up, xeno. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)So my interpretation was correct? As for the user, I was wondering why I never encountered a username that's been here for so long until I noticed their signature. I actually have seen them around, but I've only seen their orange signatures, never the username behind it, so I never made any connections.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Well, Danorton's change has stood for 3 years, so you're correct: according the policy page as of today, "suchandsuch@hotmail.com" would be fine (the impersonation concern being separate). That being said, the interface doesn't seem to allow creating such usernames. –xeno^talk 18:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, that was another of the usernames I chose deliberately. I realize after the fact that unless one was already aware of the user Rms125a@hotmail.com and their username being explicitly grandfathered from the (former?) email address prohibition, it would be difficult to identify that username as a possible impersonation attempt, but Cyberpower678's answer was perfectly reasonable given the limited information provided. As an aside, I also didn't know that the prohibition had been lifted, so in fact the answer is above expectations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.