English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Requests for adminship/Cyphoidbomb 2

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

Cyphoidbomb

Final: (118/30/6) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 05:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As this candidacy hovers at the upper end of the discretionary range after a late rise in support, I feel it prudent for me to include a closing statement. The consensus over the copyvio incident is that it was a one-time error in Cyphoidbomb's otherwise excellent record of removing copyvios and that he was not the person who introduced the offending content to Wikipedia in the first place. Worries over temperament and insufficient content work are noted in the opposition but neither issue rises to the same level of concern as the aforementioned copyvio incident, although I do advise Cyphoidbomb to take on board these concerns, anyway, and learn from them. Overall, there is consensus present here to grant adminship to Cyphoidbomb. Acalamari 05:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs) – In his seven years on Wikipedia, Cyphoidbomb has made a number of substantial contributions to Wikipedia. Over the years he has been active in many gnomish activities, he has made nearly 700 edits to AIV space, over 500 to the help desk, and has made nearly 400 RPP reports. He also has been active in sock puppet investigations, in countering long term vandalism, and in patrolling over 700 new pages. In the area of content creation, Cyphoidbomb has made significant efforts in Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Since the previous RfA 16 months ago, Cypoidbomb has gained lots more experience especially in deletion which was an area of contention in the previous RfA. Cyphoidbomb has continued to show the decorum expected in an administrator and I am confident in their ability to benefit Wikipedia in that role. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Accepted! That was some glowing nomination prose, Winner. Here is my introductory ramble: I'm re-applying for adminship mostly out of practicality. I believe I need better tools to make my job easier. Though I was encouraged to run again in six months [1][2][3][4][5], one or two editors though that waiting 12 months would be better and I waited 16. In my original run, I was led to believe adminship was no big deal, but that turned out to not be the case. My failed run was disheartening, mostly because of all the piled-on negative commentary I received from people with whom I'd never worked before. Surely karma for all the "Unexplained, unsourced" reverts I've done over the years. However, I've always viewed adminship more as a position of trust, not as a gilded scepter only to be wielded by the creme de la creme, and I've tried hard to perform with integrity and with the community's interests in mind. We all come with different skills, interests, access to resources, and so on. Most importantly, I think, I have behaved ethically, honestly and responsibly, and I have used my existing powerful tools (AWB privs, reviewer privs, Twinkle, etc) in that capacity.

I am a wikignome and I believe I'm a good one at that. I get along with most regular editors, I leave thorough edit summaries, I communicate well, I've never been blocked, I'm fine with dropping the stick when I'm wrong, and any rare corrections or admonishments that I've received from more experienced editors I've taken to heart and have avoided those problems again. One reason that my last run failed was because of deficiencies I had with nominating articles for deletion. I have corrected these issues, and while I'm sure fault can probably still be found, I think I've demonstrated that if the community has a problem with my contributions, they can trust me to take it in the spirit intended, change accordingly, and not get terribly bent out of shape about it. I don't know what else is reasonable to expect of someone who is asking to be in a position of trust.

The bulk of my work involves maintaining articles that are heavily vandalized by children and rogue groups. It's not the best life here, but it's what I do. I wish I had more free time to continue helping at the Help Desk, etc, but it's a time suck, for instance, to have to keep writing the same reports again and again, explaining from scratch to whichever admin might be haunting AIV "this is vandalism and if you open your textbooks, you can tell it is vandalism because edit A doesn't conform to reference B" when it's clear that it's yet another incarnation of the The Marhc Vandal, The Vietnam Disney Vandal, Maelbros or whomever, and they could quickly be dealt with if I were an admin. So, that's the short of it. I guess it's time to bring on the scrutiny. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Administrative intervention re: vandals, socks, trolls, de facto banned users, etc. is where I spend most of my time, but I'm willing to help out where possible.

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

A: In my first run I mentioned my anti-vandal work and anti-sockpuppetry as my biggest contribution. I'm very proud of it, and wish I didn't have to do it.

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

A: I don't get into many conflicts with regular editors. When involved in honest academic debate, I try to treat all with respect even if I disagree with them. I do my best to avoid temptations for ad hominem and if used against me, try to refocus to the subject. I have a fairly thick skin.

Additional question from Mkdw

4. It's been well over a year since your last RFA. What do you feel is the biggest difference between then and now?

A: My biggest flaw last year was my imperfectly executed AfD noms. I believe I've remedied those concerns by doing due diligence in the form of WP:BEFORE duties. My watchlist had expanded tremendously, so my workload has as well. Vandalism, from my perspective, seems to be on the rise or at least there are more persistent actors. I do, however, feel that my connections with other editors have improved over the year. This is a community after all.

Additional question from Ritchie333

5. A brand new user blanks the "History" section on Deen Castronovo's article with no edit summary. An experienced editor reverts using the Twinkle "revert as vandalism" tool. The new editor re-reverts with a summary of "please do not restore this upsetting material". What action, if any, would you then take?

A: Although there is no outward indication that a user clicked the red "Vandal" button, that tool doesn't allow for an editor to add an explanation. (I don't use this tool because of the lack of summary prompt.) That said, both sides seem deficient in their communication and should be encouraged to discuss on the talk page. If the remover's concern was that the content may present a BLP violation or constitute libel, that would be a legitimate reason to remove, however, they should be encouraged to open a discussion to explain because it would be a controversial change. Similarly, reverting with no explanation isn't helpful either, and the reverting user should be encouraged to discuss his restoration of the content. If it's not a BLP violation, and it's sourced, and the remover just doesn't like the content, that wouldn't be a valid reason for removal and they should be informed that Wikipedia doesn't censor and "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for removal of content.

Additional question from Ritchie333

6. Your article contributions seem to largely consist of reverting other editors using Twinkle. What other options are available to you on articles other than reverts?

A: Well clearly adding to articles is an option available to me. Copy-editing is an option. Reorganizing, streamlining, and so forth.

Additional question from Ceradon

7. Will you be open for recall if/when you become an administrator?

A: Don't see why not. It's voluntary and I get to set the criteria.

Additional question from Kraxler

8. Last week you created WordGirl (season 7) and WordGirl (season 8), I suppose to show at this RfA that you can create articles. Although that was a move in the right direction, could you explain why you didn't add any categories to these articles?

A: Hi Kraxler, to address your first concern, my creation of these articles had nothing to do with my RfA. Both were created on July 9, but the first time I'd started to consider running again was July 15 when Winner pinged me in a discussion about admins who had previously failed RfAs. The WordGirl articles were a mess and something I was trying to budget time to fix, because in some cases seasons had been doubled up in one article, article navigation was a mess, and so on. My WordGirl edits from that day involved a lot of juggling of information and matching of colors, and adding of these colors and date ranges to the series overview table in the main WordGirl article. Not to mention the mind-numbing challenge of having to verify all titles and airdates against the references, with our episode list in ascending order and the reference in descending order by air date. So the answer is: There were a lot of dogs to keep in the yard. Oversight.

Additional questions from SNUGGUMS

9. Even if you haven't gotten any articles to FA or GA yourself, which article(s) that you've worked on do you feel currently represents your best work and why?

A: Why are we focusing on specific articles? I am a gnome. By definition, my work is done in the background without a "clamour" for attention. I helped my colleagues at WikiProject Television finally rid of the useless |format= parameter from the Infobox, which had been uselessly in there for years and which affected over 10,000 articles. We standardized the TV series overview box, which had been a free-for-all across thousands of articles. Another thing I'm proud of, is trying to get Bollywood film articles into some sort of consistency with MOS:FILM. I have little knowledge of anything related to Bollywood, but I'm actively trying to influence the culture of Bollywood film article editing because there is rampant corruption in these articles and virtually no support from WikiProject Film editors. I've tried to get the community to turn their backs on ridiculous "This film was declared blockbuster status" language. I've tried to get Indian cinema editors interested in discussing whether certain Bollywood critical response aggregators can be considered reliable, which again had the potential of affecting many articles now and into the future. I've worked diligently to keep box office values honest, because in Indian Cinema there is a lot of competition that people will stoop to anything to make Film A look bad, while making Film B look good. The Times of India stopped reporting box office scores at one point because of this. This guy, for example, is a rampant sockjobber who will stop at nothing to make sure that Indian actor Mohanlal's name appears before the name of another actor, Mammootty. Even going so far as to move categories. So you're asking about one article, but (and this is attributable to my ADD) my interests are varied, I bounce around everywhere, and I am more interested in influencing Wikipedia culture than I am about getting one article up to GA status. I know that's not going to be a satisfying answer for many of you, and I suppose I won't even bother qualifying that.

10. If an article is deleted for failing to meet notability criteria, but is repeatedly recreated before meeting notability requirements, when would you feel is a good time to salt the article?

A: Depends on the variables. If we're talking about the creation of the article once per year, or so, then I don't think salting would be helpful. If we're talking about articles Kumud Pant or Kumud pant, for example, I think if the guy is committed to creating a vanity article about himself six times in one day, the article(s) should definitely be salted for a little while. It depends on how disruptive the creation of the article is becoming. In the case of LG Williams, there were some issues between 2007 and 2008, but then things quieted down. In 2012 when the article was created again, the article probably should have been salted after the first AfD. I don't know if that was done or not. (I don't have the tools) It was suggested, though. Certainly after it was created the most recent time it should have been salted, and I believe it was.

Additional question from TheMagikCow

11. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and why?

A: Hi MagikCow, in my first RfA I addressed IAR to the best of my ability (question 7A). I understand the principle of the policy: If the rule is X but you find a better way to do something, ignore the rule. I cannot say, however, that I have witnessed many/any successful examples of IAR arguments being pulled off to have much of an interpretation beyond the wording. I sometimes think the 3RR rule (for instance) is a bit restrictive when you're dealing with editors who are not vandals per se, but who are being disruptive. At Cartoon Network Arabic, for instance, there were some IP hoppers who kept using boldface improperly and adding asterisks in a table when the asterisks didn't serve any purpose. Never any discussion, never any explanation. At some point it was clear that it was me vs. the article's new "owners". Should I be beholden to the restrictive 3RR if their actions are inconsistent with the MOS and my attempts to contact them on their talk pages are falling on deaf ears? I would probably argue that in these cases 3RR should be relaxed a little, however the reality is that people are more inflexible about 3RR than they are about sloppy formatting, and so I literally had to start a perfunctory discussion instead. So, in short, I really haven't seen it successfully used enough. I can, however imagine a scenario where the inclusion of boldface in an article might technically contravene MOS:BOLDFACE, but is being used to make an illustrative point, for example if the article is discussing WP:ACCESSIBILITY and contrast between bold print and surrounding colors. In this scenario, though it goes against the rule, the rule should be ignored because it improves the article.

Additional question from NeilN

12. In the answer to Q7 you say you are open to recall. Have you given any thought to what your criteria would be?

A: Hi NeilN, a late reply I know. I haven't given too much thought to what my removal/step-down criteria might be. I suppose I'd be most upset to let down the people who supported me as well as the people I work with closely with in television articles. I might base some criteria on these thoughts. If my in-the-trenches colleagues thought I was messing up, that'd be a harsh toke.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support

Support as nom. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Jianhui67^T★C 06:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 07:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - I see a lot of activity on the notice boards and a good AfD record at first glance. The candidate will be a net positive. Best of wishes, Ж ^{(Cncmaster) T/C/AVA/RfA-C} 08:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support- history of good contributions, demonstrated good judgment, and a persuasive case for needing the tools. I've never understood the contempt toward article curators and maintainers; they contribute as much, or more, article work as anyone and it tends to be of a higher standard. Cyphoidbomb will no doubt make an excellent admin. Reyk _YO! 08:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Staying put. The copyvio thing is definitely just a red herring. It's funny how maintaining content so that it complies with our inclusion requirements is contemptible when Cyphoidbomb does it, but the one time he misses something it's enough to torpedo the entire RfA. Reyk _YO! 12:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support -- seems a reasonable pitch. Commitment is there, understanding of policy is broadly there, some AfD issues from last time but I'm sure they're aware of these and will be cautious going forward. I note the content creation concern - as a statement of the obvious the entire project is based in good content, and entirely dependent on good content creators. But while Cyphoidbomb is not by any means a content creator, a review of their edit history shows they're strongly committed to maintaining it through gnoming and vandal-proofing. Cyphoidbomb, mild suggestion that you go write some more articles as well: it will give a better understanding of how some on-wiki disputes arise and are (or should be) resolved. But for now, no reason to say no to this RfA. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Adding: An occasional innocent mistake is entirely compatible with being an admin. Error spotted, cleaned up and presumably won't happen again. No evidence of a pattern and no reason to oppose on this single ground. -- Euryalus (talk)|
Support: well qualified. 'Nuff said. --Drmargi (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, maintaining the integrity of our existing content is at least as important as creating new content. Cyphoidbomb does a good job in that regard, and has explained how the tools would make that job easier. Huon (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Having a look at his contributions I think he is ready to become an admin --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. While I would have liked to have seen more content creation and work in that area, I am of the opinion that the mop is for maintenance more than anything else, so this point is assuaged. Cyphoidbomb has demonstrated ample experience in his 45,000 edits; he has worked at AIV extensively, with nearly 700 edits. A random sampling of his edits there reveals nothing that gives me pause. His record at AfD isn't perfect (whose is?) but I find it sufficient. Cyphoidbomb has markedly improved since his last RfA, something I most definitely like -- I see stubborn insistence on foolhardy or incorrect points as counterproductive in a community such as ours. A lot of activity on noticeboard leads me to believe that Wikipedia will profit greatly at having another administrator to slog away at backlogs. A very good candidate, in my opinion, and I should look forward to having you on our team. Best, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I was one of the first users who opposed Cyphoid in the previous RFA due to AFD concerns. Looking at the candidate's edits, they have addressed those issues and learned from their mistakes, so I'm confident that they will make a good admin. Valenciano (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Will be an asset with the tools. Spencer^T♦C 11:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I've seen this candidate at AIV quite a few times and their reports are generally spot on. They can be trusted with the mop and bucket. Best of luck!--5 albert square (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I work alongside Cyphoidbomb at the TV project and yet I wasn't aware of the previous RfA untl some time after it ended and I noticed some positive changes in his editing and interactions with others. After finding the RfA and looking through the comments, it was clear that he had taken them all on board and was actively seeking to improve himself as an editor. Cyphoidbomb is a valued member of the TV project who always tries to collaborate with others and makes quality edits. About the only negative thing I have to say is that sometimes he is not as confident in his abilities as he deserves to be. However, he only has 45,000 edits under his belt and I'm sure he'll address such a minor "shortcoming" in time. I have a lot of time for this editor and I have no problem supporting his nomination. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support again. Unlike GJP, the lack of a GA doesn't worry me. An admin in the CSD or AfD areas needs to recognise degrees of crap rather than degrees of cream, and to be able to spot potential for survival in an article rather than potential for GA. Each to his/her/its own opinion, though. This project needs technical people, gnomes and janitors. It does need content creators, but they wouldn't get far without the support staff, just as a composer wouldn't get far without a publisher, a pianist, ticket sellers and a piano tuner. Peridon (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Staying where I am. If he's made use of existing unspotted copyvio material, he's no worse than others (including established admins) who have reverted to copyvios, or moved copyvios to better titles, or corrected the grammar in them. Do YOU check every bit of text to see if it's somewgere on Google? Peridon (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support I see no reason not to support this candidate. I may change my mind if a convincing reason to oppose is presented. I am sorry to retract my support but copyright is an important skill for an admin. Chillum 14:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support: their AfD work seems okay but what seems to be much more important (given their nom statement and Q1 answer) is that their vandal-fighting work is brilliant and could become even more helpful to the project if they were given admin tools. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Following the copyright dispute, I'd like to add that the copyvio bothers me a bit but I'm staying in support. I know from experience (e.g. 1) that sometimes it is difficult to tell what's a copyvio and what's just a child writing biased summaries and hooks (and sometimes Google doesn't help because there are so many results that just mirror Wikipedia). I think the solution is to just copyedit the summaries without caring whether they were copyvios or just had an unencyclopedic tone. Maybe Cyphoidbomb was definitely planning on copyediting the summaries soon and just happened to start RfA at a bad time; in the future, I would recommend they copyedit at the same time as splitting from another article to avoid NPPs tagging the article with G12 or causing other problems. But I can't see that any of this is particularly relevant to their intended work with vandals and sock. However, I do dislike their attitude towards the splitting history process (thinking there would be some tag to place on the talk after the split but not reading carefully enough to know what to write in their edit summaries) and I think it shows a slight lack in carefulness which could cause problems with everything from making involved closures to rushing to delete articles with CSD tags that aren't quite appropriate. I've gone from a strong support to a relatively weak one. And I do hope Cyphoidbomb isn't discouraged by any of this kerfuffle. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, don't see any major issues with the candidate's work. Nakon 17:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely – I've been highly impressed with Cyphoidbomb's conduct and judgement in my various Reviewer activities. Also liked what I've seen from him at ANI (and elsewhere). I feel he's completely qualified. (Aside: If Cyphoidbomb can't make it through an RfA, I'll feel like no one can!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support A long time asset to the project which will increase with the tools. Huon's statement is also pertinent to my support. MarnetteD|Talk 17:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong Support - Cyphoidbomb is a Good Egg with no history of problems and plenty of on-wiki experience. I remind everyone that administratorship was never intended to be a big deal, and we should stop trying to make it so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Re-affirming strong support of this candidate. Much of the discussion regarding Cyphoidbomb's "copyvio" problem mis-characterizes his role and/or omits material facts. This is an editor who spends much of his own editing time rewriting, replacing or removing copyright-violating text copied and pasted by other users. That he copied existing copyvio text -- added to Wikipedia months ago by another editor -- to another article during clean-up of existing articles is an understandable mistake. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - I have worked with Cyphoidbomb at the TV project and they consistently use their knowledge of Wikipedia to collaborate with others and make the project, and the entire site, all the better. They are more than deserving to add adminship privileges to their repertoire. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong support: GAs and FAs are essentially just trophies and for bragging rights (with the exception of Today's featured article). I don't deem admins fit because they have ten, five, or even one circle(s) or star(s) of bling. Just because one hasn't hit paywalls doesn't mean that they'll blow up the encyclopedia; it's ones who have little participation in maintaining the encyclopedia who probably will with the mop. I'm willing to give prolific counter-vandals the mop. An overlooked G12 is a ridiculously poor reason to oppose. When people see the word copyvio, they rush to the oppose section? Esquivalience ^t 18:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support We need vandal fighters. --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Restore support per Tryptofish. My concerns about the copyvio where addressed already very early on and Tryptofish's reasoning about the snarky comments has convinced me to return here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Polite, levelheaded, seems to know what he's doing. I get the content creation argument but, on the flip side, I don't want to spend my time vandalwhacking either. It's good to have admins with a diverse range of interests. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Vacillated some more on the content-creation thing after the copyvio threads below, and decided to stay here, albeit somewhat more weakly than before. I bet a lot of us have moved, copyedited, or cleanup-tagged copyvios without noticing. Neglecting attribution in the edit summary or failing to immediately apply an attribution template are not exactly uncommon either. This looks like an isolated case of sloppiness, which isn't the main concern with admins who don't do much content writing. There's still no evidence that Cyphoidbomb is likely to make the kinds of errors that drive those concerns, e.g. being insensitive to the interests of content writers or over-rigidly applying rules due to unfamiliarity with common practice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who's ever done {{Split from}}/{{Split to}} and/or {{Merge from}}/{{Merge to}} work knows that it's extremely easy to forget one of the steps, or do one of them sub-optimally – I've done them more than once, and I'm pretty sure than I've messed up some aspect of the process pretty much every single time; in another instance, I had to go ahead and finish the steps of a split years after the split had occurred, because there was no previous record showing that a 'split' had taken place! In short – they ain't easy... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
—Kusma (t·c) 19:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Coming back to confirm that I have seen the opposition and still want to support. I hope this is not yet another one of those RfAs that fails basically because of one mistake (which was dealt with reasonably well by the candidate) that counts more than years of dedicated work. Absolute perfection is not required for adminship. —Kusma (t·c) 12:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I have seen this user's anti-vandal work over the years, and am happy with it. Oppose suggestions that an admin should have created at least one GA are, IMHO, not defensible. The principal role of an admin is the maintenance and preservation of the encyclopedia, and expansion thereof is wholly secondary. This user will be seriously competent in the role as I see it. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support This user is good at vandal-fighting, and although he is a little quick on the draw sometimes and makes mistakes, I have the feeling giving him the tools will be a net positive to the project. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Switching to oppose per copyvio. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - Superb editor. The current vote for "oppose" is ridiculous. Orphan Wiki 22:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Supported their first RfA, and they're a better editor (and will be a better admin) since then. Miniapolis 22:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, although I voted before the whole copyvio shitstorm started, I stand behind the candidate. Any RfA would try the patience of a saint; this one makes mine—a rough week for me—look like a walk in the park, and they have what it takes to be a good admin. Miniapolis 22:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - AfD contributions have greatly improved, and I no longer have the concerns I had last time that the user is a bit too hasty in tagging for speedy deletion or !voting delete at AfD when the article should be kept. Everything else looks good (those were really my only two concerns last time), and the answers so far are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Moving to oppose due to the copyright violation issue. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support as an asset for the project. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - Seems like a fantastic, trustworthy editor to me. Azealia911 _talk 00:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Opposed last time but I thought their answer to my question was outstanding. In so many ways, being a sysop is about taking care and time. More so than you might expect when you're an editor. Their content creation is low and while I don't think it is an absolute requirement, there is so much value in having a body of work. There really are things you will learn and see that you won't pick up from reading and patrolling policies and pages. I would suggest to make it one of your goals to do the lion's share of the work to get an article to GA or FA. Mkdw ^talk 00:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
In this moment, what Xeno said really resonates with me. We need to give editors like this who would be benefit to the project with the tools a chance. They made a mistake and it's one I could very easily see so many of us doing. The ability to take criticism is something all sysops need to take in stride -- however -- there are reasonable expectations in what we should accept. If something like occurred where the mistake was identified, but the amount of followup, and the sheer intensity and potentially consequences ensued, I don't imagine our retention rate would be the same. Let's promote people. Mkdw ^talk 20:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Reaffirming my support despite the isolated issue identified in the Oppose section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I think I've declined an RFPP from him only once, and it was a borderline thing that someone else might have protected. If he's asking, there's a good reason for it. Gives detailed rationales, which are incredibly helpful, and he's always civil. I'm in. Krakatoa Katie 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, finally. While the lack of content contributions is regrettable, the admin tools are primarily geared at protecting material and removing problems rather than at creating new articles or the like. Reviewing the user talk history and their edit histories on talk pages does not indicate to me any major problems, nor do the projectspace contributions indicate issues. Highly active in vandal/bad edit policing thus my baseline requirements "dedication to the site" are basically met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC) ~~Moving to Neutral pending response on the copyright violation thing. That's a fairly big no-no. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)~~ Un-striking my support vote; this indicates that the memo about copyright being an important thing has sunk in. Thus, from my standpoint the major issue is resolved. (WordGirl (season 6) still needs its summaries rewritten, though) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support The turf he works in is difficult, subject to lots of mistruths and outright hoaxes. I used to work in those areas and it's troublesome trying to corral children with overactive imaginations so of course I support his nom, he does great work and would be a worthwhile admin, see you around RFPP! tutterMouse (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Useful editor per above. While copyright compliance is most important, I'm inclined to accept AussieLegend's well argued explanation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support The administrator tools have nothing to do with article development and almost everything to do with anti-vandalism and site maintenance. I see a lot of the latter, which is why I am supporting this candidate. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, great, hard-working editor. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support for his anti-vandalism work, and willingness to discuss changes. Nobody will be "perfect," and if he has made some mistakes, then we can call that "experience" instead. Scr★pIron^IV 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Any oppose based on the lack of content creation has always failed traction with me. There's plenty of roles here on Wikipedia, and not all of them require one to be a content creator...nor even most of them. What he has done is a bang up job in his time here. Also, I'm quite sensitive to copyright issues here, and I've marked quite a number of things for deletion on copyright violation grounds before. I find the opposes based on copyvio to be completely lacking. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support He wants to deal with vandals, has demonstrated why he needs the tools and why he believes he can use them well. None of the opposes have disputed this. With regards to copyvios, I've seen edits in which a respected, long time admin and sitting arb failed to notice a far more blatant copyvio. It happens to everyone, and Cyphoidbomb was merely unlucky to have it happen to him during an RfA. Brustopher (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support because I see no good reason not to. The copyvio everyone is complaining about in the oppose section was not of his making, and I consider concerns over number of articles created or propensity to vote delete at AFD to be irrelevant to the question that is really before us here - can Cyphoidbomb be trusted with admin tools? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Not only willing, but actively wants, to work in an area where we are desperately short of administrators. And I very much doubt there is even one administrator on Wikipedia who hasn't overlooked a copyvio in an article they were editing at least once. —Cryptic 23:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support There appears to be an issue that has given pause to a number of editors whose opinions I respect. However as best as I can tell the copyvio doesn't look like it was of his doing. Once you move beyond that it sounds like people are demanding infallibility from a candidate. IMO that's not reasonable. As near as I can tell the candidate is adequately experienced and has a clue to the degree he is unlikely to break anything or create a major problem with a mistake. He has clearly demonstrated good will and a desire to help, and lacks any history of malicious behavior. That's good enough for me. Beyond which I keep reading that we have a severe shortage of Admins and I don't see people lining up to take on the often thankless job for which they have to subject themselves to a (sometimes) friendly grilling. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, good work and thoughtful. – SJ + 05:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - Fully qualified candidate with a good attitude. The ensuing copyright paranoia witch hunt going on below is horrible and misleading. It has been demonstrated that the candidate did not insert copyvios into Wikipedia and is only guilty of not going out of their way to verify that prose they're working with is not plagiarized while performing housekeeping. This is something myself and easily 99% of the project's contributors are equally guilty of (and I would suspect most of the opposers are too). Jesus Christ, they're made into a scapegoat for copyvios they're not responsible for, by one editor, and now everyone's piling on upon merely seeing the word "copyvio". Ultimately no harm was done and there's literally no reason to crucify this editor for not catching something most admins and editors alike wouldn't have caught themselves just because they're an RfA candidate right now. For shame. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to endorse Swarm's rationale and comments above, and associate myself with them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per Swarm. It shows the importance of attributing an article split correctly, but it's disappointing to see something so minor torpedo an RfA. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - Cyphoidbomb seems to be a well-qualified candidate, able and willing to do many much-needed administrative tasks. The copyvio issue is a red herring in my opinion, anyone can easily miss them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, though i suspect i may only be "moral support" by this point. I saw this RfA a couple of days ago, and didn't have time to investigate or !vote at the time, though i did note that the sole Oppose then was, to my mind, not of value; my how things have changed since then! The copyvio, the only thing that i see which is of real concern, while it is exactly that (a real concern), was clearly a mistake and, it appears, a one-off. Had it been shown to be one of a large pattern of errors, or deliberate, or underhanded, or undertaken for the sake of deceiving (pushed together quickly to look good for RfA), then i would be concerned. as it is, the candidate is trustworthy, competent, and capable of holding ~ heck, wielding ~ the mop. Let him have it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 13:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I decided to sit out and watch this RFA for a few days. In my humble judgement, the supports have been more convincing to me than the opposes. As indicated by Swarm and Xezbeth, the copyvio prose was an honest oversight by the candidate—which could easily happen to any of us—and not a pattern of dishonesty on the part of the editor. Otherwise, I see a well-meaning, experienced and thoughtful contributor in Cyphoidbomb that will make a trustworthy administrator. I support this candidate. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per Swarm. I'm not seeing the issue in the oppose section as enough to take this whole thing down. Connormah (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Think user will benefit Wikipedia as an admin. Have not seen any convincing argument in the opposes while the supports show a lot of pluses from the user. Content creation isn't a necessity for adminship so while low creation is worth pointing out, it is not a show-stopper and must be weighed against the user's other efforts. The copyright violation I accept as accidental. Overall, I see a lot of comments in the oppose sections that are quite unfair to a rather valuable editor. I appreciate the user's donation of their time and I am comfortable giving him/her increases responsibility. To the candidate: when in doubt just refer to the extensive guidelines and policies we have and explain your actions precisely with relevant wikilinks. If you are unsure, do nothing, ask for help, or look things up until you are sure and you'll be fine. See you around! Jason Quinn (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support on balance. Deb (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per Swarm and the many similar sentiments above. Cyphoidbomb is an excellent wikignome and we need more admins in that capacity. They have shown willingness to acknowledge and learn from mistakes, and that's all we can really ask. We don't and can't expect our admins to be 100% perfect all the time. Like those above me, I am not at all convinced that one mistaken contributory copyvio is worth tossing aside this candidate. Furthermore I couldn't give a rat's ass that they haven't created many articles: their depth of contribs is in different, equally important areas. Full support, and good luck. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to stay out of the discussion as it's badgering, but I want to be clear that the copyvio is not the reason I oppose, rather it is the general conduct and attitude around it, very specifically showing evidence that he hadn't read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates and insulting a voter with "The fact that you're equating me to an infant simply because I have not written back in a manner you find timely, is extraordinarily hypocritical and rude". I really do not want to be looking at ANI in 6 months time because he's put a civility block on someone with a track record of FAs without really assessing the circumstances (naming no names but many of you may be able to guess) Still, I had similar thoughts at this RfA and I was proved wrong there, so don't take my opinion as gospel or anything.....Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The frustration expressed by the candidate is a fairly rational response to the pile-on below in the opposes (and to an extent directly above this comment) regarding what a large number of users here have expressed is a very minor issue. I (and I'm sure you) have seen RfA candidates go completely off the deep end and quit the project or get themselves banned when they're faced with not half of the opposition presented here. Cyphoidbomb's response is, again, a very minor issue. Your explanation of your opposition is probably better off placed below your oppose rather than below my support, if you're not trying to look like you're badgering. If you'd like to move it there, and remove my reply (or not, your call) then please do. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd love to have more admins who are willing to place civility blocks on editors despite their FA track records. FAs are not a Get Out of Jail Free card, and in the long run the number of other editors alienated by the attitudes of certain prolific content creators ultimately makes them a net negative. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I have worked with Cyphoidbomb and found all his edits and conduct exemplary. Any conflicts we have had have been resolved amicably. He is trustworthy to use the tools appropriately and has the temperament and experience to interact well with others in stressful situations. I am glad to see him volunteer for this somewhat thankless position and believe his access to the admin toolset will be an overall benefit to the project. I read the supposed copyvio issue and think what happened should not in any way reflect on suitability as an admin. For article splits the attribution accrues to the people who added the content in the original article. A proper split copies the content exactly from the source article, then modifies it. Cyphoidbomb is blameless here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - while I've not had the pleasure of collaborating with this candidate, I think his investment as a wikignome deserves commendation. Granted, I once believed candidates should have created a couple of articles in addition to at least 3 GAs and 1 FA under their belts before applying, but I have relaxed somewhat in that regard. We need more active admins who are well-rounded rather than being focused on a single wikiproject area. Atsme^📞📧 16:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The copyvio was an oversight, a mistake that virtually anyone could have made. It was also an isolated lapse in diligence. Nobody's perfect. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per Swarm. Nobody is perfect and we shouldn't be quick to get out the pitchforks when someone makes an honest mistake. It'd be a bigger deal if he was the one actually creating the copyvio, but he was trying to mop up someone else's mistake. Are you expected to be able to identity every single copyvio that you run into? Unless you're a bot, the answer is absolutely "no" (and the answer should be no for bots too). I have full faith that promoting Cyphoidbomb to adminship will be a net positive for the project and will help fight vandalism in areas that Wikipedia is vastly understaffed, per his introduction and the answer to Q9. Best of luck to you. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, Cyphoidbomb has gone above and beyond to rectify the mistake that he has made. He has recreated WordGirl (season 7) without the copyvio and went through the rest of the WordGirl articles to remove the copyvios from there as well. This is EXACTLY what we need from an admin. Someone who not only admits their mistakes, but goes above and beyond to rectify them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per all your contributions as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Rswallis10 (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. A hard-working and sincere user whose promotion I could see greatly benefiting the project. The copyright violation in question seems like an honest mistake—I've had to be corrected on it more than a few times as someone slightly new to content creation—and based on his contributions, he's sharp-eyed when it comes to blatant plagiarism from newcomers, and I trust he'll be more vigilant in the future when it comes to his own additions. On that note, though he doesn't have much in the way of contributions, I notice our area of project focus frequently overlap (it's a slow day here not to see his username on my watchlist). As a content creator myself primarily, his efforts are vital to keeping my work and the quality efforts of others factual, balanced, and presentable against the actions of less-than-competent users and IPs. 23W 20:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Not convinced by the opposes below. I'm pretty sure we've all screwed up copyvio-wise at one time or another, and there is no evidence that this is a systemic problem with the candidate. It was a mistake. It always seems one oppose just avalanches away. No concerns, confident this will be a net positive for Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per Swarm. We shouldn't require admins to be perfect, just good enough, and everything I've seen about this editor shows that he's good enough. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I've been an editor here for ten years, and I've made my share of blunders along the way, both as an editor and as an admin. That said, one of my favorite things about this project is that I always have an army of more knowledgeable Wikipedians by my side to help me clean up any mess I make. More bluntly, we need different types of admins because let's be honest, we're all terrible at doing at least one thing around here. Cyphoid is really good at things that I'm either bad at, or too easily bored away from doing. The CopyVio issue is genuinely an issue, but the community self corrected, and Cyphoid is the one who fixed it... And let's face it, it's safe to say he's learned CopyVio as result. Better that happened prior to the RfA? Absolutely. Does it mean he's unsafe with a mop? Absolutely not. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I accept Cyphoidbomb’s assurance that the copyvio was a stupid mistake which he would not have knowingly made. (Hands up all those who have not made a mistake!) I reject the opposers who fret that he’s not big on article creation/work. Wikipedia does NOT demand it of an admin so it should never be a consideration at RfA. I trust the closing crat will dismiss such sentiments among the opposes. Moriori (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Per Swarm and per WP:NETPOS Pedro : Chat 08:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support: the admin permission is granted to editors who are trusted by the Wikipedia community to perform administrative tasks. I think Cyphoidbomb will carry out those tasks in a way that reflects community trust. I trust Cyphoidbomb. If the editor is a trusted by the community, in my opinion other considerations are irrelevant. (Sure, it would be good if the candidate had started more articles, and hadn't made a mistake or two along the way. I don't see this an impediment.)--Shirt58 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Cyphoidbomb has gained a lot more experience since he last was nominated. I'm sure that he can be trusted, as he's a net positive. Epic Genius (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - People make mistakes sometimes, even for major things like copyvios. However, no single mistake should prevent a user from getting the tools (especially if they didn't a) receive a block for it, b) didn't do it in malice, and c) understand their mistake and have corrected it). The oppose section below yet again highlights the long litany of issues about RfA, but I won't go down that road right now. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I've looked over the opposers' comments. I ignored all the ones which emphasized the supposed copyvio creation, since that is simply not the truth. He may have unintentionally transferred a copyvio, yes, but we all make mistakes and to me this simply confirms my core objection to this process: people seem to desire perfection in candidates. I am not convinced to oppose due to the other reasons given, and I feel that Cyphoid's "snarky" response was in fact understandable. Even if I didn't say so, I would likely feel the same way if someone commented that a truthful supporter was "changing my diapers" and implied that I could not speak for myself. My personal checks turned up nothing particularly disturbing, so therefore in conclusion I am supporting Cyphoidbomb's candidacy. --Biblioworm 20:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. And for anybody else is interested in challenging their perception without penalizing me for snark and rebuttal, I've posted a detailed explanation of the copyvio issue here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support – Cyphoidbomb has particular interests in page patrolling, in countering vandalism and socks, at WP:TV, and in other various matters, is less involved in content creation, and that's all right. The copyvio matter occurred innocently in good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, although its extent was a bit glaring. It's unlikely that every merge or page split actually includes several checks for copyvio. That said, Cyphoidbomb may benefit from brushing up their abilities to spot copyright violations. Addendum to my initial neutral !vote: While I prefer candidates to have more overall main namespace experience in the form of copy editing articles and in content creation, Cyphoidbomb comes across as an overall WP:NETPOSITIVE relative to their areas of concentration, and has significant experience in these areas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Sounds like he would be a great admin. Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - Supported last time, no reason to change that perspective. A new glance at AfD participation did not raise any red flags. The hullabaloo being raised by opposers over copyvio content that the candidate didn't even write is pretty lame — an excellent demonstration of why I will never, ever, ever click APPROVED again on an article with pending changes in place. Carrite (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought pending changes was pretty clear that you are approving an edit not an article. But if this RFA indicates there are growing numbers of people who hold you responsible for other people's edits then I do understand your position. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Good candidate, RFA shouldn't be a hazing ceremony where people try to argue you are responsible for other people's edits or engage in scatological personal attacks. But the candidate is handling themselves well enough that they should make a good admin. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - per Swarm and Peridon. Unbelievable. The amount of "Opposes" and especially "Strong opposes" this RfA has received is ridiculous. The very people "Opposing" and "Strongly opposing" this candidate for a Copyvio they didn't commit will later go on saying "the process is broken..." and this really makes me sad. Cyphoidbomb is a great editor and I don't have even a shred of doubt that they will be fine with the tools. — Yash! ^(Y) 22:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. In my opinion, this is similar to his previous rfa, in which people latched on to a minor issue and turned it into a pile-on. In my experience, Cyphoidbomb is friendly, helpful, and collaborative. He routinely seeks consensus and the input of neutral editors when he finds himself in a dispute, such as here and here, which are two recent examples at WikiProject Film. I think it's much more important that someone understand policy than to have jumped through the hoops of getting an article promoted. The recent controversy over his not noticing someone else's copyright violation does not indicate to me a lack of understanding of policy. At worst, it was an oversight that will serve as a learning experience. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. He clearly knows the rules and applies them fairly. A review of talk page edits indicate that he's civil when dealing with everyone and assumes good faith. The copyvio thing is a mistake, but that's all. Just a mistake. Mistakes like that are fixable, we all make them, and as long as they don't happen too often, they don't show that the editor is careless or otherwise not responsible enough to be an admin. As far as content creation, put me in the camp that doesn't think it's required for the mop. This nomination should be sailing through. agtx 23:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I don't understand the fascination some have with article creation, since it doesn't require the mop. This editor is doing valuable anti-vandalism work and the mop would make them more efficient. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. From what I have seen of this user in the past, they seem to be a well-balanced, mature editor who could make good use of the tools. The accidental copyvio mentioned below cannot be held against them, as they were not the one who originally introduced it. Nor is the lack of outstanding article creation an issue, since people don't become admins to create articles. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm not convinced that one blemish is enough to throw this RfA away. Cyphoidbomb is clearly a great asset to Wikipedia and I have no doubt they will make a great administrator. Wikipedia is built with content creators, but gnomes keep the articles from crumbling; it's clear that Cyphoidbomb has the experience needed to perform administrative duties where they are comfortable. MJ94 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm happy it wasn't a blatant copyvio, although the nominee should really read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia as this would have helped avoid the confusion. Would have liked to see more content creation (experience in that area will always help in wrapping ones head around policy) but am happy to support regardless. -- Shudde ^talk 01:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support my past experience with Cyphoidbomb have been positive, and I really appreciate a user who has tried to fix past deficiencies. I think Cyphoidbomb shows the maturity we expect of administrators in his responses, as well as experience in the areas he wants to operate in. I also appreciate that Cyphoid bomb is willing to call a spade a spade. I do hope however that Cyphoidbomb continues to dedicate time to edit pages so learn what life is like on the other side of the fence. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, as I did the first time around. ansh 666 06:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Very likely to be a net positive with the admin tools — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support as a likely net positive. Pichpich (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Faizan (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Very strong editor, definitely support. :) -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 20:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Cyphoidbomb has been very helpful at the WP:SPI where he is a frequent guest. I hope he'l be granted admin tools, so that he can help us even more. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support -- In my experience of investigating Copyright violations cases, it isn't unusual to find that a good longterm editor has made edits on a page without realizing the presence of copyvios. It seems to happen to everyone at some point. More important is how the editor responds -- preferably, by accepting their error, correcting it and learning from it. Which is what Cyphoidbomb has done. (In fact, I imagine there are a number of editors who have learned to watch out for this kind error only after reading this RFA.) One-off errors happen to every editor -- and will happen regardless of whether or not the person is an administrator -- but they don't overshadow the preponderance of good editing. And, in this case, it doesn't change my belief that Cyphoidbomb can be trusted to handle the janitorial duties of an admin. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, no reason to suppose the tools will be abused, and the copyvio mistake sounds forgivable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I expect this adminship to be entertaining. Support. Townlake (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per my support last time, and per Swarm. I see the copyvio opposes, but I don't see a pattern, and that is such a frustratingly easy mistake to make, I have undoubtedly accidentally done the same when working at AfC. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Cyphoidbomb was a positive and helpful editor even at the time of his first RfA and I believe he has continued to grow. He handles edits in the areas of his contributions well. Although I would like to see a little more content creation, I think he has done enough to have some clue about it. His correction of the content split error shows he is unlikely to abuse the tools by letting mistakes stand. Many supporters have already expressed this well and point to the early, well-stated rationale of Swarm. Good anti-vandalism, SPI and maintenance work, good attitude. Definitely a net positive and more. Donner60 (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
In my view, the copyright issue has attracted a disproportionate degree of opposition. It isn't as if this candidate is a plagiarist or copyright violator; instead, the candidate was in this case a little careless and in general is perhaps a little thin on his understanding of appropriate splitting/merging/moving/attribution practices within Wikipedia. That's ok. We can live with that. My impression of the candidate is of someone who is sufficiently competent and seeks advice on areas of unfamiliarity rather than jumping in and making mistakes. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Per NYB, Mkativerata & SarekofVulcan. Isolated mistakes are ... isolated mistakes. If we demanded perfection from all those opposing we would not find it. And we don't demand perfection of sysops. We're all human and we need to start showing some humanity here, especially when we have a clearly qualified candidate--Cailil ^talk 12:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support (edit conflict) Per Yash. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support It's important to avoid copyright violations, but had this happened to an established admin, would we be calling for their head? I think not. Conifer (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support in spite of valid concerns in the oppose section. Net positive still. Nothing is irreversible, and mistakes happen even to the best of us. Widr (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support WP:100. Everything that needed to be said has already been said... the candidate's suitability for adminship should not be swayed by a simple mistake that many of us admins, including myself, would also have made. It's easy enough to correct, and would have been even easier if he himself had the delete button. From what I can tell, Cyphoidbomb has some specialized knowledge on television programmes, among other things, identifying vandalism that many of us admins are unable to ascertain as disruptive. With a mop in hand he can really help out with these types of RFPP and AIV reports that linger all day as the other admins don't know what to do with them. Cyphoidbomb will learn on the job just like everyone else, and I'm confident the project will benefit from his service. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I find the reasons for oppose, which seem to mostly rest on one accidental copyvio, far less than convincing. I mean who checks every article they edit for copyvios? I doubt anyone. All things considered they seem a strong candidate. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I decided to wait until fairly late in the RfA before making a decision, in order to be able to see what other editors say, and I have carefully read everything here. I come down firmly on the side of "support". I see a polite and friendly editor who wants to help with tedious work where we have a strong need, and someone who learns from past experience. As for the reasons raised for opposing, I've examined each of them carefully. As pointed out by numerous others above, the copyvio was first added by another editor, not the candidate. And it went unnoticed by 50-plus other editors, besides the candidate, before it was detected. It was a mistake, by an editor whose normal practice is to delete copyviolations. A single mistake, one that I am sure the candidate will learn from. Not a valid reason to oppose. If we require that all administrators never make mistakes, then we need to have zero administrators, or to recruit administrators from a species other than humans, because all humans make mistakes. I can understand how copyvio is such an important issue that it is easy for editors to decide that any error is a deal breaker, but I urge editors to set the emotionality of the issue aside and judge by the facts. As for the other issues, the peeved comment to another editor was prompted by that editor's reference to changing the candidate's diapers. In context, it's understandable, and it doesn't change my evaluation of the candidate as polite and friendly. And opposing because another editor, not the candidate, replied repeatedly to the opposers is without merit. Despite the many opposes, they do not alter my trust in the candidate, so I support. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Other than the copyright violation issue nicely explained by Swarm above, I see no reason to oppose. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support – See no reason to oppose. I checked the user's AfD stats and believe they are OK. I noticed him defending one article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fescal with patience and thoroughness. Though he voted 'Reluctant Keep' the article finally got deleted due to socking issues. His arguments on the notability issues were measured and careful. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. As a similarly gnomish editor, I see no reason why we shouldn't give the tools to someone who supports a wide range of articles instead of working on a small handful in-depth. A lack of depth in content creation should not be taken as an indication of a lack of support for the project, or as a lack of knowledge of policies, guidelines, and community standards. Rather, his breadth of contribution shows a commitment to the encyclopedia and its quality, regardless of topic area. —Darkwind (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. While it would be great if every admin could spot every instance of copyvio they see, I don't think that failing at it once or twice should be a reason to oppose an RfA. I see a lot of good work from the candidate and trust that he would do more good work as an admin. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Lots of good answers. Would be a good admin I feel! Good luck. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@TheMagikCow: Cue Cyphoidbomb entering with mop and halo. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 11:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Oops... Sorry typo! TheMagikCow (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Looks like a good candidate to me, and I remain unconvinced by the oppose !votes that there's any concerns here. ^Avic _ennasis @ 11:47, 9 Av 5775 / 11:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - The copyvio issue is very forgivable. It's very easy to make those types of mistakes, and no doubt, he has learned from it. I'm impressed by Cyphoidbomb's anti-vandal work and overall gnomish edits. In the past, I have mostly supported candidates with more content creation, but my views about the various ways that users can contribute have evolved. We need people with a few extra tools to help keep the machinery running. Bringing articles to GA/FA class doesn't make a candidate any more qualified for the extra tools of adminship in my opinion. Cyphoidbomb seems to have the experience and sensibility to make a fine admin.- Mr X 15:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Everyone makes mistakes, and even if copyvio is a massive mistake, it seems like a one-off. Background in anti-vandalism is a good precursor for getting admin tools, and makes up for the lack of article content, which I don't see as a huge problem in itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. What Tryptofish said. Risker (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support From what I can figure out below, Cyphoidbomb moved copyvio text from one place to another rather than adding it originally. Not a good thing but I'd chalk that up to carelessness rather than to a lack of understanding of WP:COPYVIO. We're all careless sometime or the other and as long as there isn't a pattern, I so no reason not to support. --regentspark (comment) 23:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - the candidate is clearly experienced and dedicated to improving the encyclopaedia and would be able to contribute even more with access to the tools (ack the reasons given by the oppose !votes but they mostly seem to be based on the same minor issue which has been sufficiently explained in my opinion). Anotherclown (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Hardworking and honest editor with proven capacity for success as an admin, deserves the tools. North of Eden (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Nothing to suggest they would abuse it, hard worker. That's good enough for me. —Frosty ☃ 01:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
After a lot of thought, I have decided to support. While some of the opposes make good points, the question ultimately comes down to, Do I trust the candidate to use the tools correctly? In this case, I would have to say yes. The copyvio event was a mistake, but an isolated one. Nobodys perfect. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Support with a caveat. The copyright issue is blown out of proportion and I'm sure Cyphoidbomb will be even more careful than the average admin from now on with regards to spotting violations. I've gone through the candidate's talk pages and postings elsewhere - a little less testiness would be a good thing, especially as you'll be accused of all kinds of things when you wade into heated situations and by new editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's norms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, Cyphoidbomb has only created 4 articles total, none above start class. GregJackP Boomer! 06:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Lengthy discussion moved to talk page at Discussion moved from oppose section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose ~~Strong oppose~~ -- unfortunately, the very recently created WordGirl (season 7) has substantial episode descriptions copy-pasted from the copyright-protected source [6]. We cannot have administrators doing things like this. Note: I've put the copyvio boilerplate on that page, which covers the offending text. If you want to check, you can see it in the version before I did that. --Stfg (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I thank Cyphoidbomb for explaining the circumstances around the first version of WordGirl (season 7), and for doing the right thing by recreating the article without copyvio and with good attribution. I accept that he himself has been fighting against the copyvio that plagues that project, and that this one was an unfortunate accident. Since he posted the explanation, I've been reflecting on whether to stay here or move to some other place on this page. I'm staying here because of some of the things he has said here and elsewhere. Understandable emotion coming out, perhaps, but not the right way to handle this.
One thing I would like to emphasise: RfA isn't an assessment of whether someone is a good guy or a bad guy; not even an assessment of whether they are a good Wikipedian or a bad Wikipedian. It's an assessment of whether they are ready for the tools, and that's all it is, as far as I'm concerned. In my judgement, Cyphoidbomb isn't ready yet. That's all I'm saying, and it's not personal. I don't rule out supporting a future RFA. --Stfg (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope you're never on jury duty. The defendant will probably be executed for jaywalking on a country road. It's very obvious from a review of the WordGirl season articles that they were in a huge mess before Cyphoidbomb got to them. He created WordGirl (season 7) from content that had been improperly added to other season articles. For example "[Queso Mysterioso / Putt with Honor]" was originally in WordGirl (season 5) and several copyvios were added, including to that episode, on 23 October 2014 by an IP,[7] not by Cyphoidbomb. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
First off, @AussieLegend:, are you familiar with Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#How about copying and pasting from one Wikipedia article to another? There was no attribution when the material was put into the Season-7 article. Second off, if wasn't only the Queso section. The text of every single entry in the now-deleted page was a copy of the same entry in the Season-7 source. Plenty of it does not come from the version of the Season-5 article that it links to. This is not a question of copying someone else's copyvio from another article. It's a question of copying form the source. Third off, your comment about jury service is ad hominem, and irrelevant.
@Ritchie333: any chance of temporarily undeleting the article so that everyone can see for themselves? --Stfg (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I fully appreciate the timing is not good, but I cannot restore a blatant copyvio. It's nothing personal against Cyphoidbomb at all, or anyone else who edited the article. I can tell you that the text was pretty much a word for word copy of the PBS source, albeit with the summaries in a different order. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I did see the page before the deletion and googling its content does indicate that it was copypasted from the URL linked in the deletion reason - or maybe copypasted from some third website which had done the copypaste first. These summaries went around a lot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately the episode summaries were added in the first edit but surely it would appropriate to restore the article and delete the actual copyvios. I'm willing to do the work of deleting the copyvios. I'm somewhat used to that unfortunately. At least that way a lot of work won't have to be done again to recreate the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stfg:I'm well aware of the issues of copying text. It's something that members of the TV project have to deal with constantly, as there is always somebody wanting to prematurely split a TV article and my experience is that they rarely do it with with the required attribution. However, all of the WordGirl articles were in a horrible mess and Cyphoidbomb is still editing the articles as of today so he's clearly not finished all that needs to be done. There are a lot of {{split from}} and {{split to}} tags that really need to be added to the articles. I use them often, but in this case I'm having trouble working out the best way to do it without filling the talk pages. Yes, I'm aware that it isn't just the Queso section. As I indicated, that was just one example. Before the page was deleted I had looked at several pages and I disagree that "It's a question of copying form the source". From what I saw when I investigated the text was the same as had previously been added to other pages, and Cyphoidbomb was just moving stuff around, not actually adding new content. My point with the jury duty was that you were quick to accuse, but you didn't seem to have carried out a proper investigation. Had you done so you would have realised that he wasn't the person who added the copyvios. We generally assume good faith that content does not violate copyright, so you can't really blame somebody who copied text without realising that it was a copyvio. Adding the tag was one thing, but you could have just removed the offending copyvios as I've started doing with related articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @AussieLegend: actually I did do a thorough investigation, and if you yourself were AGFing, you could have suspected this. The article was created with extreme amounts of text copied from the source. There was no attribution of where it came from -- which is a requirement that any admin candidate should know. I don't see how I could know that this stuff was copied across from some other article about a completely different season -- even if it was -- with no attribution. Moreover this copyvio was extremely obvious, because it was written in a voice that's nothing like Wikipedia voice, and very typical of the voice in which such series summaries are written on fan sites. Cyphoidbomb added that source; did he not look at it at all? I have quite a lot of experience at chasing down copyvio, and I'll tell you for free that the most obvious sign of it is the presence of text written in a voice that you don't find much of here. Thake a look at the section headed "KID MATH: PART 1" in the source. That's the sort of cruft that, if placed in a Wikipedia article, should raise alarm bells in any copyvio-aware mind. It's not proof, but it's strong evidence and anyone worth their salt as an admin or experienced editor should know to chase down that kind of thing.
I'll take your word for it that copyvio may be a problem in that project, but in that case, isn't it obvious that what needs doing is not to compound the problem by copying lots of stuff from one place to another on the 'pedia -- and without attribution at that -- but to find it and deal with it?
Above you've asked for the article to be undeleted so that you can edit out the copyvio. That's pointless. The article was all copyvio, and the title hasn't been salted. Why not just create a new article with that title and without copyvio. --Stfg (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
That there was no attribution is an oversight and, as I've pointed out, Cyphoidbomb was still working on the articles less than 24 hours ago, so he clearly isn't finished. The edit history of the article indicates that the content was being copied from elsewhere, although I acknowledge that my experience in the TV project may be a factor that contributed to my ability to instantly recognise that. When I saw the edit summaries it was clear that related articles needed to be checked and that's how I found the original addition of the copyvios by someone else. When you say "very typical of the voice in which such series summaries are written on fan sites" I'm not sure whether you're implying that the source is a fansite, but it isn't. It's the official site. That said, we see that sort of voice all the time in episode summaries, so it's nothing that raises a red flag. It usually means we need to copyedit the summaries. The article itself wasn't all copyvio, only the episode summaries were. There was a significant amount of content that will have to be recreated from scratch, which means looking through the previous histories of the related articles. Deleting just the copyvio text is a much better, more appropriate and less time-consuming option. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: A would-be admin who hasn't read WP:COPYVIO (or worse yet, has read it and violated the policy anyway) isn't acceptable, no matter what their good qualities. Needs to actually learn the rules they'd be called upon to enforce as an admin, then try again later. I won't hold this against the candidate at a second nomination, but the editor is clearly not ready yet. The early supports are going to have to be weighed in view of this revelation. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Given that Cyphoidbomb didn't actually add the copyvios that's a bit harsh. All he did was copy content from another page. He even said in his first edit on the page, which Ritchie333 has conveniently deleted, that he hadn't verified the content. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose per Stfg - I was on the fence anyway but creating copyvios is worthy of a block if done repeatedly. Absolutely not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I just had a look at the copyvio thing and it is indeed a blatant violation. Moving here from support. --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I was ready to switch back to support after the explanations for the copyvio were posted. However, the candidate's subsequent responses do not show the near-implacable attitude that is such a necessary quality in an admin. As others have remarked: if this is how you react to criticism at your RfA, how are you going to deal with criticism of any admin actions that you take? Sorry, but I'm going to stay here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose(edit conflict). It is extremely rare that I use qualifiers such as 'strong' or 'weak' in my RfA votes. I was so concerned with the lack of content creation and the poor quality of the articles that I did not bother this time to continue my research, and to be fair, I made a 'neutral' vote. However, thanks to Stfg bringing to light this blatant COPYVIO that is only 10 days old, there is no way now that I can remain in the neutral section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The copyvio is actually 9 months old and was created by an IP, not Cyphoidbomb. 52 other editors missed it in the original article, from which Cyphoidbomb moved the misplaced episode content. You can't blame all of this on him. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Which is all the more reason why RfA candidates should watch what they're doing. Not watching means more than an inadmissble COPYVIO, it also adds a possible habit of lack of attention. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC) lak
Oppose per blatant copyvio. -- KTC (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
But Cyphoidbomb didn't create the copyvio, he only copied the content. The original copyvio was missed by 52 other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a fair comment; copyright checking is something we could all do better (including me). However, one of the pieces of advice I was given at RfA was "check your contributions". While anyone could (and should!) have spotted the copyvio, creating a content fork, particularly when it's done to show RfA voters you can create content, really ought to be checked and double checked. I appreciate the WMF labs copyvio tool has been intermittent, and you have to watch out for reverse copyvios when using it, but it's an easy tool to use, and if you don't check, the WP:NPP patroller reviewing your new article should! This really comes back to my overall unease with the candidate over making edits without really understanding the full ramifications of what they're doing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the content may originally had been a content fork from another article by someone else, but any potential assertion that Cyphoidbomb simply missed it not just initially but also subsequently are difficult to maintain. In an edit the day after the article was created, with the edit summary of "Double-checked titles, air dates and ep codes against references. Reorganized by air date where practical.", [8] (where the content was copied from) was added as a reference. It's hard to believe one can go though the pbskids page, using it as a reference to make sure the list was correct and not noticed that the episodes summary was a word for word copy paste. -- KTC (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
particularly when it's done to show RfA voters you can create content - Cyphoidbomb has already stated that wasn't the reason he was cleaning up the WordGirl articles. As I've said elsehwere on this page, we generally assume good faith and that means not automatically assuming that everything you move around is a copyvio. I'm generally paranoid about copyvios. I look at every new image that a new or otherwise "questionable" editor uploads as being a possible copyvio and I've checked thousands of episode summaries, but I would probably have done the same thing as Cyphoidbomb. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
But, AussieLegend, you are not aspiring to adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been asked to nominate, more than once, but I'm reluctant to because of things like this. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:one of the pieces of advice I was given at RfA was "check your contributions" and making edits without really understanding the full ramifications of what they're doing Of course you should always check your contributions, but we're human and we all make mistakes. The only people who don't make mistakes are dead. As for "really understanding the full ramifications of what they're doing", the ramifications of deleting the entire article instead of just removing the copyvios is that we're now missing 1 of 8 season articles and List of WordGirl episodes now has a gaping hole where Season 7 used to be. Did you check your deletion to see the effects and were you fully aware of the ramifications of deleting the article, other than that it would just be gone? You may have. I don't know. I'm just asking you to consider whether you might be holding Cyphoidbomb a higher level of responsibility than yourself. Although I've targeted this at Ritchie333, because he made the statements and deleted the article others can consider what I've asked too. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @AussieLegend: the ramifications of deleting the entire article instead of just removing the copyvios -- the article was almost entirely copyvio. There was some ordering of the air dates (wrong, as two incompatible sources were used inconsistently) but no original prose except the (IIRC one-sentence) lede and the infobox. You might as well start over. (While I'm here, please don't put blank lines after your replies. It breaks the numbering.) --Stfg (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, my RfA experience sure was fun while it lasted... Again, Ritchie, I didn't create the articles in anticipation of the RfA. I answered that in the questions section. Continuing to suggest that I did seems to not be AGF. If I were trying to suck up, I would have distributed the sucking up over the 16 month period after my last RfA. As for the WordGirl article my mistakes were two: 1) Failing to provide proper attribution for the move. I thought there were templates I could add to the talk page to clear that up after the fact, but was mistaken. I should have used the edit summaries at WP:MERGE. 2) I should have checked for copyright violations. I would never knowingly add copyrighted content to a Wikipedia article without proper attribution and having a legitimate use. Since the edit summary search tool predictably doesn't work, I can't show the opposers the number of times I've removed copyrighted plot summaries. I have an irritatingly high number of times typed  and included these in |ShortSummary= to hopefully convince the children not to copy. I've typed this phrase so many times you'd think it was punishment for willfully committing copyright violations. If admins need to be eagle-eyed to be admins, why are there still copyright violations in the WordGirl articles? WordGirl S4 (instead of containing content about S4,) contained content about S5 and S6. Probably lots of copyright violations in there. WordGirl S5 contained the problematic content about S7 and S8. Shouldn't these vios be revdeled or something? There are what, a half dozen people with "copyvio" on their lips, but is the job finished? Where is the example that I am expected to follow? One article gets deleted, my RfA goes out the window, copyvios still remain, I'm none the richer for the experience, and opposers head back to their editing niches with self-satisfied glows? Is that the end to the story? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

KTC re: It's hard to believe one can go though the pbskids page, using it as a reference to make sure the list was correct and not noticed that the episodes summary was a word for word copy paste. It's hard to believe, and so...what, exactly are you proposing? That I deliberately included copyvios in the article to make myself look good? Why would I do that when I only have a history of doing the exact opposite of that? The source you are referring to I used to get an accurate episode number for S7 and S8 (if I remember correctly) and to confirm (in cases where I had corrected erroneous episode titles) that they were consistent between both PBS sources. This is the reference that was of the greatest use to me, because it had episode numbers along with air dates. The summaries weren't even on my radar, particularly after I started noticing that the air dates were pretty much in line with the references. Any concerns I had about the article having been polluted by disruptive users were, at some point, negated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't vote "oppose" at RfA to be mean or belittling at all, and on the few occasions I have, it has been over concern that the candidate would cause disruption while still performing actions in absolutely good faith. I am absolutely certain you would never deliberately add a copyvio to an article, that's not really the issue. It really is nothing personal and it never will be - as it stands, you've got over 80% "support" which is generally enough to close as a successful RfA, so I wouldn't assume things are over just yet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Regarding copy attribution templates for talk pages, they do exist, see {{Copied}} and {{Copied multi}}. Others include {{Split from}} and {{Split to}}. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have recreated WordGirl (season 7) without the copyvios. I have also started removing copyvios from other WordGirl articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Manages to vote Keep at AfD an appallingly low number of times - and even on easy Delete stats is on the losing side 20% of the time. For writing - one article is deleted as a copyvio per se WordGirl (season 7) - which is a very big hurdle to overcome for someone seeking to become an admin. Another is based on a PDF from another person, another is simply one-line recaps of a TV show plot, and the last is a biographical stub citing a "Czech Dictionary" etc. as sources. Sorry -- the copyvio per se is enough for an oppose, the rest is mere lagniappe - but also quite sufficient. Collect (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
--Kadavr2000 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Not enough content work to show that editor can keep plagiarism down. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The copyvio issue is troubling, but so far seems to be isolated. I don't know if standing alone it would justify opposition, but the candidate's response to the matter so far just fails utterly to appropriately shoulder responsibility for the problems. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. No. Sorry, but the copyyvio issue and the lack of article work are troubling. Philg88 ^♦talk 21:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Not liking Q9. Andrew D. (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Couple too many problems. Rcsprinter¹²³ (witter) @ 22:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per copyvio concerns, even if the article has already been deleted. I'm also not very satisfied with the answer to Question#9. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The copyright violations are very troubling, especially given the relative recentness of it. Also, I have concern about this user's use of the rollback tool and incorrectly reverting good edits out of a possible lack of concern to investigate, which is what he did to me on The Incredible Hulk (film) article (See the following diffs: [9], [10], [11], [12]). Spaghetti07205 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any misuse of rollback right or even twinkle rollback. Cyphoidbomb provided an edit summary explaining the revert. Cyphoidbomb could have made the revert by saving the old version with almost the same edit summary but without "unexplained change". Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 00:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that in the edit summary, he inaccurately described my edit as an "unexplained change", despite the fact that I clearly explained why I made the change, to correct a factual error. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the tool they used. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 00:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
No, but it has something to do with the editor displaying a little carelessness, like with the copyright issue, and not investigating properly. Like Stfg said, Cyphoidbomb should have scrupulously investigated the text he was intending to copy and paste from one article to another before acutally doing it, to make sure it didn't have any copyright violations; the fact he didn't write the offending text is unimportant. Like with the situation at the Hulk article, he didn't investigate my edits properly enough, and called them "unexplained changes" when, in fact, I had explained them (I was correcting a factual error). Spaghetti07205 (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
So when you responded to my apology with "No problem. Thanks for the note" and a smiley-face, what you really meant was "it's still a problem". Interesting perspective from a new user. Thanks for your note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose:Oppose: too many troubles. Copyright violation, Twinkle reverts, and I do not like the candidate's answer to Question 9 either. Then there is this: in the "neutral" section":[13] Was I supposed to respond while I was asleep? I'm not sure where this condescension is coming from, but may I remind you that you criticized me in my original RfA for calling vandals (you know, people who actively and deliberately disrupt this project) "nuts" and "idiots". The fact that you're equating me to an infant simply because I have not written back in a manner you find timely, is extraordinarily hypocritical and rude. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC) I will echo Ritchie333's response:[14] I strongly advise you to read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates#During your RfA especially points 10 and 11, right now. If you can't handle constructive criticism at your RfA, how will you cope with it the minute a vandal takes exception to your block? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC). Not a suitable candidate for adminship on this alone. Fylbecatulous talk 00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Amending to strong oppose per question 28 conversation in oppose section with further iteration of snarkiness by candidate and this reply by them: [15] : Snark has nothing to do with the tools. I know plenty of snarky admins. I have !voted against a candidate in the past solely on rudeness. After they have been cautioned in this RfA to maintain decorum with opposers and to continue thusly...we do not need another snarky admin. I am actively avoiding a few now. We are not this desperate for tool bearers. Fylbecatulous talk 12:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - moved from support. The copyright violation issues brought to light by Stfg are simply too concerning for me to still !vote support. Ultimately, when an editor copies text from another article, that editor is responsible for ensuring that the material he is adding to another article is appropriate (i.e., verifiable information from a reliable source that does not violate any of our policies or guidelines). Perhaps the most important thing to check other than verifying that contentious information about a living person is properly sourced is to check that material being added is not in violation of copyright laws; these issues open the project up to legal liability, and that is why it is imperative that we are immensely cautious to avoid problems with violating these policies. I realize that Cyphoidbomb did not intend to create a copyvio problem in the article, but to be an admin requires attentiveness to the guidelines and policies. Did other editors miss the copyvio issues? It appears so. Have other editors inadvertently made a similar mistake? Probably. (Some of those editors, for all we know, may even be in this oppose section.) But that is not the issue here; the issue is that, objectively, Cyphoidbomb introduced a copyright violation in an area where it did not exist before. It reminds me of a point my torts professor once made: A defendant in a negligence suit is held to the standard of a reasonably prudent person standard; the irony here is that often, the judge, the attorneys, and even the jurors conduct many actions in their daily lives in violation of this standard, yet the system still holds the defendant to it. Even though other (arguably many) editors have violated the copyright policy before, their actions are not at issue here; the actions at issue are those of Cyphoidbomb, and because the copyright policy is so important to the integrity of the project and failure to adhere to it shows a serious lack of attentiveness, I regretfully must oppose. Also, as a minor point, if Cyphoidbomb thinks there is even a remote possibility of running in the future, I would encourage him to set his Twinkle preferences to log his speedy deletion and PROD nominations. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - although I have not had time to verify the copyvio on my own, as I am currently on vacation, I hold that any person who fails to notice blatant copyvios, and/or inadvertently creates more by copy-paste, should not be given the sysop tools. Bureaucrats, this can be counted as a "weak" oppose. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Moving to neutral upon consideration. Will hopefully provide full rationalle soon. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Grudging Oppose. I can see the (correctly) deleted version, and just glancing at the prose it should have been immediately obvious that this was a cut-and-paste from a promotional website. (People start buying up all of Mr. Big's Squishy Bunny Ears. It's BUN-demonium.^[16]) As a one-off incident this wouldn't be enough to make me care strongly enough to oppose—everyone occasionally makes mistakes. However, what tips me into opposition is the candidate's lack of any effort to rein in the frankly obnoxious behaviour of AussieLegend on his behalf throughout this RFA—if someone were acting like this in my name, I'd be making every effort to get them to stop, but I see no sign of any "please cool down" comment from the candidate in his recent contrib history. I'm not exactly a hardline civility enforcer, but allowing someone to act this aggressively in your name just isn't appropriate once you become aware they're doing it. (Before AL starts ranting at me as well, yes, the candidate has been online and active since your "I'll jump in to defend them no matter who they are" post.) Crats, you can count this as a "weak" oppose as well, as it's less a lack of faith in the candidate's abilities and more a lack of faith in the company the candidate keeps. – iridescent 16:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Aussie and I live many time zones away from one another. I'll leave it at that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, now I've seen everything: an RfA candidate being opposed for the actions of other people. Bookmarking, in case I ever need to convince someone that grossly unfair and boneheaded oppose rationales at RfA do happen. Reyk _YO! 17:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - It's extremely rare I Strongly Oppose anyone but I can't support someone who's never read WP:COPYVIO and has happily pasted god knows!, The answer to Q9 is extremely poor and to be perfectly honest the answers overall here don't fill me with any confidence at all in this candidate. –Davey2010^Talk 17:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Again, the charge that the candidate "has never read WP:COPYVIO" is patently false. Cyphoid has recent experience in correctly dealing with copyvios. If anyone even cared to hold an informed opinion, he has demonstrated this with diffs on his talk page. Cyphoid merely wasn't aware of a copyvio he wasn't looking for in this particular instance, which qualifies as an honest mistake at worst and doesn't conflict with or show an ignorance for WP:COPYVIO in any way. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay maybe they didn't copy-paste it but they must've noticed it, Either way the point still stands - Everyone should be well aware of COPYVIO by now especially those who've been editing here for a long time. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Swarm, one ought perhaps concede that the very nature of the subject matter concerned demands a heightened awareness of the possibility of the presence of COPYVIOS. It should be the first priority for any adults gnoming in those topic areas. Almost all the pages in that suite of articles demonstrate turbulent revision histories. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point, because copyvios can literally exist anywhere and it's nothing short of unrealistic to expect gnomes or any other editor to constantly be willing and able to look for, identify, and confirm the existence of copyvios in articles they're working on. Those editors who are constantly on patrol for copyvios do exceptionally valuable work, but they are exceptionally few and far between. COPYVIO strictly demands a strong response to confirmed and suspected violations as well as those who insert them. However it places no such burden on any editor to continually be on the lookout for possible copyvios or to be able to recognize and deal with them, even in certain areas that may arguably be more susceptible to copyvios than an average article. Not recognizing or even looking for them does not mean an editor is less competent or responsible, and to suggest that it does devalues the important work that is being done and further discourages people from working in the mainspace. Ultimately, WP:COPYVIO is there to protect the project. It tells us that copyright should be taken seriously, and it should, and it should be dealt with seriously according to the policy. However, exaggerating the graveness of this incident, to the point where it's being alleged that a good faith editor who didn't even notice a copyvio is less than fit to be an administrator is simply fallacious—because most administrators would have missed the copyvio if they were in the same position. Honest oversights happen and in the vast majority of cases, they're never held against an editor, nor should they be. Just because the buzzword "copyvio" set everyone into a frenzy at RFA does not mean Cyphoid violated any of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, or written and unwritten principles. Copyright paranoia is not productive. We're expected to follow a very specific rule set to handle copyright situations. We're not expected to become a pitchfork-wielding, copyright crusading mob that excessively overreacts when someone doesn't notice a copyvio in an article. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 23:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

~~Legitimate copyvio concerns + petulant responses from candidate to opposes above. Townlake (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)~~ Will move to support
Oppose - I'm concerned about Cyphoidbomb's temperament. In this RFA, there have been several snarky responses to opposes and even neutrals. Also in this RFA, he appears to equate "children" with vandals and copyright violations (heavily vandalized by children and rogue groups and to hopefully convince the children not to copy), which rings vaguely of ageism (am I being too sensitive here?). Those were enough to make me look deeper, and I found many examples involving the use of vandalism warnings when a regular talk page note (or even another applicable template warning) would have been really appropriate. Example: this revert. The IP made some changes that may not have necessarily been constructive, but hardly rose to the level of blatant vandalism and defamation necessary for an only warning, especially seeing as it was the first time the IP made that edit. All in all, I see someone who would likely be a shade too aggressive with the mop, and too quick to assume bad faith. The near-complete lack of content creation does not thrill me either. I'm not asking for GAs (they're hard to write), but four articles is on the low side, especially when two are lists with barely any prose, one is a stub, and one wasn't even written by the candidate. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that it is ageism, just demographics. The group of people most likely to vandalize articles on children's television shows are children. On a side note, it would be interesting to study the demographics of vandalism, but my gut tells my it is likely younger than the average editor. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I strongly support the right of younger people to participate in Wikipedia (I wrote the first draft of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors), but I agree that speaking in generalities, articles that tend to be mostly edited by the youngest group of editors can use some extra attention, and I don't think a comment to that effect reflects badly on the candidate in any respect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Jakec Many of the articles I deal with are children's TV articles. The bulk of the problems I have experienced over the years are with children who disrupt articles. The article where the copyright violations occurred was a children's television article. I was talking specifically about that. That's not ageist. If you're interested in some of our child sock operators, there's TheREALCableGuy, KuhnstylePro, The New Jersey Pooh vandal, Gabriella~four.3-6. Cyphoidbomb (talk). There are a lot of great young editors too. Electricburst1996 comes to mind. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I have stricken that part of my oppose. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Totally insufficient article creation work, which I feel is obligatory for an editor receiving a lifetime appointment to superuser (or "getting the tools" as we say around here). Only four articles created: Harry Jelinek, a two-sentence mini-stub, Dele Jegede, which was written by someone else according to his first edit summary[17], and two articles on animated series consisting almost entirely of episode lists. Hell I'm not saying an admin has to be Hemingway and churn out brilliant text, but it's ridiculous to elevate an editor to all kinds of sweeping powers and tools when they just haven't done all that much serious content creation themselves. The snarky replies and copyvio issue cited by several people are also troubling. Coretheapple (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Lack of good content work and poor-quality responses do not inspire confidence. Alexbrn (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No. Reaper Eternal (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Some reasoning might be helpful here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Per GregJackP. I didn't and still don't feel the need to re-iterate why I don't believe the candidate should be an admin from a content standpoint. I'm not going to be that person who repeats everything the other opposers have said and says nothing new. That's just needlessly deconstructive to the candidate's self-esteem, which has already been shown to be fragile. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ: See also my criteria if you want a more detailed explanation. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It's generally considered poor form to cast a vote without any explanation, not that you don't already know this and are choosing to ignore it. Even a simple "doesn't meet my RfA criteria" is more helpful then a "no" without explanation and I would venture to say it's less demoralizing to a candidate as well. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 00:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose due to copyvio as many have stated and conduct of the candidate and some supporters. We've had enough issues with thin-skinned admins...we don't need another one. Intothat darkness 17:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as per Jacob. I am more concerned with high levels of semi- automated edits and certain temperament issues, which I am sure can be fixed in the future. Would recommend more manual article content edits, article collaboration with view to improvement, and a broadening of subject interest. Good luck in your future growth. Irondome (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Without piling on about copy-vio etc. the brief, almost flippant responses to questions do not inspire me with confidence. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - The opposers by and large bring up various issues and among them are copyvio and temperament concerns. Taken together, it makes me uneasy about granting the candidate a lifetime adminship. I feel strongly that a Wikipedia administrator must firmly know policy, and act with gentle kindness towards those with whom they disagree. I am not seeing that here. Since the discretionary zone may be the !vote range we fall in, I urge the closing bureaucrat to consider the weight of the opposes, many of which are well-stated and of considerable heft. I do of course thank the candidate for their service to the 'pedia, and suggest they work on the issues stated here and try again in a year or so. Jus da fax 16:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jusdafax, the copyvio matter has been thoroughly explained on the talk page. The only temperament concerns raised here so far are unrelated to my real-world participation at venues like WP:ANI where tempers can get hot. RfA is a unique venue where I am ostensibly interacting with experienced peers, who ostensibly should be able to absorb the same tone of voice that I am expected to absorb. I just got through an RFC related to Pakistan with some passionate editors who were trying to bait me into anger. Didn't fall for it, and that's my natural editing behavior. When I have disagreements with members of the community, I try to make it clear that I have respect for them even if I don't agree. Even with sockpuppets (OK, I didn't know he was a sock at the time). I even thanked a number of people who opposed my last RfA [18][19][20], etc. Several comments in the support section speak to the opposite of temperament issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Some of the opposes are reasonable and well stated but the copyvio concern is an empty reasoning for opposing and a great many, if not most, of the opposition base it to some degree on the copyvio issue. The copyvio was an entirely honest mistake that anyone could have made and not a reflection of the candidate's experience or policy knowledge in the area, which has been established. They were only brought *into* the discretionary range because of flippant opposition over an honest mistake and now there's "temperament concerns" because they're defending themselves as any normal human being would. Cyphoid is handling themselves in this cluster of an RfA much better than most people could. Contrary to your claim that much of the opposition is hefty and well stated, I would say many of these people are grasping at straws. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 18:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Most of the opposes are "reasonable" and denigrating opposes is rarely a wise maneuver at all (and closers generally do not consider such attacks as adding to the weight of the attacker's position). I would point out that the person's apparent lack of editing experience per se is a traditional and frequent cavil made here, and also that the person's positions on AfD are also reasonably considered here. Each of which, in my opinion, furnish sufficient backing to "oppose" positions. Collect (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not attacking anyone, I'm not denigrating anyone, I haven't said anywhere that article editing experience or positions at AfD are illegitimate reasons to oppose, and I make no claim that there's no reason to oppose the candidate, I'm specifically answering to the rationales that I feel are far faultier, weaker and more misleading than they're being presented as. I'm not pestering people merely for disagreeing. If you feel my responses somehow weaken my credibility, that's fine, but I have tried to keep my comments objective and well-founded in reason. The simple fact is a disproportionate amount of opposition is based on a perfectly acceptable mistake ("mistake" is generous, even) and that does not represent a fair or reasonable standard for vetting an RfA candidate. Likewise, the candidate's honest reactions to such obviously-unfair expressions of disapproval of their policy knowledge and integrity as an editor have been twisted around as purported "temperament concerns", without any attempts being made to establish an overall pattern or tendency towards problematic behavior. The massive overexaggeration of a non-issue that significantly impacts the prospects of this already-stressful process would invoke frustration and defensiveness out of any sane human being. Yes, conduct at an RfA is oftentimes an example of how a person handles stressful situations, but given the circumstances, I think their conduct here overall is a testament to their positive temperament and ability to deal with stress and any sup-par responses can be forgiven considering the context in which they were provoked. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Cyphoidbomb: You appear to be disregarding several comments where temperament issues have been mentioned on the basis of things you've said on this page, such as "... opposers head back to their editing niches with self-satisfied glows" and your sarcastic reply to Spaghetti07205. There's more here, and you aren't exactly doing much to discourage the chortling sarcasm against opposers going on on your talk page. This isn't a very fine demonstration of trying to make it clear that you have respect for them even if you don't agree". --Stfg (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Stfg My temperament should not be judged solely on what I say here. That's like noting typos here and extrapolating that my article work must be deficient. The "self-satisfied glows" was clearly not directed at any one person and was obviously a rhetorical device to make a point that I guess nobody cared about. RfA candidates should not be judged by a different set of rules than the admins and other users who judge them. If a candidate is supposed to have thick skin under criticism, then the people who criticize should have thick skins as well and not stymie the candidate for what are basically personal reasons. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The "self-satisfied glows" was directed at opposers here. The snark against Spaghetti was directed against Spaghetti. As I pointed out in yesterday's qualifier to my oppose, we aren't here to judge people, but to decide whether to entrust you with the tools. Those who think we shouldn't do that are expected to give reasons (see the reply to Reaper, above). Unfortunately, reasons for advising against giving you the tools may come across as criticisms, but that can hardly be helped. You're the one who is offering to take up the tools, not anyone else here. Don't you think "stymie the candidate for what are basically personal reasons" is somewhat ABF? I don't know you and we've never interacted except here and at your previous RFA. I've supported about as many RFAs as I've opposed, including at least two that I had minor arguments with long ago. Why would I have any "personal reasons" to "stymie" you in particular? --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Snark has nothing to do with the tools. I know plenty of snarky admins. Again, you're focusing on stuff that happened in this unique forum rather than out in the wild. I think noting that I had apologized to Spaghetti for my incorrect revert is more telling of who I am than what I said when he backpedaled on his forgiveness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Snark has nothing to do with the tools. I know plenty of snarky admins. This is the kind of remark that does you no good at all. One of the reasons admin candidates have a hard time is that we get bad apples - admins who are inept and abusive - and it's damn hard to get rid of them. We don't need another "snarky admin." Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Your point is noted. However, I do not consider the bulk of my interactions with others to be snarky, so I would not consider myself as likely to become a snarky admin. I doubt anybody here could survive any scrutiny of snark. Please consider the venue. My history of working well with others should be more important than a brief outburst in this atypical venue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, a few days ago. I advised you to stop badgering your oppose voters. I am disappointed to see this ignored, and I'm worried we'll see a large "I'm right everyone else is wrong" post the first time you get dragged to ANI. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Jusdafax. Temperament, defensiveness and content concerns. Answer to IAR question shows a lack of appreciation for the perniciousness of edit warring, especially over minor things. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose I was very much on the fence about this nomination, and my vote could have gone either way. (It might even have been "neutral" if I didn't believe that "neutral" is basically a cop-out -- one may as well not vote at all.) I ended up at "oppose" because of the copyvio incident -- which I accept is a one-time thing but which indicates a certain lack of judgment or clue that's worrying -- but primarily because of some problems with temperament I see in Cyphoidbomb's comments here. I don't think giving him the bit is going to result in harm to the project, but I do foresee a learning curve and a heightened probability of conflict with other editors. I very much hope that I'm wrong about all of that, and that Cyphoidbomb will end up being a credit to the Admin corps. BMK (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Creating good content is very hard work and an admin who may be deleting others' content needs to demonstrate that they understand this by having a good content record themselves. The candidate's record in this regard is insufficient. Just Chilling (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So you are basically hanging a "No Gnomes Need Apply" sign on the front door of RfA? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

Moving to Oppose. Lack of significant article creation on its own is not necessarily a reason to oppose but I've always maintained that people who police pages should know how to produce them. Fails #5 of my criteria. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No outstanding maintenance tags is a tough standard – I think I've "self-tagged" most of the articles I've created because I feel like not doing that is disingenuous. It's hard not to add a {{Refimprove}} tag to articles about some subjects with some (but not much) coverage... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've successfully policed pages for years and have a CSD log to prove it, yet I am still article-creation-less. Ж ^{(Cncmaster) T/C/AVA/RfA-C} 03:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

And can you point us to your RfA, Cncmaster ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure, even after the questions were answered. I thought back to this old blog post which says "There are a million things that a good chef does that have to do with improvisation .... an automaton chef who is merely following instructions might be able to produce a given dish when everything is working perfectly, but without real talent and skill, will not be able to improvise." I think a good admin is similar, they must understand policies, but improvise when to use which one, and when not to. GAs and FAs are easy evidence to show someone can. Without that, you need other evidence. It's possible to do it, but lots of Twinkle reverts don't inspire me. I'm worried about Cyphoidbomb deleting borderline CSDs with canned edit summaries, or accidentally causing a dramafest by blocking Cassianto. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC) moved to oppose

Undecided at the moment. Ritchie does bring up a good point about Twinkle reverts making up a large number of edits, so it would help to do more work without the use of Twinkle. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Moved to oppose

Twinkle is pretty much an essential tool in the TV project. Cyphoidbomb spends a lot of time maintaining articles about TV programs aimed at younger audiences (and I'm glad of that because I couldn't handle it!) where often the only option is to revert because content that is added simply is not recoverable. Sure, he could manually undo the edits, but why do that when there is a tool that will do it for you? Why walk to work when you have a car or public transport? Cyphoidbomb is clearly using Twinkle appropriately, as he seems to always add a summary explaining why he reverted using Twinkle. To me that's being smart about the way that he's editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem I have is not really Twinkle itself, rather I get the impression that Cyphoidbomb edits articles without (at least beyond his specialist domain of TV shows) giving strong evidence he understands the subject matter, or wants to. In my view, that's important as it allows you to show empathy with newcomers who don't understand policy and might not even want to. His answer to Q5 mentioned policies and explained why the actions were problematic, but what I was hoping for was some explanation of context - a not too notable musician has been accused of rape and assault and the sources cited to the claim are not too good, which might lead to somebody (Castronovo himself or maybe a friend or family member) being upset and blanking the article per WP:DOLT. In that instance, I think explaining BLP policy and consensus building would probably fall on deaf ears, as someone is editing Wikipedia out of duress to get something "unpleasant" removed from a popular website. A subtle, but important distinction. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you were looking for. An explanation of context? What does that mean? If I assume good faith that the removal was from a lack of understanding of policy, then educating the user on guidelines/policy is worth a shot. If they removed the content again, then we elevate. What specifically are you looking for? Your question seemed to draw attention to the "rollback as vandal" Twinkle button. Your scenario sounded like a situation where one person wasn't assuming good faith (calling a person a vandal), and another person may have been suppressing content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Pending resolution of the copyright issue, as noted in the Support section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The resolution, Jo-Jo, or rather the 'solution', is that the offending article has now been speedy deleted. Admins are able to see the content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, but I worry about this thing now as well as here. While copying one CV from one article to another is not a major concern to me, these two edits appear to be copypastes from sites elsewhere on the web. Widespread coypastes, sure, but still. Calling Cyphoidbomb here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb's edit history shows that this was content he'd just removed from Season 4.[21] As for "here", that was clearly removed from Season 5,[22]. He'd added header information, an infobox, a brief lead, and changed the LineColor code. What he added wasn't "copypastes from sites elsewhere on the web", it was copied straight from Wikipedia articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral for now, still pondering... I find it strange that the candidate would need somebody to change his diapers, grown-up admins are supposed to speak for themselves. Kraxler (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Was I supposed to respond while I was asleep? I'm not sure where this condescension is coming from, but may I remind you that you criticized me in my original RfA for calling vandals (you know, people who actively and deliberately disrupt this project) "nuts" and "idiots". The fact that you're equating me to an infant simply because I have not written back in a manner you find timely, is extraordinarily hypocritical and rude. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I strongly advise you to read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates#During your RfA especially points 10 and 11, right now. If you can't handle constructive criticism at your RfA, how will you cope with it the minute a vandal takes exception to your block? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
RE Cyphoidbomb - "to need somebody to change one's diapers" is an idiomatic expression, I wish people wouldn't take everything literally; language is more than just a random sequence of words. I lament though if this came over as condescending, that was certainly not my intention. I was just baffled by the walls of text, replying to the opposers, written by somebody who is not even the nominator. At your last RfA I opposed, with regrets, for the abovementioned reasons. At this RfA I was on the verge of supporting, but it looks like things are getting out of hand again. Time to take a deep breath and show admin-worthy skills. Kraxler (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
the walls of text, replying to the opposers, written by somebody who is not even the nominator Clearly that's aimed at me. Where is it written that somebody else isn't allowed to defend a person who has what amount to ridiculous allegations being thrown at them? Anyone can criticise, so anyone can defend. Somebody claimed that the candidate had created copyvios when a simple check of article and contributor edit histories show that not to be the case at all. The candidate simply copied text without first checking every single episode summary to make sure that they weren't copyvios. Of course he was doing a ton of work that nobody else would lift a finger to do so maybe he was busy with something else. I'm sorry, but when I see somebody unjustly accused of doing something that they didn't do, I'll jump in to defend them no matter who they are. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This is RfA, AussieLegend. Although it is indeed commendable to defend those unjustly accused, at RfA the candidate is supposed to show that he understands the guidelines and can intelligently and civilly take part in discussions. There is no need for anybody to jump in and do it for him. This is not a court of law which threatens anybody with a jail sentence, you can see the difference, can't you? Kraxler (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
And, yet, people wonder why no one is willing to agree to be nominated for an RfA... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
"No one"? Come on, were right in it. Lots of people run here. And about half a dozen succeeded during the last month. Pessimism is not the nicest outlook, really, IJBall. (I'm still hoping that Cyphoidbomb gets back on track...) Kraxler (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly 2 RfAs have succeeded in the past month with only eight succeeding in the past six months combined. Look at this chart and then look at Category:Administrative backlog and tell me sufficient numbers of admins are being promoted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I must have counted in the May/June promotions, time is running away, it seems; and no, there are not enough admin promotions to keep up with the backlogs, definitely not. (I have myself taken a holiday from content creation, and am tackling these days the AfD and RfC backlogs.) And that's the reason why I was leaning to support, and hoped that all runs well, but AussieLegend's interference may have harmed more than helped the candidate. Kraxler (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

the candidate is supposed to show that he understands the guidelines and can intelligently and civilly take part in discussions. There is no need for anybody to jump in and do it for him. - The point is, a number of oppose votes were made because of the allegation and the failure of editors to check the facts before voting. That effectively could be a death sentence for this candidate's aspirations of becoming an admin. Prior to this he stood at 90.9% support.[23] Now it's down to 75%. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Your interference may have precipitated the derailment. Most !voters would wait for an explanation by the candidate, even it takes a few hours (at "user contributions" you can see whether somebody is on-line or not, and if they aren't we wait), but every action causes a reaction... Kraxler (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that RFA percentages are calculated by ignoring neutrals, so he's actually at 81% right now: 42 / (42+10) = .807, not 42 / (42+14) = .750 which is what I think you were doing. —Soap— 17:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Somebody claimed that the candidate had created copyvios when a simple check of article and contributor edit histories show that not to be the case at all. That is a lie and a personal attack. I checked every diff in the article before I placed the boilerplate on it and !voted here. I knew which parts of the article had been put there by Cyphoidbomb and which by other editors (such as an IP6 and the editor who put in the categories). I saw the HTML comment saying that he hadn't checked the sources yet. I accept Cyphoidbomb's word that he was not the editor who first placed the words on Wikipedia, but he was the editor who propagated it to that article, and the text is so obviously suspect that anyone who looked at it should want to check it. Sorry that 52 other editors didn't check carefully enough, but I did. I don't deserve the vilification and badgering AussieLegend has directed at me today. As for ... opposers head back to their editing niches with self-satisfied glows -- wow, just wow. Time to put up or shut up: justify your accusation with specific details or withdraw the lie. --Stfg (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Neutral I moved from oppose, as this looks like, per AussieLegend, an inaccurate accusation is derailing this nom. Per Stfg and Ritchie333, the copy-paste issue and poor record at AfD are enough to oppose at this time. Admins must know how to identify copyvios, and the above would seem to indicate this user is still not up to scratch on this important policy. Come back next year after more work at AfD, and maybe we can forgive the copy-paste, which was blatant but not directly their fault and certainly not intentional. I don't know what the protocol is for this, but maybe a restart is in order. RO ^(talk) 17:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Neutral – Cyphoidbomb has particular interests in page patrolling, in countering vandalism and socks, at WP:TV, and in other various matters, is less involved in content creation, and that's all right. The copyvio matter occurred innocently in good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, although its extent was a bit glaring. It's unlikely that every merge or page split actually includes several checks for copyvio. That said, Cyphoidbomb may benefit from brushing up their abilities to spot copyright violations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Moved to support. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Neutral I can accept that mistakes were made in good faith (although it is preferable if the editors later identifies them and corrects them themselves) but the combative attitude shown here demonstrates a temperament that is inappropriate for an admin who has to deal with disruptive or angry editors. More than having the tools, administrators need to know how to communicate with a wide variety of editors including those one disagrees with or who are being insulting (which is not happening here). It can be the difference between instructing an editor on what to do and what not to do and improving their skills or driving an editor away. I don't mean to characterize all of Cyphoidbomb's interactions by this one page but an RfA is a stressful experience and as an admin, you can expect these to happen regularly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
While I am concerned with the shortfalls identified in the oppose section, I think Cyphoidbomb has received enough opposition on those points that piling on more opposition without adding tothose points is disproportional, and perilously close to becoming counterproductive. In light of the comments in support of Cyphoidbombs candidacy, I am wholly torn, and irreconcilably neutral. I wish the best for Cyphoidbomb moving forward; leaving thanks for all they have done well – improving Wikipedia.--John Cline (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I am going to land here, can not decide either way. Copyvio is the biggest concern why I am not in the support section.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Neutral from oppose above L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:25, 24 July 2015 (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.

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights