Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyphoidbomb


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. 

Cyphoidbomb
Final: (46/23/3) - closed as unsuccessful by Acalamari at 22:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The opposition have expressed significant, well-founded concerns in regards to Cyphoidbomb's deletion work/knowledge and towards their shortness of content contributions. Neither of these issues can be dismissed as trivial and the strength of these arguments - combined with the level of opposition - leads me to close this as no consensus. Acalamari 22:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination
– Cyphoidbomb has been active on Wikipedia for around four years. Apart from helping with vandalism and sockpuppet investigations, I'd draw your attention to work at the refdesk, an impressive history of wikignoming, and a completely clean block record. I think this is someone who could make good use of the tools in protecting against vandalism, and who is likely to use them for good, and to help people (e.g. this, which is basically a WP:REFUND request). I reviewed the admin board logs and found many thoughtful and helpful comments and requests. I noticed the input in this heated debate, which shows patience and calmness in trying to talk people down from the Reichstag. I'm sure if you mine determinedly you'll find some stuff that's not as stellar, but every example I can find where Cyphoidbomb has become involved, I see only good stuff. Even if adminship were a big deal (which it's not supposed to be), I think Cyphoidbomb would be a janitor not a cop. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Accepted - I appreciate the recognition!

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: Much of what I presently do relates to the maintenance of articles and the prevention/suppression of vandalism. Though the nomination for adminship was a bit of a surprise, my aim as an administrator would be to continue in this regard, only with better tools at my disposal and more efficient ways to handle these problems. Being able to protect articles on my watchlist when vandalism is happening in real-time would be nice. For example, when I was watching the IP vandalism unfold at Elsa Pataky two days ago (March 20), it was somewhat frustrating to have to write up a report, submit it to AIV, then go to RPP to submit a slightly modified report and then wait for intervention. I was delighted when I started using AWB because it made tedium a thing of the past. (Well, not entirely, but maaan did it help!) As an admin, I would continue to help via Help Desk, and at CAT:HELP, only I would be able to provide a more direct service to other users, being able to speedy delete articles, block vandals, etc., and I could finally stop bothering the same four admins I regularly bother. I also know that being an admin doesn't mean side-stepping all the rules. I know about WP:INVOLVED, for example. I could also start helping out at AIV, and contributing to ANI, and elsewhere other mopwielders were needed.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My anti-vandal/sockpuppet work for sure has been super-solid. I can't say that I take a lot of pride in removing crush-cruft from kids' TV articles, but I've removed a lot of garbage from the project. I've been successful in maintaining civil discourse, in being able to understand two sides of an argument and even to propose compromise when I feel adamantly against something. Also, my ability to yield to consensus or to the project's better good when I am wrong. Now, these might more aptly describe traits that I bring to Wikipedia instead of specific contributions, but they represent the foundation of most of my contributions. I've helped a lot of new users out at the Help Desk, and my recent work with AWB allows me to burn through articles and flag 'em, tag 'em, change smartquotes to straight quotes, etc. This has been awesome. I've also tried to change some of the internal systems of Wikipedia (infobox templates, adding specificity to WP:VANDALISM, etc.) Usually I fail at this, but I still consider them contributions!


 * 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: There are editors with whom I definitely do not mesh, though the list is pretty short. The majority of folks I interact with are pretty decent and knowledgeable, even the grumpy ones. :) I try not to get myself into "conflicts" even when there is a difference of opinion. Of the ones I've butted heads with in the past, one I suspect of having pernicious motivations, and the others just have different perspectives and a different cognitive styles from mine. Wikipedia has hammered home the point that this is a community project, so I try to be sensitive to the idea that a community represents all types, even where it might frustrate me. I've been involved in some discussions where heated opinions were being slung around (Talk:Anita Sarkeesian and at Talk:Vishwakarma (caste)) and I've tried to help maintain a civil and constructive attitude even when some of the participants were nuts (See Vishwakarma).


 * I even try to treat sock operators and vandals, (the idiots responsible for most of the tedium at Wikipedia,) with at least the outward signs of respect. Here's a case at ANI when I had to report a kid for gross incompetence over a long period of time. I am of the suspicious mind (having dealt with "naive" editors from his geographical region) that this kid is a vandal pretending to be a naive incompetent. But he still gets a decent treatment in the ANI, and the fact that he was able to edit for four months demonstrates a lot of AGFing on my part. Generally speaking, I don't edit much in areas where there could be a whole lot of controversy and where emotions run high. (I'm pretty dim about middle-eastern politics, for example), and I tend to circulate more in the frivolous--TV and such. And where conflicts arise, I have no problem taking advantage of the Request for Comment system. Some view it as a punishment or something, but I think it's great! Basically, if I had the mop, I don't believe I would wield it to fight, rather I would use it to help direct the dirty water into the drain.


 * Additional question from Stalwart111
 * 4. You list vandal-fighting and other internal work as among your "best contributions" to Wikipedia. Those are valuable, to be sure, but I'm wondering if you have a content contribution/article of which you are particularly proud? You haven't yet opted-in to the edit-counter add-on and doing so may well render my question moot, so that might be a good start. Cheers.
 * A: Hi, I wish I could say that I've singly brought articles toward GA, but I can't. I would say, however, that we each have our different roles. Some are better copyeditors than others, some have better access to reference materials, some have more of a passion for a subject than others, some are template editors, and some try to improve a variety of articles. My attention span is best suited for the latter.


 * Around the time of Huell Howser's death, I made some contributions that I was proud of. I helped flesh out some of the details of his death as they became public, as well as helped to paint a more complete picture of his philanthropy. Did similar work at Christopher Dorner. I remember enjoying my edits at Broadneck Peninsula a place that I'd known nothing about and somehow randomly wound up there. I removed unsourced assertions, cleaned up language, removed promotional content, found sources, etc. It's not perfect, but it's better, and I was proud of the contributions. Though some have pointed at the Dele Jegede article as an example of how little I have contributed in the way of new articles, I was proud of that one, because a user had come to the Help Desk looking to submit a PDF version of the article. I converted the entirety of his article for him, so that he would have a good framework upon which to build. At List of Chowder episodes I verified all episode airdates against reliable sources to improve accuracy, but also to make it easier to spot numerical vandalism.


 * Some of my contributions to articles, particularly problematic articles, wind up deleted, like at Junior Writers Awards, which I had to fundamentally re-write because it was coming off as an advertisement full of corporatespeak. The article Boo to You Too! Winnie the Pooh was a frequent target of a New Jersey user who had a vision of how they wanted the article to look, but they were not competent to edit and they kept forcing incoherent textwalls into various articles related to Winnie-the-Pooh, for example here. While trying to suppress the user's disruptive edits from various IPs, I also had to re-write the plot summary, which I did while watching the movie. It's not perfect, but I think it was a great contribution. We each have our own roles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Optional questions from Carrite (Tim Davenport, 52, Corvallis, OR, USA).
 * 5. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another username? If so, what user name or names did you use?
 * A: Hi Tim, to the best of my memory, I have never edited Wikipedia using another username, and certainly not while I was Cyphoidbomb. This account is the only account I'm aware of having. I have edited previously as an IP user, but I would be surprised if those edits totaled a dozen.


 * 6. A few questions that I feel we all should have been asking candidates all along: What's your real life name and age? What country do you live in? What's your educational background? (If you prefer not to answer, that's fine. Please do expound in that case on why anonymity is important with respect to writing and administering an online encyclopedia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrite (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 March 2014
 * A: Well, respectfully I'm not too keen on divulging much personal information. I'm male. I am a United States citizen. I'm a registered voter. I like cats. I have ridden motorcycles for decades. I haven't received a traffic ticket in at least a decade. I've never been arrested.
 * Comment Requests for personal data in Wikipedia are strongly discouraged, and insistence on data provision is absolutely forbidden.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a part of the culture, I'm not denying it. I think it is a bad relic of the culture. It's time for real life identities for real life people in this #6 website with its ubiquitous presence in the public eye. Feel free to answer or don't answer, fine. But if a person doesn't answer, also state the case why one feels this necessary. I'm BA Economics, Oregon State University, 1983, just so I'm not asking anyone to do what I'm not willing to do myself, for the record. Carrite (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that I can edit anonymously. One of the things I dislike about anonymous editing, is how easy people use it for destruction and hostility, hiding behind the same shield that allows good editors to contribute comfortably and at an arm's distance. One thing that is unattractive about being an administrator, is that they earn more of the irrational attention that irrationally angry vandals bring to the table. I don't need that kind of jive. Only two or three people IRL know that I regularly edit Wikipedia. It's a hobby. I keep it on the down-low because I don't need people asking me to promote their whatever-or-other. On the flipside, I don't want my Wikipedia edits to impact or intersect with my life any more than my maniacal obsession with the template has already done. That's got to be important to more people than just me. Anonymity can be an invaluable tool for nerds like me who want to contribute constructively without being required to commit to it being a life event. Unrelated to me, anonymous editing and administration can also be beneficial in countries that practice suppression of information, such that anonymous editors and administrators can resist censorship in their homelands.
 * Right on. Thank you for your answers. Carrite (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Anupmehra
 * 7 (a) Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
 * A: Ah, my spirited debate partner, ! Well, the textbook says that we should ignore rules when the rules prevent us from improving the project, but that is a difficult concept to sell in the wild at Wikipedia, which is so rule-laden, even when it claims to not be in its five pillars. I get frustrated by the various steps needed to manage vandalism. Sometimes things are clearly vandalism to users familiar to the subject, but not to AIV. Or AIV refuses to handle it because they decide for some confusing reason that the incident is a case for ANI not AIV, so then you get directed to ANI. ANI often doesn't respond to reports, and so the editor who is trying to help the project by managing vandalism gets stuck with extra work and reporting just to have nothing happen in the end. It's silly. In a case like that it may be unfavorable to file a page protection request and an AIV simultaneously to improve admin coverage, I don't know, but if it helps to protect the article, why not do it? Or why not just ask an admin that you've worked with before?


 * Another rule I would find worthy of ignoring is the 3RR rule in situations of clear vandalism. I once received a heads-up from a friendly user that I was just at the max limit of reverts while an obvious vandalism was in progress. Fine, that's an easy adjustment for me to make, but I think the 3RR is a rule worth ignoring if someone is trying to prevent the clear disruption of an article. Saw this recently at Elsa Pataky.


 * Another example: I was recently involved in a discussion about whether or not the inanimate crash test dummy from Mythbusters, "Buster", should be listed in the infobox as a cast member. Though I could understand the argument to include it, because the Discovery channel calls Buster a cast member on its web page, and deleting Buster as a cast member would constitute original research, I found the idea absurd, and felt that even if sourced, including that information would make the article clownish, rather than improving it. I may wind up on the losing end of that discussion, but it would be a rule worth breaking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 7 (b) What is your opinion on rogue admins?
 * A: Seems that this essay is a mockery of conspiracy theorists and of users who attack Administrators for removing fringe content. I'm not a fan of fringe content. I don't think that just because a former Air Force colonel thinks that UFOs exist, that his opinion should be worthy of inclusion. Though we do want a neutral point of view in articles, we do not give fringe opinions undue weight. It's our duty to deliver the prevailing understandings of science, medicine, etc., and where certain aspects are still in debate by mainstream researchers, then we can provide that NPOV. I may ramble, but I won't ramble about chemtrails...So yeah, I'd totally be a "rogue admin" in the tongue-in-cheek sense. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 7 (c) Are there any of your contributions, you are not proud of? If yes, why?
 * A: I'm certainly not proud of my early edits at Wikipedia. Ah, to do it all over again. Being a n00b is tough, and having to learn the rules is tough. In this process that I am undertaking, the community is pointing out a number of ways that I have been deficient, specifically as it relates to my article deletion nominations. That is humbling. I'm not proud of those. I've made a lot of mistakes and will continue to do so, but my hope is to improve. I don't keep special note of my failures, but here's an example: In these edits an IP user added some original research, which I reverted with a dissmissive comment. (I also called the edit vandalism, which I had to backpedal on. I left the user a warning about introducing original research, but my warning was extraordinarily condescending, as I referred to a portion of their contribution as "absurd". The user called me on my crap behavior, I apologized, and reincorporated some of the user's content, which I probably should have done to begin with. That was a shit moment for me because I totally didn't AGF, and it was also embarrassing because it is the opposite of what I want to bring here. I can only explain it as: I'm human and not immune from frustration. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Ottawahitech
 * 8. You are approached by an editor who tells you they are discouraged and are considering leaving Wikipedia. They say they feel they are being targeted by other editors. How do you proceed?
 * A: Hi I not encountered this exact scenario, but I've definitely seen situations that could lead up to this. Sometimes when the editor is right, sometimes when the editor is totally off-base. You'd first have to take a look at their complaints to see what you're dealing with, and to see if there was a specific remedy that could easily resolve the problem, such as a more in-depth explanation of a policy they are having trouble understanding. Assuming the editor is doing a good job, but there are personality conflicts, you might encourage that editor take a wikibreak to get some breathing room. You might also consider dropping notes to the other individuals and ask them to cool it, or to consider taking wikibreaks too. If you saw that other editors were ganging up on another editor, you might consider speaking out openly to put the targeting issue on the table. (I did this here when I noticed a bunch of editors demonstrating incivil behavior toward TheRedPenofDoom.)


 * Sometimes it might be prudent to remind users that there is an entire world of Wikipedia out there, so maybe avoiding articles that inflame their passions might be considered, or only editing these articles a certain amount of time per week. Sometimes just having someone else say, "yeah, those guys are being a little harsh on you" could make a difference in how they feel. Depending on the behavior of the various participants, an RFC on behavior might be warranted, or even some discussion at ANI. Or a solution might be as simple as asking some colleagues from a relevant WikiProject to help keep an eye on the fires. On a personal level, the user should feel that their contributions are important and valued, even if their content gets changed or rejected. People sometimes forget that articles are built from the ground up and they need to evolve. So even if you spent an hour working on the best way to express a certain idea, as soon as a better version comes along, the article has to change. People have trouble receiving criticism and correction. Sometimes reminding people of this fact can help them work through the criticism and correction. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Epicgenius
 * 9. Would you like to explain the difference between a block and a ban?
 * A: Hi, from what I understand, a block is akin to nailing boards across a door to keep someone out--it represents the "physical" (or technical) prevention of access to Wikipedia. A ban is akin to telling your visitor to "stay out". Bans prohibit visitors from editing certain topics, or certain articles, etc. Bans typically come from discussions about a user's behavior, where blocks are typically implemented as needed to stop disruptions. Blocks can be implemented by themselves, but they are also used to support bans. A user who is indefinitely blocked is, I believe, considered "de facto" banned, that is, they aren't allowed to edit as long as their indef block is in effect, and attempting to circumvent their blocks could result in other blocks as needed to protect the project. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 10. Thank you for your answer to my previous question. Another question, though: What will you do if an editor adds unconstructive content to, or vandalizes, a page:
 * on their first edit
 * on one of their first 100 edits (they have made previous edits before)
 * if they are autoconfirmed with 1000+ edits
 * if they are an admin?
 * A. Every situation is unique. It's especially tough when dealing with IPs. I can't say that I'm 100% consistent in all situations, but if I notice a new user, I try to remember to add a welcome template before issuing a correction, and if I issue the welcome, I typically prefer that my "correction" isn't a template, or if it is, I try to personalize the template to explain the specific objection a little better. In this edit I saw that an inexperienced user was adding content that is generally shunned by WikiProject Film and I tried to explain that in detail. If I know a user is a regular, I will not template them per WP:DTR because I don't like when it happens to me (though in this case, I believe the user is trying to teach the community a lesson about its own hypocrisy). When I find that I have differences of opinions with regulars, I prefer to open discussions. I can't say I've seen an admin vandalize a page. I have confronted admins about questionable calls, but I typically drop friendly notes. It's difficult to explain what I'd do in all these situations, because there are a lot of other variables. How often does the article get vandalized? Have you noticed patterns in the edits? Do you figure that the person behind this disruptive content is responsible for other disruptive content? Does this edit have the makings of a sock operator, but you're still waiting for more info to confirm? Do the edits appear to be automated edits coming from IPs? If I can reach someone with discussion, I prefer to do that, but templating is obviously far quicker and useful for most once-in-a-while users. Side note: I was bummed while the edit counter tool was broken, because it limited my ability to check to see if a user was a regular or not. I figured out a work-around, to look at Global Contributions to get a sense for who the editor was. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the need for an edit counter, you may wish to install the User:Anomie/useridentifier.js script or use Cyberpower678's counter. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 03:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from 78.26
 * 11. How would you interpret the role of consensus at AfD?
 * Hi, I'm not sure I understand the question. Consensus governs the fate of articles at AfD...and of most things at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from 78.26
 * 12. Concise answer to an intentionally ambiguous question.  I hate to badger a candidate with questions, so if I don't get it right here, I'll bow out.  What is the proper way to implement consensus?  Say at closing time an AfD discussion has 3 arguments in favor of keeping citing WP:MUSIC and three arguments in favor of deletion citing WP:NPOV, how is consensus determined?  [[User:78.26| 78.26 ]] (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In this scenario, based only on the information provided, I would say that problems with neutrality can be repaired. If a subject were deemed notable (and no information has been provided in the scenario to indicate that the NPOV contingent didn't find the subject notable) then the article should be kept, and efforts should be made to shift the POV to center. Consensus isn't achieved by voting, it's achieved by discussion and rational arguments. Deleting because the content is questionable may not be a rational solution, whereas keeping the article and adjusting it would be, since it adds to the project. (Side note, I think I just taught myself a valuable lesson by writing that out, since that seems to be the exact problem that others have been pointing out in re: my AFD noms.) Thinking outside the box, I'm pretty sure that AfDs aren't limited to 7 days. It might also be reasonable to open the AfD to a wider audience for more input, or extend the duration so that a more robust consensus could be achieved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Cyphoidbomb:
 * 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 their contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support would make an excellent cleanup admin Secret account 18:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: candidate has a good understanding, and does good work; therefore is a net positive. He would have a new channel of work open to him if he became an admin. Best, Mat  ty  .  007  18:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support ///Euro Car  GT  18:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) 100% Support - I actually thought was an admin so am very suprised they're not!, Nonetheless Great candidate, No issues, Good luck! :) - →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  19:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Per above.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 20:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) An unfamiliar name, but I went digging through some contribs...there were two edits in particular I came across, removing borderline BLP violations. The communication behind the rationale was superb, showed a great degree of understanding of the spirit of the policy, not just the letter. No red flags in my causal perusal of contribs, so support from me. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Per the answer to Question 3, which is something that more Wikipedians need to follow. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support obviously. I have to commend you for your contributions in the vandalism, sockpuppetry, and SPI fields. Having the wet mop will benefit all of us here and one has to handed over to you right now. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support – I love the answer to question 6; it erased any doubts I might have had! I am One of Many (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Net positive to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Support  Jianhui67 T ★ C 05:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Support — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 15:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I don't think being wrong on a handful of AfDs should disqualify someone from adminship. Northern Antarctica (₵) 17:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Support XXX8906 (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Being in the 'losing' camp at AfD is as damning at RfA as being always in the 'winning' camp. One way, you're out of touch with the situation; the other, you're following the crowd. Apart from liking what I've seen of CB around the place, I like the answer to that very intrusive and to my mind out of line question. I'd have been very tempted to put 'MYOB', possibly with an F in it too (F for flipping...). (I was on the point of being arrested once, but the policeman realised he couldn't really charge me with stealing a sheep's skull, which is what the suspicious lump in my pocket was. My mother threw it away the next day.) Peridon (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - I appreciated the answer to my Q4. Honest, aware of faults, willing to improve and proud of genuinely constructive edits to the project that anyone can edit. I don't expect bucket-loads of GAs and FAs and occasionally vandal-fighting results in CSD tagging more focused on removing seemingly disruptive contributions that strict compliance with policy. More care should be taken, to be sure, but we should insist on growth in the job, not perfection before appointment. Stalwart 111  00:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - Adequate tenure, sufficient edit count, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Nice percentage of contributions to mainspace. Thanks for your service. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) Looks good, at the end.  → Call me  Hahc  21  18:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I've found nothing that suggests that the candidate can't be trusted with the mop. DexDor (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 20) Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --rogerd (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)`
 * 21) Support I believe the candidate will sincerely be cautious when working in areas where concerns have been raised; therefore, support is per WP:NETPOS, Carrite and DexDor, amongst others. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Be a good admin. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 23) I look for level-headedness, empathy, experience, self-awareness, and the ability to accept no one is always "right" in an admin.  Content creation and addition is very helpful in gaining empathy and experience, but it is not the only way.  I have lately become concerned about how much emphasis is being placed on being on the "winning" side of an AfD discussion.  Honest debate is a good thing, and being wrong isn't "bad" unless you, out of pride, refuse to learn from the experience.  Until further, significant evidence to the contrary, I support this candidacy.   78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Similar to the above, grace under pressure is an important quality in an admin and the candidate is demonstrating this. I consider them a net positive, and am confident that they will get up to speed on deletion policy before using that part of the toolset. No need to endure another RFA (although I suggest installing the monthly edit counter as instructed—and strongly hinted—above, to give fellow editors a better snapshot of your monthly contribs).  Mini  apolis  15:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts. For anyone still looking, I did install the counter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Fighting vandalism and sockpuppetry is important work too.  INeverCry  18:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Appears to be a legitimate member who would bring benefits to the community with being an admin.  Thєíríshwαrdєn  - írísh αnd prσud  22:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - net positive. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support – The user has shown skill in resolving quarrels, which is a key qualification for day-to-day admin work. He has been patient and industrious in dealing with complex vandalism. Since the fall of 2013 he has written [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Cyphoidbomb&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2FIncidentArchive&fulltext=Search+Incident+archives&fulltext=Search a series of reports at ANI] that summarize long-term misbehavior in such a way that admins can act on it. One example was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=593502889#Disruptive_editing_from_108.48.144.42 here]. If this RfA is successful I am willing to trust that he will use caution in the area of deletion until he has more experience. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Even more so than the rest of the project, people take RfAs entirely way too seriously, like lives are on the line.  I'm not saying we should ignore competence, but even experienced admins occasionally make bad calls in nominating articles for deletion.  He's good at what he does, even if that's not in areas that would traditionally bring accolades.  Honestly, I'm glad that we've got someone knowledgeable editing kids' cartoons, because they tend to be a cesspool of original research, poor writing, and cruft.  He's got enough experience and the proper temperament to convince me that he'd continue to be a net positive to the project as an admin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Can't see why not. Deb (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Simply put I think Wikipedia would be better if this user had the tools. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I'm sure the candidate will be a useful addition. The opposes do not swing it for me.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Support The opposes seem to be centered around holes in his knowledge of the deletion policy. Cyphoid never said he was going to work on AFDs, PRODs or CSDs, and I expect he won't. But he will be a net positive with all the other work he does. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Good candidate, and we need more vandal fighting editors. Content creation is great, but it's not the major (maybe even a seldom) task suited for the tools. We're much more in need of seasoned editors like this one, rather than prolific editors who have never dealt with the primary target of the tools. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Per EdJohnston. Also worth noting that I often see Cyphoidbomb's AIV reports, which are routinely helpful and accurate. I believe that they will be a net positive with the tools. Connormah (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Great candidate, seems to have a great edit history. Acalycine talk 09:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, mostly per the amphibian. While Cyphoidbomb does need to brush up on deletion policy and process, he's never indicated that he would work on these in an administrator's function, and from the way he responds I'm sure he won't break the community's trust in that way if he passes. ansh666 09:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fact is that the candidate was/is active in the deletion area. His poor knowledge of guidelines is not so much known from answering questions wrongly, but rather from actually tagging articles and/or proposing deletion. Kraxler (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Active? Per the AfD stats page, he's participated in 61 AfDs (nominating around 2/3 of them) over the course of just over a year, and a reasonable amount (70+%) being correct. Compare to mine - around 600 (many recent ones were completing nominations for others) in two months less. No, I don't think he's active. ansh666 18:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Active enough to display poor knowledge of the guidelines, I'm afraid. Compared to my own AfD stats (12 votes in all my time since 2006) I would consider him even hyperactive. By the way, my own correctness at AfD is 100 %. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I believe the candidate will be a net positive. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I have reviewed the opposing points, and I do consider them valid. But on the whole, I think Cyphoidbomb will perform very well in his specified areas of interest. Just be more careful with deletion tags from now on, yeah? ;-) Kurtis (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I think Wikipedia needs more like Cyphoid. &rarr;  Stani  Stani  03:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Great candidate! — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 04:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support – I would encourage the candidate to take on some of the opposes concerns, especially within regards to their work in AfD areas. However, I am not convinced that these concerns are the be all end all; I must acknowledge their good work within the counter-vandalism area of the Project, and I implore them to persist with it. Cyphoidbomb, good luck! —— Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 06:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was discouraged from responding to the opposes. But in a nutshell: I understand and accept the criticism--I definitely have to make improvements, and some of those improvements have been brought to my attention in a big way (AfDs) But assuming that I would continue to make bad decisions, or that I would dive overzealously into AfDs after receiving the criticism levied, demonstrates a lack of faith in me as a person, not just as a potential admin, and I don't think that I've demonstrated to the community that I'm an inflexible editor who deliberately ignores consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. There are some valid concerns expressed below, but ultimately I believe Cyphoidbomb would not misuse the tools. Cheers. -- Mojo Hand (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support see no major reason for concern. YE Pacific  Hurricane 15:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) You're not power hungry and don't seem to seek out conflict. You have some areas you seem unfamiliar with, but aren't planning to suddenly start working there if you get adminship.  So basically, I don't agree with the oppose reasons.  I'd probably have more positive things to say if I knew you better, but you seem to have been active mostly in the time when I've been inactive. — Soap — 18:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Not seeing much evidence of content creation. Good luck though with trying to keep evidence of your editing on the down low in a country that practices suppression of information. Don't think it's possible though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe content work is necessary when the candidate is a cleanup gnome type of administrator. Secret account 15:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is about someone who is patient, helpful and diligent in a certain area where admin tools would reduce time delays and improve life for users and readers. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all admins are involved in content creation. Some admins that I know, in fact, have created very few articles. Epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm one of those administrators. I've worked to improve a lot of articles (sadly, in relatively minor ways, I've never succeeded in getting anything to GA) but I've only created one article of actual substance that I can remember (and it's not a great one). I was shocked at my RfA that my lack of article creation wasn't used to oppose me; I thought my candidacy was a long shot but it didn't really come up. --  At am a  頭 18:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything can come at RfA, really. If you have a lot of content work (like me), you get opposes for other reasons. If you don't you get opposes because of lack of content work.  → Call me  Hahc  21  18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but creating content is what we are here for. I'm particular nervous about AfD work without a thorough understanding of the article creation process. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Almost all the candidate's edits seem to be negative and reactive and mostly concern the domain of children's cartoons - pages like List of Sanjay and Craig episodes.  The candidate has no content to show in Q2 and this does not seem adequate experience for a general encyclopedia. Andrew (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify further, as that statement is a borderline personal attack. Secret account 15:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, One of the reasons why I've been enjoying AWB is because it gives me another way to contribute actively than just dealing passively with disruptions. I didn't plan to get involved in all these kids' articles. I edited a few early on, tried to wrangle in some cruft, then I started reverting vandalism and helping to curtail sockpuppetry occurring in these articles. And every time I revert a sock operator's edits via the "rollback" option in Twinkle, the page gets added to my watchlist, so I kind of fell into this pattern. I'd be happy to remove all these pages from my watchlist if the community could help pick up the slack. :) But if the children's articles are considered legitimate enough for Wikipedia, than it doesn't seem reasonable that we would frown upon users for helping to maintain these legitimate articles. WikiProject Television doesn't get a whole lot of participation or interest, so there are a lot of articles to be maintained by a small number of people. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Agreed Hawkeye7. User has created only one article.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 10:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose the candidate does great work in vandal fighting and SPI, and for that, credit where it's due. I'm very concerned though with the candidate's edits in the deletion area. In AFD, they've argued for delete 49 times and keep once. I wouldn't be worried about that balance if they were hitting the target, but last month alone, out of 7 articles they nominated for deletion, 3 were kept and 1 was merged, with editors raising concerns about the nom not doing WP:BEFORE and those are not the only incidences. Looking at others in the last six months, the candidate nominated Gqunukhwebe for deletion, again, apparently without doing WP:BEFORE, as sources are there which say exactly what the group is. Similarly in a current AFD, the candidate argues that an article has "not improved much since 2010" ... so why not fix it then? In a third case, Articles_for_deletion/Arambagh_Girls_High_School, again concerns about WP:BEFORE were raised and the candidate was pointed to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Despite that they nominated St Budeaux Foundation Church Of England Junior School for speedy deletion 3 days ago on WP:A7 grounds, even though that criteria specifically says that educational institutions are exempt (and therefore, in this case, AFD would have been better.) 11 days ago, they nominated Keshav Rai Temple for speedy deletion on WP:A1 grounds, again showing a lack of familiarity with CSD criteria. Sorry, but is it really so difficult to identify and source that? The flip side of that, is that I can't find any content which the candidate has added themselves. The only article they're credited for is Dele Jegede and that was simply a move to mainspace on behalf of another editor. I don't expect FAs and GAs galore, but I'd like an admin to show some ability at content creation if they are active at CSD and AFD. If it were possible to give this editor the tools minus the delete buttons then I'd be all for it, but the delete buttons are too important a part of an admin's arsenal to give to an editor that doesn't do WP:BEFORE and doesn't seem familiar with basic CSD criteria. Valenciano (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points about article deletion nominations. I will certainly hold myself to a higher standard in the future. I clearly screwed up on the school AfDs and that is something unlikely to happen again, as I now get the point. Part of my mistake was not manually adding the AfD to my watchlist, as this is not something Twinkle does automatically. With regard to other AfDs, in one case, I wanted to nominate List of film accents considered the worst for deletion (as of this reversion) for being pure synthesis. Rather than do that though, I floated the question by WikiProject Film, and someone else nommed it for AfD. The discussion was lively and my opinion wasn't ultimately the prevailing opinion, but at least the article was improved somewhat. I understand "AfD isn't clean-up", but in keeping with the spirit of ignore all rules if the net result is an improvement to the article, and/or to the project, then it's a rule (written or otherwise) that in that instance should have been broken. As for the AfD you refer to at Best friends forever, it's an article that I don't believe in, so I'm not sure how I could improve it. It's like having an article on "Too much information" (TMI) and attempting to say something academically significant about the concept. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that if you dig down deep enough in Twinkle's settings, you can set it to auto-add the AfD to your watchlist - I'm fairly certain mine does. Cheers, good luck. ansh 666 23:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I absolutely can't agree with using AFD as clean up under IAR. Yes, it can result in articles being improved, but it could also result in potentially viable articles being lost, throwing the baby out with the bath water so to speak. Regarding the Best friends forever AFD, the problem is not you nominating it, it's your argument of "hasn't improved much since " which I've seen you use on more than one occasion. To me that's not a valid deletion argument. "No sources have been added since 2010 *and* I've looked for them and also haven't found them" would be valid. Admins should be asking two questions when they come across any article like that: Can I find sources to make this article viable? If not, can the content be saved in some way, through merging, redirecting etc? Only when the answer to those two questions is no, should deletion then be considered. The problem is that I don't see you asking either of those questions. This was more of a reluctant oppose as I didn't see any other issues, so should this one be unsuccessful, I'll be happy to reconsider you towards the end of this year. Valenciano (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Valenciano; sorry, I don't think you're ready quite yet. Keep up your good work and come back in 12 months once you've got a better idea of how we operate. GiantSnowman 12:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I have similar concerns to those of Valenciano. Cyphoidbomb has nominated 19 articles for deletion this year. Of the 16 that have closed, five were kept or merged. AfDs such as those for Arambagh Girls High School, Lansdown, Cheltenham, Mukarrib and especially Gqunukhwebe imply that Cyphoidbomb should not be deleting articles, let alone speedily deleting.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * With Articles for deletion/Gqunukhwebe I don't think that AFD should be held against the candidate, the article is in terrible shape, he had second thoughts, and a quick Google search comes up empty. I haven't seen the other AFDs yet but 5 out of 16 is not a bad ratio Secret account 15:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Given the problems with the candidate's AfD and CSD highlighted by Axl and Valenciano, I don't believe that the candidate is ready for access to the delete button at this time, especially given the candidate's limited experience in content creation.  For the record, I do think that Carrite's Q6 is highly inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Leaky  Caldron  17:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you kindly elaborate on why you are opposing? Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone suggested that significant content work is not necessary when the candidate is a cleanup gnome type of administrator. The major problem with that notion is that the tools required - delete content and blocks for vandals - are not gnomish functions. They are hardcore Admin. tools and anyone permitted to use them needs my full confidence. Based on opposes so far, the candidate requires greater experience. Leaky  Caldron  16:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways, Secret. Either a candidate creates content and thus shows that he knows what he's doing; or he cleans up and fights vandals, and thus shows that he knows what he's doing. This candidate has created no articles and has a serious lack of understanding of the deletion criteria. I'll have to oppose at this time, regretfully, as the answers to some of the questions look good. I suggest the candidate reads up on policy and guidelines to get a firm grasp of them, establishes a better "track record" (especially at deletion matters), and soon comes back here again. Besides, I would rather have admins-to-be refrain from calling other users "nuts" or "idiots" or let on that he despises certain users and treats them only "with at least the outward signs of respect" (which is required by WP:CIVIL, AFAIK nowhere is written that it is allowed to launch personal attacks on socks, but correct me if I'm wrong). Kraxler (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Points noted, thank you. I don't despise anybody because it's not constructive. I don't think that any of us consider vandals favorably, and my use of those words was meant to relate with my peers here. I thought about removing them, but I felt that would be squirrely. I accept the rebuke, though. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Striking out despise comment. I typically equate "despise" with "hate". I don't hate anybody. However, I can't say outright that I don't hold some users' edits in contempt occasionally. I do, and I prefer to avoid those editors when possible. That's human. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per deletion work. Any admin should know that schools cannot be A7'd, and high schools are typically seen as inherently notable. It also seems that the candidate is confused about the various CSD criteria. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback, KOH. I think WP:NRV was a source of confusion for me. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". I clearly have to improve my CSD/AfD knowledge. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Cyphoidbomb joined after the "school wars" and does not realise that while no subject is inherently notable, the school warriors will find sources in order to rescue the never-ending succession of crap articles on schools. Admittedly these sources will often be directories and local newspaper space-fillers, but that has never mattered. You'd have to be at least seven years a Wikipedian to remember the time when we finally gave up on trying to hold the schools to anything like normal Wikipedia standards. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I hate to pile on but the WP:AFD nominations are especially concerning as they are recent and highlight a considerable gap and understanding of Wikipedia policy. I was surprised at how many would have been avoided if WP:OUTCOMES and WP:BEFORE had been given due diligence. I do recognize that this candidate has left out AFD in the areas they want to work but a lot of applicable policies would crossover into maintenance tasks. Mkdw talk 22:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like the thoughtful answers and much else, but WP:BEFORE is fundamental and I'd expect any RFA candidate to have opted in to the edit counter. --Stfg (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Moved to neutral --Stfg (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but your answer to Q11 does it for me. "Pretty sure that AfDs aren't limited to 7 days"? Anybody who hangs out even briefly at AfD is familiar with relistings. Which in this case would not even be necessary, as there are 3 good "keep" !votes and the NPOV !votes, as you correctly said, are not grounds for deletion, so with 6 opinions and 3 solid arguments, this should be closed as "keep" and not relisted. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So I got the question right, but lost your vote over the colloquialism "pretty sure that"? Harsh, but I gets what I gets. I appreciate your input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. This response was the proverbial drop that swayed me. I think you need more experience with AFD and then will become a great admin, just not yet right now... --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still AFDs are supposed to last 7 days unless there is little discussion, so he technically got it "right". Secret account 14:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm moving to oppose not because of anything to do with deletion, but because of the candidates response to Oppose #9, above. The only proper way to do spi and similar problems is with total detachment. That people will be vandals is expected, and our role is to remove the material, not blame them.  DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi may I please request recent examples of vandal repair and SPI work where I have gotten in too deep emotionally? Here are some of my regulars: 1, 2, 3, (these three are the same operator, but different reports, but he's my most prolific operator) 4 is unique. So is 5. I respectfully object to your opposition as stated above. It appears you're simultaneously criticizing my anti-vandal and SPI work, and suggesting that I should pretend to not have emotions not only when dealing with vandals, but also when expressing myself during a process that's asking me a bunch of questions about who I am. When dealing with socks and vandals, I handle the problems without irritation or backlash because I don't like to feed trolls. If in this eviscerating RFA process I'm expected to pretend that I have no feeling whatsoever about vandals and sock operators, I respectfully think that's an unreasonable reason to oppose my nomination. The professional manner in which I deal with them can and should be scrutinized. If you'd like me to put on my mask and tell everybody what I think they'd want to hear, sans personality, I can do that, but it's not genuine, and I don't think that is the sort of administrator that you'd really grow to trust. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I understand that you do it in all honesty to try to clarify comments and expand on certain things, answering all or almost all oppose votes is not a good thing.  → Call me  Hahc  21  04:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A counter-intuitive rule, but okay. Please, someone ping me if there are any other questions I need to answer. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, and I don't mind if you do, but many users do mind and oppose for that reason only. I'd prefer not to see your RfA fail just because of that.  → Call me  Hahc  21  15:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahc, in general, I agree with you. In this case, however,  Cyphoidbomb has revealed a lot about how he think and interacts with others, which I think as a whole is positive. We'll just have to see how others view it. I am One of Many (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. My opposition is on two counts. First is the issues related to the deletion, highlighted by some of the opposing !voters and second is based on the comments candidate made to opposing !voters. Salih  ( talk ) 18:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean he shouldn't be polite and show willingness to learn, and seek clarification on points? Peridon (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't mean that. To me it appeared that his comments are a mild form of badgering and badgering is the last quality I would like to see in a potential admin. Salih  ( talk ) 19:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When RfA candidates just don't comment, there are objections raised that they are not willing to discuss things. Catch 22. Peridon (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Regrettably per Kraxler and King of Hearts and Spades.  The candidate's nom looks more like an "Gnome of the year" award which the candidate might very well be.  But it's well established that candidates for admin tools need experience in admin related areas.  Gnoming isnt an admin area.  King points out that their knowledge of deletion policy is questionable.--v/r - TP 19:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * His particular type of gnoming, in areas like SPI is a must for adminship. Also I see no evidence he's going to use the tools for deletion related areas. Secret account 14:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose – You're a good editor, Cyphoidbomb, and I feel that you can get the admin tools sometime in the near future. As your supporters say, you are a net positive to this project. However, per the issues outlined above (e.g. the issues with your knowledge of the deletion policy, as well as your mostly gnomish edits), I regretfully place my opposition vote. I suggest that you try again in six months; in the meantime, keep using your rollback tool to fight vandalism. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Lack of content contributions and some poor recent deletion work suggest this editor is not yet ready for adminship. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I have concerns about the user's knowledge of the deletion process. He recently nominated a school for speedy deletion under A7, which is quite clearly contrary to the policy (and even bolded in the policy).  I also have concerns about the user's activity at AFD; too many of his delete !votes have been made on AFDs where the consensus ended up being to keep the article for me to be comfortable giving him the admin role at this time.  That being said, I could see myself supporting the user in the future. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The candidate clearly does valuable work regarding vandalism and sockpuppetry but I wonder whether this has led to a rather too negative view towards editors and editing in general. Particularly in the area of article deletion, the approach should be one of curation and not plain deletion. A weak understanding of the relevant policies, if it were coupled with a poor view of editors, might not be very appropriate. However, I am sure that with more practice Cyphoidbomb will be handle these matters well in future. Thincat (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Thincat, you may want to sign your comment. ansh666 09:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, I did mean to but I forgot. Thank you. Thincat (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) VERY Strong Oppose Cyphoidbomb can be very huffy and likes to expect people to set things the way s/he thinks they should go. S/He also like accusing people, such as me, of disrupting Wikipedia, when in fact, all we are doing is helping. I think he is absouloutley no where near the admin level. The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "accusing people", it'd be helpful if you'd be able to provide some diffs to back yours up. Connormah (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - This opposition should be ignored. I have recently accused TDFan2006 of being a sockpuppet of FanforClarl. This is a user who could potentially do good and consistent work, but hasn't been swayed yet to stick to the light side. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I also am concerned about his knowledge of some policies and lack of content creation. United States Man (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The answer to #4 included, "I understand 'AfD isn't clean-up', but in keeping with the spirit of ignore all rules if the net result is an improvement to the article, and/or to the project, then it's a rule (written or otherwise) that in that instance should have been broken... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) ".  While there are other issues here, the point is that this is the viewpoint of a newbie at AfD.  There are several elements in this discussion that indicate the candidate is a constructive editor, but hasn't broadened his Wiki-interests and experience.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Too many concerns. Kraxler elucidates some of them very well, but there are also too many other very valid concerns for me to support at this time - sorry. The badgering didn't help, either, although not all of that is the candidate's direct fault - I'd probably have stayed neutral without that. Begoon &thinsp; talk  18:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I still don't understand what "badgering", or "minor form of badgering" I am alleged to have committed here. Most of my responses were in agreement with points raised about AfDs, and I think I only openly objected once to how a user was coloring my sockpuppet/vandal work. If that was it, that's a far cry from badgering; that's a run-of-the-mill disagreement. Obviously I don't get your vote, but I'm confused since you brought it up too. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral I think both sides make excellent points, but I could easily be swayed to either side. buffbills7701 14:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Inclined to support – On the one hand, the candidate seems experienced and fit to be an admin, due to anti-vandalism editing. However, the opposing editors also make some good points—there has been very little content creation (not very important) and a lack of understanding in deletion criteria (very important). So, I will have to vote neutrally here. Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait a little You are not quite ready but I think you'll be a good admin, a nd I can't bring myself to actually oppose. . The problem is that working as an admin potentially involves dealing with all areas, and though there isn't one of us who knows how to do everything properly, there are some basic areas, such as deletion,  which are so likely to occur (and especially in vandal fighting) that every admin is expected to understand the basics, because bad decision here can cost us not only an article, but an editor.  I also don't see evidence of work with copyvio,which is a similarly unavoidable area. (I don't particularly like doing the necessary investigations and dealing with it myself, but I've had to learn.)  Some people think article writing is essential also, not just to tell good work from bad, but in order to receive the inevitable criticism and thus learn from experience how what one says will affect others. I've sometimes said that, but I think I see in your answers that you already do know very well how to deal properly with beginners, so that aspect does not trouble me. But doing some will certainly help the next time around. The way to learn how to do deletions is not just to see what happens to your own nominations, but to comment on others, To see in a concentrated way the difficult cases, the best places  to hang  around are Deletion Review and WT:CSD.   DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appreciate your thoughts. I'm not sure what specifically you mean by "I also don't see evidence of work with copyvio", as many of the new articles I've patrolled have contained copyvios. I've dealt with copyvios in the world of Bollywood films a bunch of times. I've had some trouble with articles like List of M.I. High episodes, where much of what is submitted on a regular basis is copypasta from a main site. I've asked WikiProject TV for help going through the existing content to help fix it, but as I'm not terribly charismatic, I haven't been able to drum up enough support to fix all of it, and since I've never seen the series, it's a daunting challenge to tackle on my own. I worked on getting r4rating.com blacklisted after I identified his site as a content gobbler who would steal from various sources without attribution, including Wikipedia, then inject his site back into Wikipedia and cite his stolen content site as a reliable source. Or there were these edits at Barbie: Life in the Dreamhouse where I actually forced myself to watch the shorts so I could present summaries that weren't clear copyvios of the official website--FML! And it's difficult to demonstrate to the community the breadth of my interest and contributions when I have also donated a ton of time to articles destined for the garbage. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, but you still need experience on deletion policy.  DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes! :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved to oppose, because of additional problems.  DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - (moved from oppose) there may still be a way to go on deletions, but Cyphoidbomb does listen to people and make an effort to accommodate views other than his own, and I see much else to like. I hope he will become an admin before too long, whether of not it's this time round. --Stfg (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Here's an example of the real-world application of the criticism I've received. More to come. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral While we need more admins focused on counter-vandalism, the rationales of Kraxler and Leaky caldron give me pause. I'm curious to know if the candidate thinks themselves a deletionist but that wouldn't resolve the criticisms levied. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:32, 26 March 2014 (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.