Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2

Regarding second follow-up to Q4
I know the question's not directed at me, but I'll chip in and give one example. User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report is a popular page that is transcluded in lots of places, most obviously WP:RFA, WT:RFA and WP:BN. It's such a useful and widely-used template, that it really should be in project space, and given the transclusions it would be appropriate to at least put template protection on it. Since I don't believe we have any policy or process to grant TE permissions to bots, would need an adminbot's level of trust to be able to operate. Frankly, that report has probably only avoided vandalism by obscurity and pure chance - I believe an IP could wander in off the street and replace the template with a "colourful" image on Commons, for example (and no, I haven't tried it). Indeed, looking through the logs I see that has had a pretty good go at vandalising it, putting nonsense on one of the most widely-viewed project pages in the whole of the site. Oops. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please diffuse the potential drama here and remove this. I have asked the CANDIDATE a specific follow question under MY question. Your interjection is no help at all Leaky  Caldron  15:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved comment here. Also, I've semi-protected that highly-visible page, I'm surprised it hadn't been done already. –xenotalk 16:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I just thought it was a bit more of a reason to support Cyberpower than simply writing "hell yeah" or "I thought he already was one" in the "support" section, 'tis all. After having run through the manual procedure to withdraw an RfA and log it all the right places, it would be quite nice for Cyberbot to do that automatically, too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Insofar as it is relevant to anything, the above has nothing to do with you answering my follow-up question to the candidate when you are neither the candidate or nominator. I thought it was a damn impertinent thing to do and I am grateful that it was hastily 'crat. removed. Please stay out of my RfA questions in future - or find a more suitable place to add your 2p. Thanks. Leaky Caldron  10:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment seems both unduly harsh and a bit disingenous. Ritchie made a perfectly apt response to your follow up question that was relevant to both the admin bit and admin bots. Now, it wasn't his place to do so in the actual question but rather a general comment and a ping would have been more appropriate. Actually it did serve the intended purpose and has given me a reason to support the candidate. Cheers Ritchie333. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * my questions are intended to influence no one but myself. You are quite correct,it wasn't his place to do so in the actual question but rather a general comment and a ping would have been more appropriate. but that isn't what happened. Hence my message, which you mistakenly describe as unduly harsh and a bit disingenuous. I really don't think that this is the place to be questioning my honesty, do you? Leaky  Caldron  11:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am aware of what happened, I'm not suggesting you're lying about the events as they happened. You could have asked them to move their comment without the bitter language don't you think; e.g. Your interjection is no help at all. It did help me for one after all. As for disingenous; you described Ritchie's response as unrelated to anything, when it was clearly related to the actual question. Not so much deliberate or intentional dishonesty as much as not accurate even if somewhat speculative on Ritchie's part. The question being; [H]ow does being an Admin help as far as your BOT work is concerned? and the response by Ritchie333 being an example of where admin tools might allow the candidate to improve upon the existing groundwork that they have already laid down. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Disingenuous does mean dishonest. No point beating around that particular WP:AGF violation. What I said was neither intentional lying or inaccurate. The bit I was referring to above: "I just thought it was a bit more of a reason to support Cyberpower than simply writing "hell yeah" or "I thought he already was one" in the "support" section, 'tis all." made no sense to me 2 days ago and still doesn't. Leaky  Caldron  13:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Suffice it to say I meant "not truthful" rather than "calculated lying". Poor choice to use disingenous which declares deliberate motive to deceive. AGF as you say. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What is not making sense? If I simply wrote "Support thought he already was one" in the "support" section, it doesn't carry much weight to the crats if they have to weight up the views expressed in the votes to get a consensus, and doesn't give much reason for people not to vote oppose if they want to. Pointing out a specific case study where it would have been very useful for Cyberpower678 to have the tools appears to be helpful to many people - indeed, this RfA has a far higher ratio of support / oppose than I predicted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You had already indicated support 3 days earlier - #30. What your further support comment has got to do with anything in relation to my question to the candidate is beyond me. If you do it again to my questions in RfA I'll delete it. End of. As for Mr rudedude, rnddude, this issue was settled last night in a talk page discussion so why you see fit to raise it here with thinly veiled PA, I don't know. I suggest that this section is quickly moved to TP please - and for me - hatted. Leaky  Caldron  16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I apologize for questioning your motives and calling you disingenuous. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)