Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyclonebiskit 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Cyclonebiskit[edit]

Final (121/12/9); ended 21:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC) - closed as successful. WJBscribe (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) – I feel rather bullish nominating myself, but with declining activity in my areas of expertise (so to speak) I feel it necessary. I've been a member of the site for about 7.5 years now (8.5 if you include an older account that I've long since abandoned after forgetting the password) and take part in the meteorological aspect of this great encyclopedia. My main activities consist of maintaining and updating tropical cyclone related articles (WP:WPTC) and to a lesser degree, tornado-related articles (WP:SEVERE). During my time here, I've written (or co-written) a total of 23 featured article/lists and 157 good articles. More recently, I've taken a greater interest in deterring vandals on the site and this serves as the main basis of proceeding with the adminship request. Since this will undoubtedly come up, my previous RfA was just over 6 years ago (April 2009) and at a time when I was very much in the learning stage of what Wikipedia truly is. I look forward to hearing comments/insight from people here as I move to further better myself as an editor of Wiki. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: For the most part, I intend to focus on WP:RVAN. It's an area where I feel my decisions are reasonable and best utilized. I'm not opposed to moving into other realms where additional hands are needed, but I would definitely need to read up on them to feel comfortable doing so.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: From an encyclopedic standpoint, I would say my best contributions are the expansion of lesser-known tropical cyclones. Some of these systems require extensive research to uncover the complete story and bringing that story into the hands of everyone is something I take great joy in.
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: As is often the case of being active in current events, I have definitely run into stressful situations over the years. At the time of my previous RfA, my methods to deal with this were rather crude and sometimes problematic. But in years since then, I've found that taking a step back from situations and even taking a day off to process things is the best way to handle it for me. Coming back with a clear mind proves incredibly beneficial and allows me to appropriately process information I would have otherwise arrogantly ignored. That's not to say this happens often, though. In my experience, a simple message in an edit summary solves issues more often than not. I've known other members of WP:WPTC for quite some time so we'll chat about any issues we disagree on freely, but with newer editors a calm discussion on a talk page suffices. Going forward, I feel this method will remain my primary means of avoiding stress on the site; however, additional interaction with newer members is probably necessary.
Additional question from Samwalton9
4. How important do you think it is for administrators to communicate effectively with users asking them for help or otherwise posting on their talk page?
A: It's of significant importance, especially when users are asking for help, as it paves the way to bettering the site. The more informed users there are, the better content can become. Wikipedia is as much of an encyclopedia as it is a community. Proper communication is a core feature that allows the site to function properly. As for general comments on one's talk page, it's dependent upon the content. Sometimes it could just be a little note of thanks or a simple edit request which don't necessitate a response.
Additional question from Jo-Jo Eumerus
5. Judging by your edit history, you are almost exclusively a content creator (creating, expanding articles and bringing them up to GA/FA/DYK/this sort of stuff class) with little work in administrator areas. If this RfA is successful, do you plan or expect to change this?
A: I'd likely gradually work my way into administrator activity, generally observing how things are dealt with in realms such as deletion and blocking before trying it out for myself. It wouldn't be an immediate jump into admin roles in the least but I definitely plan on becoming more active in this part of the site.
Additional question from Brustopher
6. In your answer to q.3 you mention that you would read up and prepare before acting in backlogged admin areas where you have little experience. How do you plan to prepare? Feel free to use WP:CfD (currently backlogged) as an example if you think it will help.
A: Using WP:CfD, as suggested, I'd first become more acquainted with specifics the deletion policies (along with WP:GD). I already understand the basics of deletion, but to feel more comfortable making arguably permanent decisions for the site I would like to be decently versed in the policies behind it. The second part would be to review previous nominations that have already closed and see the rationale behind why they were kept, merged, or deleted. Following that, it comes down to the specifics of each proposed deletion and the role being taken (discussion or closing the nomination). Discussing it is pretty straightforward so I don't feel like the need to expand on that, but if requested I will. As for closing a nomination, it's dependent upon the prior discussion by other users. If a reasonable consensus isn't met, requesting additional input from relevant users would be helpful. In some cases, it may require research of my own to determine whether or not to close something but that would generally be a last resort in a contested situation.
Putting this practical use would involve checking through the backlog itself and first checking for older nominations that have reasonable consensus, such as Spiritual Mediums from July 2. There's a 4-1 consensus to merge (including the nominator), with the opposing person bringing up WP:SMALLCAT. The categories are inherently limited and many countries do not even have an article to fit into a similarly named category. In this instance, "upmerging" all of them as the nominator suggested would be the reasonable decision to me.
Additional question from Swarm
7. As we all know, adminship is not merely a reward for one's content contributions. Your given reasoning for requesting the tools is, "...with declining activity in my areas of expertise (so to speak) I feel it necessary." Can you clarify what exactly you mean by this and how you think the tools will benefit you in your "areas of expertise"?
A: Simply put, older editors in the tropical cyclone and severe weather pages are not around as much. Reasons are varied and personal, but bottom line is that less experienced editors are increasingly present with little guidance. With the older editors less active, it paves way for vandals to sneak in a lot easier. Newer users likely are not following the thousands of pages within the scope of the project and don't always know how to handle them appropriately. This is where the community aspect that I brought up in q.4 comes into play. When I first started out, I was uncertain of what to do at times but frequently saw certain users appearing. I felt uncomfortable approaching random administrators for help but I saw that two frequent editors of tropical cyclones, Juliancolton and Hurricanehink, were also admins. Having something to relate to them with, I was more comfortable talking with them and seeking help. They provided me with considerable guidance over the years and that's something I would like to emulate with other users myself. Hopefully I'm not sounding too arrogant here. The admin aspect of this may seem inconsequential, but it adds and air of authority (regardless of whether or not it's true) which makes consulting them for help more desirable.
On a more selfish note, having the admin tools allows for easier editing on my part. It'll allow me to freely move/delete categories and pages as need be. The additional aspect of being able to quickly protect articles from persistent vandalism without requesting assistance is quite desirable.
Additional question from Cyphoidbomb
8. Hi Cyclonebiskit, I don't know that we've had too many interactions. Your article creation record is awesome and I'm grateful for your contributions, because article creation is not my strong suit, and somebody's got to bring a brain to this project! (Thankfully, it needn't be me...) Some of the questions above seem to center on how you will help in administrative capacities. As a wikignome, I have a two part question: 1) How do you feel that having the mop will benefit you in your daily editing life? I notice you don't have much participation in the SPI arena for instance, but I haven't poked through your entire edit history, so I'd like to know what tools you are specifically interested in acquiring, and how you will employ them in your daily editing. 2) Many editors feel that adminship is a job promotion once you've worked hard enough as a regular editor. What are your thoughts on this? (Edit conflict, I notice my questions are similar to Swarm's, so please feel free to summarize those here, if you answered more thoughtfully to Swarm's query.)
A: Always a pleasure to meet new people and I'm flattered by your kind words. First question seems straightforward enough. My reasoning for requesting the admin tools are both selfless and selfish (as is probably the case with just about everyone who has applied for adminship). Foremost, it'll allow me to more swiftly handle instances of prolonged vandalism in which the user requires blocking or a targeted page needs protecting. With only two admins semi-present in the tropical cyclone realm, having another mop on deck (well, a mop on deck) will keep things cleaner. From the more selfish aspect, the tools would allow me to contribute to wiki at an elevated capacity. It streamlines some of the rocky areas, general housekeeping especially, and makes the experience easier.
Your second question appears rather loaded. ;) I feel like I'll be walking through a mine field on this one but there's no reason for me to BS my way through this. I don't mean to sound arrogant and entitled here, but it could very well come off that way. Short answer is yes, I do believe long-term, dedicated editors should be able to acquire the tools even without extensive experience in admin-specific areas. If a long-time editor has proven to have the project's best interests in mind and is trustworthy, there's no real reason to not allow them access to tools that will streamline their editing process. WP:NETPOSITIVE is often brought up in this regard. What I've gathered from other administrators is that the tools aren't necessarily as dangerous as some make them out to be. Of course, in the hands of someone with malicious intent they can wreck havoc. But in the hands of a content creator only seeking to improve the site, I fail to see a downside in providing them access to the tools. I firmly believe Wikipedia to be a community of content creators foremost, and they carry the true meaning of the site: to share knowledge with the world. To provide a cliché and quote Jimbo in WP:PURPOSE: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." The bureaucratic aspect comes second to the spread of knowledge and that's what I wish to promote. Yes it requires the minds of people with the know-how to maintain order, but it also requires the minds of those who embody the site to make sure that when order needs to be kept it's in the site's best interests. It's impossible to run a company without people who know what the company is about. To give a prominent example that's close to home for me, the late Satoru Iwata, former president and CEO of Nintendo, is so highly regarded universally because of his background in game development. He knew exactly what his employees worked on, the mechanics behind it, and could relate to them on a personal level. It's that connection to what you administer that will propel the site in a positive direction.
Question from User:Drmies
9. Let's chat about deletion a bit: I like to think that AfDs can give an indication of a candidate's knowledge of policy but, more importantly, their judgment--whether they have any, whether they have common sense, etc. Even if you don't intend to work in the area (you don't say that you are interested in it), it will still be helpful for us to see what you think. I grabbed two AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Air Charters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Romano. Can you give us an idea of how you'd close these, if you had to? Thanks.
A: A quick glance at the votes (at the time of writing this) on Island Air Charters shows 3-2 (including nominator) in small favor of keeping and for Jerry Romano it's 4-1 (including nominator) in favor of deleting. The latter appears to have reached a consensus on deletion, with strong, policy-based arguments outlined by Bearian, so that would be the route to follow. Before proceeding with deletion I would add a question if it's reasonable to, instead, redirect the article to New York Emmy Awards, which appears to be his only source of notability. As for Island Air Charters, no consensus has been reached yet so it should be left open until a consensus is met or the seven day deletion period expires on August 8. The nominator brought up WP:GNG and WP:CORP as reasoning for deletion; however, following work by CHCBOY, it appears to meet WP:GNG even if just barely. It's worth noting it does fail the primary criteria of WP:CORP as its only notability is through notoriety. If no consensus is met by August 8, the article is kept as per normal procedure. If consensus appears close by that time, I may also opt to relist it on AfD to allow for continued discussion.
Let me just add that I should have supplied a time stamp: when I asked the question the last vote in both AfDs hadn't been cast, so they were a bit closer before you got to them. Time and AfD participation messed up my attempt to mess you up a bit, haha--thanks for your answer. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from BU Rob13
10. You recently made an AIV report related to vandalism on 2010 Pacific typhoon season, an article you've edited in the past. If you were an administrator, would you have blocked that user or would you have taken some other action? Please interpret WP:INVOLVED in your answer.
A: The context of my reports with the article and user and question are important to understanding why I did so. This particular vandal had a history of block evasion, utilizing 15 different IPs over the course of 6 weeks, with a distinct base IP (which has since been range blocked temporarily) so I had no qualms calling it vandalism. The edits occurred after the recent release of a previous block and indicated the user had no intentions of ceasing their disruptive actions. I would indeed have blocked the user myself given the same series of events. I do not feel WP:INVOLVED applies to this situation in the sense that I should not act as there was no dispute of content, it was simple vandalism. The problem with determining it to be vandalism is that many administrators are not versed in meteorology and could overlook seemingly minor numeric changes. I've expanded upon the value brought up a bit more in the following question. A prominent issue with tropical cyclone articles is false numeric changes, something that people not interested in meteorology don't pick up on easily. My involvement with the article allowed me to easily identify malicious editing and act to stop it from continuing.
11. In light of sources such as the Unisys archive, do you still consider the edit you reported to be vandalism? If so, do you consider it obvious vandalism in the sense of the notice at the top of WP:AIV? Would you report it again if the situation repeated itself?
A: I didn't notice you posed the question here at first and replied to your comments directly, but I'll reiterate them here. Yes, I would still consider it vandalism in the context that it occurred. The linked JMA advisory through Unisys is not at this storm's peak. WP:WPTC tries to keep a record of all tropical cyclone advisories for referencing purposes (Talk:2010 Pacific typhoon season/October covers Megi's advisories). An archived advisory shows it at 885 mb. The best tracks also state 885 mb. There is no reason to assume that someone interested in tropical cyclones would misinterpret the intensity of such a significant event. If it were to happen again with a different IP, I would proceed as normal: revert the edit assuming good faith and warn the user about adding un-sourced content.
12. Not to beat a dead horse, but I have a quick follow-up. How would you have reacted to this edit if it had included as a reference the URL I provided? Please offer what you would have done both as a non-administrator and as an administrator, if they differ. ~ RobTalk 05:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: If the link given was provided as a reference to change the pressure, a revert would still be done but I wouldn't have a reason to assume malicious intent. It would show good faith in the edit and I would provide a brief explanation why it was reverted in an edit summary. If necessary, a message on the user's or article's talk page explaining the peak intensity would be made, using the same links given in q.11. In the context of the same IP, it would show an intent to improve the site rather than continue to intentionally introduce factual errors. No difference in action would be made as an admin or non-admin in this situation.
Additional question from Dirtlawyer1
13. Hey, Cyclonebiskit. This is going to be a friendly question. Honest. No tricks. No hidden agenda. I'm not the first discussion participant to observe that your record is long on quality content work, but short on project administrative work. That said, I think it is important that other discussion participants get a better sense of who you are and what motivates you. In particular, can you tell us -- apart from your desire to preserve Wikipedia's tropical cyclone and weather-related content -- why you want to be an administrator? Can you give several examples? Take your time with this one -- no rush. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: I believe my reasons for wanting to become an administrator are exemplified in my responses to Swarm and Cyphoidbomb (questions 7 and 8, respectively) as well as expanded upon in the answers to questions 10–12 by BU Rob13. If further explanation is required, I need a more specific type of question to pinpoint what you're looking for.
Additional question from Ritchie333
14. A brand new user creates an article, reading "ross on wye weather station is on walford road". What do you do?
A: The first action would be to see if the user provided reliable sources indicating the importance of the weather station in question. Despite the questionable sounding name, it would then need to be checked against WP:GNG to see if it can be kept as a standalone article. Stemming from my mistakes in a prior situation similar to this (brought up Cryptic in his oppose), contacting the user directly as to why he/she created the article would come next. Depending on the results, the article will either be kept (likely renamed to a less clunky title, such as "Ross on Wye weather station") or proposed for deleted as non-notable. WP:CSD is an option but without a physical example of an article, I can't safely make such a claim. There's nothing off the top of my head that it could be merged/redirected to so deletion would be the only other option.
Follow up - what CSD criteria would you use, and why? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, as I've already suggested, I would need to review the page article, its history, and its creator's editing history, though as always, CSD is not my preferred first choice. If I am to make an assumption on the supposed content of the hypothetical article, WP:CSD A1 may apply as it seemingly lacks context to establish the topic's notability. If the user expresses genuine interest in contributing in good faith, moving the page to their user space is another alternative as a simple piece about a weather station is quite unlikely to garner much controversy.
Additional question from Carrite
15. You mention having maintained a previous account but having lost the password. What was the name of this account? Have you ever edited under any other account name besides that? Carrite (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: My old account was User:Hurricanewatcher, which I used from February 28, 2007, until January 20, 2008. For convenience of people reading this, I started using "Cyclonebiskit" on February 19, 2008, so there was no overlap of account usage. I'm aware of the ramifications of WP:SOCK. Aside from that account, I've never used a secondary username. I may have accidentally edited without logging in once or twice but I use this account exclusively.
Additional question from Dennis Brown
16 Looking at your previous RFA and current activities, there are some obvious voids in experience. This is ok, but I have to ask that if you became admin, would you be willing to spend the time to actually learn the other areas, to improve yourself as admin? Such as over a year, closing a dozen AFDs, work WP:RFPP a bit, maybe patrol WP:CFD and/or WP:MFD a few times a month. Things outside your comfort area that would make you useful all around as an admin. A willingness to do some things that aren't your "favorite activity" but help the project.
A: In all honesty, if promoted, I do not foresee myself diving into the adminship roles immediately. As you've mentioned, my experience in certain technical areas is limited, but those same areas are unlikely to benefit from my "help" if I don't take time to test the waters. Despite my lack of hands-on experience, which has been a core point of opposition, my extended tenure on the site has certainly provided me with ample experience on the front lines. I'm confident in my understanding of Wikipedia's core policies and how to enforce them appropriately. Some of the prior questions had me dabble with AfD and I feel they serve as reasonable examples of how I'd deal with such situations. I'll note that my intentions have been discussed in response to several other questions, but if you haven't found the sort of insight you were looking for, I'll be happy to clarify any uncertainties.
Additional question from Irondome
17. Looking at your talk pages, I do not see a great deal of interaction with other editors who have commented there. Can you run us through any reasons that there may be for this?
A: For the most part I make replies directly on the other user's talk pages so they get a notification that I've replied. It's a way to ensure that people who may not be taking advantage of their watchlist see my response. I could ping them, yes, but I haven't gotten into the habit of that just yet since it's a relatively new feature. The most recent example of this is my brief interaction with The Anonymous Macaw. The message left on my page appears unanswered and with a second comment, but the reply is on the other user's talk page (linked to their username).

That clears that up for me. I suspected that you made use of other colleagues' T/P's. Many of the comments on your T/P by others appear to be of the nature of a conversation that is proceeding elsewhere. Irondome (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Liz
18. You're getting quite a lot of questions but I have one more. In your answer to Question 7, you state On a more selfish note, having the admin tools allows for easier editing on my part. It'll allow me to freely move/delete categories and pages as need be. Would these moves and deletions occur outside the normal AfD, CfD and RM processes of determining editor consensus? Thanks in advance for your answer.
A: It was more of a general statement rather than "I can ignore standard procedure" type thing. I meant it in regards to general housekeeping and non-controversial aspects. The most prominent aspect is the ability to freely move pages. From time to time, tropical cyclones get reclassified or retired, and their page name requires a move to another page that's been redirected or otherwise has an edit history preventing a standard move. Of course, as I've brought up many times before, I will not be acting with the admin tools immediately should I be promoted, rather I'll be taking it slow and ease my way into using them. Anything that requires discussion will be sent for debate at the appropriate page.
Additional question from Callanecc
19. Given your lack of experience in adminy type areas, including AIV which is the area you mentioned in Q1, I'd like to get an idea of how you'd handle some AIV reports. So for the following could you please indicate what you'd do if they were reported after their most recent edit (for example block for x time, decline due to x):
Arber 99 (talk · contribs) –
2602:306:8380:A950:F0FB:EA51:BA20:F067 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
24.235.45.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Durr-e-shehwar (talk · contribs)
AKASH K. LALL (talk · contribs) (what you can't see is that they've created 5 encyclopedia-inappropriate cut and paste copyvios over a day and a bit)
A:
Arber 99 (talk · contribs) – Decline the report. Although their editing has not been constructive, adequate warning was not given prior to being reported. Coupled with the user only having a handful of edits, jumping to a block is not necessary.
2602:306:8380:A950:F0FB:EA51:BA20:F067 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – Block for 24 hours for abusing editing privileges (vandalism after level 4 warning). No mention of prior incidents so there's no reason to believe this to be more than a passing troll and 24 hours should suffice.
24.235.45.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – Block for a week (not to just simply copy what actually happened, though). Clear vandal with a history of long-term abuse (vandalism/inappropriate usage of humor) and level 4 warning given. From what I've gathered in observing AIV, block durations generally increase exponentially, depending upon the person issuing them of course. Although a week is a large jump from the first block of 31 hours, the user shows no sign of ceasing their non-constructive ways and a longer block is warranted.
Durr-e-shehwar (talk · contribs) – Decline the report. User shows clear signs of wanting to discuss the topic in their edit summaries whereas the reporter appears to have ignored (or not noticed) a message to continue discussion on the article's talk page. Prior editing history shows a desire to improve the site as well.
AKASH K. LALL (talk · contribs) – As a preface, I would much prefer to see the user's activity and the content of the deleted pages myself in order to properly assess how to handle this. Although the "ruling" by MusikAnimal was to decline the report on the basis of assuming good faith, I'd be more inclined to temporarily block the user (24 hours for starters). There are no indications that the user attempted to start up discussion, as shown by a lack of edits on another user's talk page or their own, and they were advised numerous times about copyright violation issues. They showed a clear disregard for the warnings they received.
20. I usually don't ask this but for the same reason in Q19 I'd like to get an idea of how you'd respond to something which I've dealt with (with a couple little changes):
An IP editor (with no previous edits) changes the wind speeds in an article about a cyclone and adds a number of supporting sources. However there is a consensus on the talk page to use the original figures and sources; you contributed to the discussion in the RfC which led to the consensus. Acting with this consensus, a user uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and leaves the IP the {{uw-vandalism2}} warning (just the template by itself). The IP user very civilly asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted their edits.

After an hour of no response, the IP user undid the rollback and reverted the article back to their edit. The same user rollbacks again, and leaves a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding the IP reverts back to their edit again. The user rollbacks again and leaves a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning and the IP reverts again and says that the user hasn't responded to them in their edit summary. The user rollbacks again then reports the IP to WP:AIV for "vandalism after final warning".

You see the request at AIV; outline the steps you would take, and the reasons why. Also, if you hadn't contributed to the RfC would your actions be different?

A: The target point here seems to be how I'd handle a case where I'm definitely involved and conflict of interest is possible. The content of the dispute aside, this is a clear instance of the reporter abusing rollbacker rights. The IP user showed good faith and was potentially unaware of the RfC. As you've outlined in your scenario, the IP made several attempts to start (unknowingly restart) a discussion whereas the rollbacker simply ignored them. Revoke rollbacker status immediately, only to be restored after several months of constructive editing, and warn the reporter about abusing their privileges accordingly. Actions thereafter are dependent upon the reliability of the sources brought up by the IP, and whether or not they were also used in the RfC discussion. Directing the IP user to the RfC itself would also be preferable.
If I were not involved in the RfC, the rollerbacker rights would still be revoked, but it would necessitate more interaction with the reporter to understand why they were so insistent on reverting good faith edits as vandalism.
Additional question from Kudpung
21. I don't usually ask questions at RfA. I've voted on nearly 300, this is probably only the 3rd time I've posed one. It's completely optional, if you don't feel like answering it or don't have time, feel free to ignore it - you have my vote already, and I have said below that I feel that there are already too many questions here. It looks as if your RfA will conclude as sucessful, if it does, will you be prepared to support the system that got you here by voting on the RfAs of future candidates (whichever way you vote is not the concern)? Thank you in advance.
A: This seems straightforward so no reason for me not to answer. I definitely plan on partaking in future RfAs of other users. It would be rather conceited of me to not do so. Reading over and digesting all the comments from users here, as well as on a few other RfAs, has given me an idea of what's generally expected from potential admin candidates. Of course everyone has their own personal reasons for supporting or opposing individuals, and I've already started garnering my own ideas of what I would look for. Probably best I stop myself here so I don't go off rambling, I think you were really just looking for a yes/no type answer. If you were looking for more feel free to ask.
Thank you, Cyclonebiskit. I was looking for a simple yes/no but your answer is perfect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  • I'd just like to post my thoughts on the WP:INVOLVED issue, which seems to be giving a few people cause for concern. That particular chunk of policy says "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." Fair enough. It also says "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Question #20 presents a case of clear rollback abuse, in which an editor uses the rollback tool multiple times to revert a well-meaning IP going against the decision of a recently held RfC. The rollbacker ignores inquiries from the new user and reports them at AIV. Cyclonebiskit, who has assumed the role of a participant in the RfC, indicated he would deny the AIV request and revoke the registered user's rollback rights, as instructed by the WP:ROLLBACK guideline.

    I hold it true that any reasonable administrator would have certainly come to the same conclusion. Cyclonebiskit is not said to be having an war on the article in question, and indeed, the abusive rollbacker is trying to preserve the result of the RfC (presumably closed by a third-party admin or editor in good-standing). There's no real dispute. Given all this, I don't think candidate's plan of action violates the spirit of WP:INVOLVED.

    I'm the first person to agree that the mere perception of COI is as much to be avoided as anything, and to that end it might well be preferable to defer to another admin in the situation outlined in Q20. It would certainly be easier to wait for someone else to clear up the issue than to have to justify actions that flirt with WP:INVOLVED. Still, in the context of an RfA—especially when you're 20-some questions deep—it's easy to get "cornered" into writing answers that sound better in theory than in practice.

    DGG' and Randykitty's comments gave me pause, but after reviewing some of the comments in the lower 1/3 of this page, I can't find any evidence that Cyclonebiskit has used rollback, Twinkle, or any other editing utility to benefit his side of a dispute. With that in mind, I'm satisfied that we have no reason to be concerned. Since I've already supported this RfA and have already responded to a couple other comments, I didn't want to post this in the oppose section and give the impression of badgering. Still, I'd like to hear any thoughts on whether my assessment makes sense. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think your assessment is a fair one. The response to Q20 is obviously incorrect and it is certainly possible that Cyclonebiskit believes it to be a reasonable one. But, equally, perhaps they were just overthinking things. Either way, this is the sort of thing that an admin will fairly quickly figure out as being inappropriate so I'm not worried. --regentspark (comment) 00:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support This editor has a significant number of edits over a sensible range of areas within Wikipedia, and has been here for several years with a clean block log. Knowledge of precedures and policies appears to be wholly acceptable. The previous failed RfA was, of course, many years ago and is in my opinion not relevant. I see no problem with this editor. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support - His tenure speaks for itself. Also, referring to the opposer, I'm sure Cyclonebiskit has enough sense to be able to identify blatant vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support upgrading from Weak Support in the previous RFA. Six years on at least one of the oppose rationales last time is now moot. ϢereSpielChequers 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support per the above. Clueful, trustworthy and well-rounded editor who has been a great asset to this project. Wants to start at AIV and is willing to ease into the role and will only branch out only when they become comfortable and knowledgeable enough to do so. I'm confident this candidate will easily make a responsible and trusted administrator. Despite the focus on content, the candidate appears to easily meet all of my RfA criteria, including the prerequisite for demonstrating anti-vandalism experience. Swarm ♠ 22:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Quite comprehensive on-wiki experience over many years. Deryck C. 23:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support after looking at deleted content, this user has not been creating content that gets the chop. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jianhui67 T★C 23:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Has Clue. The mechanics of most admin work are really, really, really not difficult. Obvious skill in research is good enough as evidence of the ability to find out what s/he doesn't already know. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, with reservations: While you just broke the 10-killstreak of the content-enthusiastic voters, and I certainly appreciate your boldness in not being behind the armor called a "nominator"; you still need much more maintenance experience. Participate in more Wikipedia-space tasks, such as deletion, protection, etc.; and continue to do so for several months before using your new admin tools - you probably already know that dramatic areas can often be more brutal than content warfare. Esquivalience t 01:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I'm glad to see you're still here after all these years with no sign of slowing down. You can definitely get a lot more things done with the tools. That said, I think your answers to the questions are surprisingly weak, especially Q1 and the answers to the questions that built on that. The most positive way I can read your answer to Q1 is that you won't go anywhere you're not comfortable with, and that is a good quality for an admin to have. I trust you enough to still support despite not a lot of experience at AIV/RFAN as of yet. —Soap— 01:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Candidate is trustworthy and competent, as exhibited through content work, and is exactly what I look for in a candidate. I'm sure if I combed his content work thoroughly I could find occasional mistakes, as we all make mistakes... and he will make mistakes as an admin, as all admins do... but on the whole this candidate is a credit to the project. Bonus points for choosing to self nominate. Townlake (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good long term contributor, not afraid to self criticise. I have confidence will take things slowly, and will use the tools correctly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  13. Support. Main focus on content shows that he knows what WP is all about. Being entrusted with the rollbacker userright, he clearly knows how to identify vandalism, and thus having him working at AIV would be a net positive. Although his answer to Q5 may be off-putting to some, I actually quite like it, as it shows he is willing to take things slow and steady in order to find the best route, rather than just jumping into a situation without background. Even hif he doesn't plan on using the tools often, they're still useful for content creators in situations such as when a page on your watchlist needs protection or a page move needs to be done over a redirect. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Reaffirming my support in light of the answer to Q20. I do not believe such an action violates WP:INVOLVED, as the policy states: "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." I believe the situation laid out is such a case. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - A content creator that has been active in a specific area would tend to be impartial when dealing with administrative tasks related to topics with which he is unfamiliar. For example, since this candidate has focused on cyclones, he would be very impartial in managing AfD discussions, and other areas where controversy or contentiousness is focused. He would bring new eyes to old problems.
      Bfpage |leave a message  02:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Trustworthy and experienced candidate. If he can put together 20+ FAs and 150+ GAs, I don't think he'll have that hard a time learning how to use the extra buttons. INeverCry 02:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. This is somewhat tentative at the moment, but I'm going to AGF and support Cyclonebiskit's candidacy. He doesn't fully meets my expectation of significant participation in at least one major admin area, but his absolutely prolific amounts of recognized content (something I can only dream of) rather well compensates for that deficiency. I'm sure that, if he does become an admin, he'll be willing to learn and will make cautious choices. I do think, however, that he should have requested a nomination from someone else. I'm sure someone like Casliber would have been happy to do so, given his statement that he believes in content creators becoming admins. --Biblioworm 02:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Competent and amicable. Excellent content creator, and have little doubt that he has a good grasp of policy. Might I remind that not too long ago—by which I mean, of course, seven years ago—to hand users the mop even if they had little need of them, on basis of their content-creating merits and exercise of good judgment alone? Cloudchased (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strongly support, as I have every confidence in the candidate's abilities and judgement. I've worked with Cyclonebiskit on a multitude of projects over the past six or seven years, and have never been anything less than impressed with his focus, collaborative nature, and attention to detail. This is a user willing to spend countless hours painstakingly scrutinizing Wikipedia's lists of recent tornadoes just to ensure that our weather coverage is the best in the business. He's a perfectionist, and has played a large role in making Wikipedia a better place. On that we can all readily agree.

    There's already some concern about the user's lack of experience in the technical side of the project, and I get the feeling he was well-aware it might become an issue. To echo Opabinia regalis above, and to paraphrase a Queensland Rail safety campaign, adminship is super simple stuff. We like to pretend we're heroes, deflecting daily death threats, navigating sticky BLP situations, and generally reigning over the wiki, but the vast majority of admins use their tools only casually, chipping in as they see fit. If you're a slow reader, it might take a day to review our core policies (though I like to believe eight years of content-creation engenders a far deeper understanding of how Wikipedia works than a few RfA-inspired cram sessions). Getting your admin legs takes a bit more time and effort, but the wiki-vigilantes are always more than happy to point out our errors; I don't believe a well-meaning admin can cause much damage at all. There's a learning curve, of course, but nothing that a user with 200-some pieces of recognized content can't figure out in rapid course.

    To address the oppose section, I think it's more than a bit silly to suggest that 10-15 AIV reports would make the difference for a candidate who has volunteered thousands of hours of time to building the encyclopedia. Anybody can spend half an hour browsing Recent Changes and do some drive-by reporting, but Cyclonebiskit encounters abuse the same way all content creators do: in the field, getting in the way of their work. If an editor of nearly a decade can't spot vandalism or devise an appropriate way of dealing with it, a dozen AIV reports is hardly going to help. It's also probably worth speculating that a user working on the same grind for eight years is hardly going to drop their work and delve into noticeboards for six months just to pass RfA. To withhold the tools now is to inconvenience the candidate and deny Wikipedia a trustworthy, dedicated admin—even if he doesn't go out of his way to look for trouble. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  19. Support - content creation and tenure here without serious problem is enough for me. Some material such as page protection and speedy deletions we need help with and is pretty simple to learn. Any egregious AfD closes would be protested with a Deletion Review. Overall, more than even chance will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good candidate who will carefully adapt to new admin areas. The weakness of the oppose arguments make me feel comfortable in the support section. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. --JBL (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, moved from neutral: Although I am still concerned about the lack of activity in non-admin areas, I'm reconciled by the commitment to learning new ropes gradually. Of course I urge caution in that process, but ultimately will he be a net positive with the admin tools? I now have to conclude yes. It's about time we stopped expecting admin candidates to be perfect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - a good content creator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, Hawkeye, he's not a good content creator, he's an excellent content creator in his chosen subject area. Feel free to say something complimentary, even exuberantly superlative! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Too right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - record seems good, I don't see any problems. Frankly, opposes read like they don't play the game enough, which is a feature, not a bug. WilyD 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Per Juliancolton, who speaks a heck of a lot of sense above. Daniel (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: Cyclonebiskit is an experienced editor, who I believe will grow in the admin role. Good luck and thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weakish support. Self-nomination gets extra points from me, as I do believe it shows a laudable independence. A candidate who doesn't feel the need to hide behind a nominator's skirts will hopefully also be more likely to dare act boldly, criticize a fellow admin, and the like — very good things. A clean block log is a little dubious, though. I'm only partly joking — broad experience is good, and having been to the wars is no shame — depending, naturally, on what the blocks were for. (I'm very proud of my own block log.) It's admittedly a little eerie to look at the 2009 RFA, with all the 'sorry-too-inexperienced-I'll-be-glad-to-support-when-you've-done-a-little-more-admin-type-stuff' opposes, but Juliancolton's support above convinced me. Plus we need more admins, though in your case I kind of hope you won't be a super-active admin. Admins are scarce, but they're still easier to come by than excellent content contributors. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  29. Support - After reviewing the candidates answers and contributions I feel this candidate has the experience and judgement to be an excellent administrator. Aparslet (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Seems to know what they are doing. Brustopher (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support tending towards weaker support for the candidate due to lack of experience in admin areas, however, if they've been able to navigate the FA process, I'm confident they'll quickly learn the correct use of the admin buttons. I'd thank the candidate for their good contributions so far and advise them to drive slowly when they get their license. Valenciano (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support - this is exactly the kind of person I hope to see becoming an admin: here to build the encyclopedia; not only a massive contribution in terms of articles, but also helps other editors (GA reviews etc); professional, collegiate demeanour; doesn't do drama. His research for articles shows that he has the patience to find out the real facts before jumping in. For me this makes up for the slightly low experience of some admin areas, and Q6 addresses this issue well. I have no qualms at all. --Stfg (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed my position in light of the Q20 issue, and I'll stay here. At least four admins have argued on this page that A20, while imperfect, is defensible, and I'm happy to accept that. Cyclonebiskit comes across as professional, and I don't think he's really going to take unfair advantage of the tools. DHeyward's suggestion to seek review of the action at AN seems sufficient, and I trust that Cyclonebiskit will take note of it and beware of sailing too close to the wind on INVOLVED. --Stfg (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. The candidate's self nomination was understated and thoughtful and I have no concern about their ability to perform admin functions given they have such a long history of high quality content contribution and a clean conduct record. I'm not an admin so cannot really speak with any authority on the matter but I don't think its really that difficult a job anyway. More than sure what they don't know (after 8 years OJT) they will be able to find out if / when req'd. Doesn't frequent the drama boards, file enough SPIs, or AVIs, or participate in a heap of AfDs (or any other TLAs you want to chuck in)? Hardly a reason to oppose in my book, it just means they will probably be more circumspect which is no bad thing. Anotherclown (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I don't understand RfA. A candidate willing to help in admin-related areas is opposed for not creating content, and a strong content creator is opposed for not doing adminny stuff before they have the mop. Anyway, I see no reason not to support. Miniapolis 14:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Appears level-headed and thoughtful, and has a good awareness of his own limitations. I don't consider the issues being raised by opposers as problematic. That someone chooses to focus on articles covering topics they know is surely a positive thing; likewise, a lack of experience in (insert specialist admin area) means very little to me unless the candidate has said that, or their behaviour gives an indication that, they propose to wade straight into the area in question. FWIW, as far as I can recall the total of my contributions to WP:RFPP is zero. (I don't consider a lack of WP:AIV experience a dealbreaker, even though the candidate has expressed an interest in working there. Telling the difference between a genuine vandal and a good-faith new user who just doesn't understand the rules is hardly rocket science.) – iridescent 14:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Even though a lot of the candidate's work is content creations (one doesn't exactly need admin bits for that), he appears to be knowledgeable of policy and well-tenured. Epic Genius (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I am seeing a candidate with a long, highly productive tenure, who shows clue and good emotional intelligence. Behavioural skill set seems fine. I do not believe admins are sprung on to the community fully - formed, and have confidence that the candidate will develop the experience in the areas of admin work which he has freely admitted he is lacking in with competence and the humility to ask for guidance from other admin colleagues. Irondome (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No problems, fine editor. The opposes fail to sway me. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. No big deal. —Kusma (t·c) 16:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - some concerns, yet, but outweighed by NETPOSITIVE. GiantSnowman 17:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - very strong content creator and experienced editor. Even if experience in admin related areas may be somewhat limited, I am sure that candidate's overall competence means that he can easily develop in those areas without problems.--Staberinde (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, good content creator, I see no issues that would indicate that the bit would be misused. Appears to be level-headed, helpful, and I would prefer someone who knows content and is weak on the admin/drama side than the reverse. CB should make a fine admin. GregJackP Boomer! 18:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: shows a good attitude and dedication to the encyclopedia. I've looked at their contribs and their handling of vandalism seems to be good. They don't seem to have contributed much to admin areas but the skills needed to learn new processes – and a general knowledge of the site from years of editing – are more important, in my opinion. "I would definitely need to read up on them to feel comfortable doing so" shows a level of cautiousness and care which assuages any of my doubts. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support: Candidate learned how to edit properly and will likely learn to use the mop properly. Attitude is as important as experience in getting a good admin. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support As Miniapolis mentions above, there's a bit of a double bind here; too much time at the drama boards, and your candidacy is opposed for lack of content; too much content, and it's opposed for lack of drama. I'm going to trust that after a quantity of recognized content that I can only dream of, the candidate has the good sense to take it slow and not screw up. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Cyclonebiskit is an excellent editor and I trust that he would utilize the admin tools with care, but he has done very little to show experience in admin-related areas. However, I don't think anyone comes to RFA showing experience in every possible admin area, and there are many. When I went up for RFA myself, I had significant experience at AIV, AFD and CSD, but little anywhere else. I was hesitant at first to use admin tools even in areas where I did have experience. Instead, I spent a while simply lurking in discussions and watchlisting new pages, user talk pages, and XFD discussions to see how other admins handled things (in addition of course, to reading over relevant policies multiple times). From what I'm reading in Cyclone's answers to his RFA questions, I get the impression he intends to do something similar. I honestly didn't know what I was going to !vote until I writing my comment - this very nearly wound up in the neutral section. But ultimately, I trust Cyclone. He's clearly intelligent and hard-working, and has done nothing to suggest he would intentionally misuse the tools. I believe he will be careful with them. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to restate my support for this RFA. I don't think your answer to Q20 violates the princple of "involved". It's on the edge, certainly, but administrators are free to exercise tool use on articles they frequent. In the given scenario, Cyclonebiskit has not done anything to indicate he would use tools to punish people who disagree with him, which I think is what most people are worried about when thinking of "involved". Someguy1221 (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Looks like a well rounded candidate who has a strong grasp of how we handle vandalism and vandals. RO(talk) 21:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support handling of storms --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. CB has been around for many years and is clearly not incompetent. I'm not trying to damn with faint praise. Anyone who has been around for that long, has done well on the content side of the encyclopedia, and expresses an interest in learning about the administrative side will pick things up over time. NW (Talk) 22:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - By !voting to support Cyclonebiskit, I'm doing something I rarely do: I am supporting an RfA candidate who does not have the usual mix of solid article-writing experience and demonstrated solid history in AfD, TfD, CSD and/or BLP activities that I usually expect. I do so in the belief that you already have a firm grip on subject notability given your 8+ years of quality article work, you have a steady demeanor that usually seeks to avoid controversy, and in the hope that you will take the time to absorb the policies and guidelines applicable to administrators and not over-reach early in your career when you are still learning the ropes. I would suggest that you solicit a small "mentor" committee of two or three very active and experienced administrators to help you on your journey up the learning curve. It should not be hard to find volunteer mentors -- you have eight established admins among your first 10 supporters, and plenty more down the list. Good luck, and please don't screw the pooch with your new buttons. You're being given an unusual vote of confidence by the RfA participants; please earn it with your future good work as an admin. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I think Cyclonebiskit is a clear WP:NOBIGDEAL candidate. Nothing has yet shown me they will be malicious with the bit, and I don't see a compelling reason they will abuse it; I do say to be careful of the appearance of conflicts of interest when using the tools in your area of interest, but that's true of all admins. While working on backlogs is something we need more admins for, I don't think we should have blinders on and not promote a good candidate because they won't use tools in the area we want. Whether they use the tools in backlog areas or in areas they feel comfortable, if they are using them well, I see that as a benefit to the project, and it frees admins who would want to clear backlog to do so once they don't have to worry about vandals on cyclone pages. Lastly, if the candidate did want to get involved in new areas, they have already said they would examine policy before hand to truly grasp what they are enforcing showing caution and good judgement in areas they are unfamiliar with. I have great confidence that Cyclonebiskit can be trusted with the bit. I also echo everything Dirtlawyer1 said above me. Wugapodes (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Strong content creator, no blocks, clear understanding of policy and its practical use. Extra credit for self nom. No reason to think he would misuse the tools. Minor4th 00:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. I see no reason not to trust this candidate. Cyclonebiskit is an outstanding writer and content creator, thoughtful and articulate. Answers above are well thought out. Over a long tenure, the candidate has learned how to recognize vandalism and problems and to deal with them. I am in accord with Dirtlawyer1 in that I would usually like to have seen more contributions to administrative topics but there are exceptional editors and candidates whose contributions to any area(s) over a long time show that they can be trusted, have the proper demeanor, will learn the guidelines and policies which they are not familiar with and will be careful before getting involved in new areas. Donner60 (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Suport: Obviously experienced, and it's refreshing to see an actual content creator in here instead of someone who focuses on drama. Good answers to, e.g., Qs 6, 8–12, and 19 in particular. I don't think it's plausible that the candidate does not have a good handle on WP:Notability, WP:VANDAL, WP:Civility, WP:BITE, the WP:CORE content policies, and other matters central to proper administrative approach to disputes and cleanup. Nothing I see in the oppose section is very convincing to me. It doesn't take a constant river of WP:AIV reporting to do it well. Judgement is more important than a particular focus on one administrative aspect of the site. The pledge to take it slow and cautiously is a good sign, as well. PS: As someone who studiously avoids dragging people to WP:ANI and other noticeboards to engage in psychodrama sessions, I think anyone who opposes a candidate for lack of dramaboard activity is making a mistake. We have a long, multi-stage dispute resolution process, most of it focused on finding common ground and working stuff out. A good administrator understands this, and knows that trying to muzzle people forcefully via sanctions is a last resort. A huge percent of editorial time spent at noticeboards is a bad sign for a candidate, not a good one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Has been around since Feb 2008 with 41K edits and created 191 articles a clear Net Positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. The candidate's obvious commitment to the project has been demonstrated by lengthy experience and a clear ability to work with others in order to move pagespace forward. This is a trustworthy candidate, an unusual one who has not gone too far out of their way in order to appear qualified. Sure, I'd like a mix of experience in mopping areas, but I'm not seeing any reason to oppose based on candidate's actions. It might be wise for a successful candidate to get some mentoring during the early days of adminship, but that's always a good strategy for new sysops. BusterD (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Think we need another solid candidate like this who serious content creation background. Thereandnot (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per SMcCandlish especially. I don't find the oppose arguments very convincing--the candidate has a great handle on core content policies and does not need to be sending hundreds of vandals to AIV every month to understand when a block is necessary. Per BusterD, it might be nice if they looked to some other admins they're close with in order to help them out in the early days, but I see no reason to oppose. Net positive. BenLinus1214talk 02:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Cyclonebiskit is here to build the project, and shows understanding of the general principles of Wikipedia. Sensible, careful, intelligent and self-reflecting. Answers to questions are clear and honest. I understand the motivations to become an admin, and I see them as positive. Over a long and distinguished Wikipedia career, there are no strong signs that Cyclonebiskit would abuse or misuse the tools. In a disagreement with another user over Typhoon designations, Cyclonebiskit gave clear and valid explanations for his position, and offered a compromise which was accepted. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support - I know the user very well. He is an invaluable asset in his knowledge of policy, editing, and talking with users. He can be trusted with the tools, I am sure. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I see nothing that makes me think the tools are going to be abused and am not persuaded by anything raised below. Davewild (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - A good content creator, plenty of article work (if you want to collaborate on something, Great Storm of 1987 could do with some spit and polish) and able to spot problems in articles, including recognising content he knows to be factually incorrect. I paused a bit on Q9 and Q14 but concluded "well, he doesn't quite think the same way as I do, but so what?" He'll tread carefully and use the tools in a trustworthy manner. One tip, though, don't link to WP:TLAs directly but pipe them; newbies don't understand what you're talking about otherwise! See this essay about three letter acronyms and Shadowless fists of death! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support -- See no convincing arguments to oppose. Can't see the user abusing the tools. Clearly an asset to the project. Don't see why you need to be immersed in the boards to be trusted with the bit. -- Shudde talk 07:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Experience in the range of admin areas is admittedly thin. But I don't think the candidate will be a particularly active administrator -- he is almost exclusively a content editor -- and thus my expectations of immediate proficiency in a broad range of admin areas are less than they would be for a more project-side editor. With candidacies such as these I ask myself the question "what are the chances of this going wrong?". Here, the answer is clearly "negligible". Bonus points for the self-nom. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - net positive. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support If juliancolton vouches for a weathered (pun intended!) editor, that's good enough for me. --regentspark (comment) 12:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support: I always believe that the good content creators may become good admins too, but that's not the only reason I am supporting Cyclonebiskit. I have carefully checked his contribs and edit assessments, I believe he will be a good admin.
    Please feel free to ask another admin (or someone) if you are not sure. My best wishes. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Clueful and level-headed answers to questions. shoy (reactions) 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - There is some obvious voids in his experience, but the experience he has is rock solid, his demeanor is right and I think he has plenty of old fashioned "clue". I also appreciate his answer to my question, which was less informative than it could have been, but it was direct, honest and pithy, and gives me an idea how he will handle problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support candidate has plenty of content experience but more importantly is clueful and has the right temperament. Adminship is not rocket science and I'm sure Cyclonebiskit will be just fine. Pichpich (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Nothing alarming; no reason to oppose. Widr (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Committed, experienced, evinces integrity. North of Eden (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - I am mindful of the concerns raised regarding lower levels of experience in admin related areas. The candidate's record (based on a modest review) demonstrates sufficient clue and motivation ("here to build an encyclopedia") to give me confidence that this promotion will be in the best interests of the project. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Long-term editor demonstrating a high level of cluefulness. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support – OK, I've seen enough. I generally don't like voting in RfA's for candidates with which I have no prior interactions and no prior experience. (In short: I don't hit the "weather" articles much, at all!) But this is a long-term editor with a good track record. And I find the answers to the questions solid. I can't find any firm grounds to oppose. Thus, on the basis of WP:NOBIGDEAL, and the fact that I'm quite sure this editor would be a WP:NETPOSITIVE as an Admin, I'm going to "support". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, very much for the reason that i see GraniteSand opposing: A user who is willing to take his time learning the admin functions and procedures before diving in and starting them is exactly what i view as ideal; i'd be much more worried about one who came to RfA and said, "I know how to do things; give me the tools". The excellent content creation is a super bonus, showing the candidate fully understands the purpose of the community. I trust him not to break WP as he learns sysoppery. Cheers, LindsayHello 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78. I don't see why not. Cyclonebiskit seems like a very sensible and experienced editor. No harm would come of him gaining adminship. Kurtis (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Thanks for all the hard work over the years. II | (t - c) 23:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I'm not convinced that involvement in the so-called "drama" areas of Wikipedia is necessary to be trusted with administrator tools. The candidate clearly demonstrates that they want to use the tools for the betterment of the encyclopedia, not as any sort of status position. Their current experience allows them to apply the principles of collegial editing to administrative work, and that's exactly what we need. Mz7 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support – Won't delete the main page. In fact, has made it a lot prettier! There is definitely use in having more capacity for editor guidance and content management (see q7) around the encyclopedia. I trust Cyclonebiskit in making good decisions regarding edits, as he has in the past many years. Airplaneman ✈ 05:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support – Self-nom from a mature, experienced editor gets extra points from me too and it's nice to see someone who has seen it all from the perspective of solid content creation rather than just symbolically haunting all possible meta areas to fill the gaps in our criteria. The previous RfA is so long ago that I wouldn't even demean the candidate by looking at it. Good reflected answers to far too many questions. If ever there were a kind of editor who should be given the mop by default, Cyclonebiskit would be in the front of the queue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support No big deal. Good luck. HiDrNick! 13:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - Plenty of clue.- MrX 13:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support experienced editor who focuses on quality content, and knows what the editing environment is. Any perceived shortcomings in "Adminy" areas is a definite plus here! Scr★pIronIV 14:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Potential admins don't have to 'need' the tools. They do need to be people who won't misuse them, and who know when not to use them. I've not had any interaction with this candidate, so far as I know, but I like what I see here. I've held back for this reason. Administrator is not a full-time job, and even only one or two good admin actions a year are worth the cost of supplying the mop. I think we'll see a few more than that, and with no storms (in teacups, or buckets, or on boards.) Peridon (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Staying put. Peridon (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - thoughtful responses to the questions posed here reveal an editor with a good understanding of the community and its processes and conventions, who I have no doubt will wield the mop with the same thoughtfulness. Good luck. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support: Knows good content from bad content? checkY Civil? checkY CLUEful? checkY Him having the mop a net benefit for the project? checkY Seems clear to me.
    On a side note, I'm quite fascinated that this candidate faces opposition because he is an avid content contributor and not home to the admin noticeboards as much as others (when Liz just had to endure the opposite). Apparently it's really hard to find the right balance for all !voters. As someone who got his mop back in the day when WP:NOBIGDEAL actually meant something to most people, I know that most of what an admin does is learnt after you get the mop and the community just has to decide whether they can trust the candidate to learn before they act (see A5). Also, what Peridon says: Every editor who could do just one thing with a mop once or twice a year is a net benefit to the project. Regards SoWhy 20:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - seems like a good candidate despite limited experience in admin areas. Rlendog (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Doesn't appear he will harm the project with the tools. --DHeyward (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support will explain why ASAP — Ched :  ?  01:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC) ... JC's nomination support compelled me to look at this RfA. My support is based on 1) Good tenure and contribution numbers. 2) Good answers to questions 3) Lack of interest in drama. 4) Review of April and May 2015 editing. The irony of the opposes here vs the previous RfA has already been noted elsewhere. — Ched :  ?  20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - My work with Cyclonebiskit at the tropical cyclone Wikiproject has solidified my confidence that he would make a fantastic admin. Additionally, the answers to the questions are satisfactory, and I have no other concerns. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:4I 5, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  94. Support, especially for his response to DennisBrown question. Cavarrone 11:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support- I'm not seeing a good reason why I shouldn't. Reyk YO! 12:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - likely net positive. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. I'm a little queasy about involved, but there's understanding and restraint, so everything should be good. Glrx (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Laughing a little because last candidate's opposers said they had too much admin. Opposes here are saying this one has too little. Honestly I don't see either as an indication a candidate will intentionally misuse admin tools. I don't see either as an indication that a good-faith mistake with admin tools would be repeated once pointed out. I think trying to ensure a candidate is going to do the job PERFECTLY before we give them the tools is ridiculous. For god's sake it's a VOLUNTEER POSITION and it's not brain surgery. Learning on the job ought to be okay. valereee (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - As per Peridon, even limited administrative contributions by committed contributors with a habit of exercising self-restraint are useful. --Djembayz (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support WP:100 An experienced user with good judgement. I have no doubt that they will figure out admin areas as they have with content areas. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Editing? Yep. Sound reasoning on AfDs? Check. Would some more experience in the dramaboards help? Nah - then he would not wish to be an admin <g>. Collect (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - Stfg said exactly what I wanted to. An editor who has been dedicatedly working in the main space for this long deserves to get the mop. Yash! (Y) 05:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - NQ (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support I've read the opposes and like many of them have stated, they're likely a net positive. Generally if they meet my RFA criteria, that puts me in the support column. Mkdwtalk 14:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - No obvious concerns. Also, he is a superb content creator, which is good because IMO, we need more admins dealing with content. We have too many admins that just sit at AN/ANI all day long and don't really do much to benefit the encyclopedia. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support no reason to think this editor might abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support as can't see any problems with this editor. The opposes (e.g. "not enough experience in the so-called "drama" areas of the project") don't bother me; I don't expect this editor to start wading into ANI as soon as they get the bit. DexDor (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support The last two opposes (at the time of writing this) express concern about Q20. I respectfully disagree with their conclusion, so I am adding my support. "Revoke rollbacker status immediately" is a little heavy-handed for my liking, but I do not consider it to be an "involved" admin action. This is because it is being taken against someone who presumably was "on their side" during the RFC. I do not agree with any of the other oppose rationales either, so on the basis of the candidate's history and dedication they have my full support. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. I've been on the fence about this one, but if Cyclonebiskit makes one good admin action it's a net positive. Kharkiv07 (T) 04:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Based on analysis of AIV contributions and user talk page, it appears to me there won't be issues with communication or vandal handling. And while content creation is not part of the admin job, the argument that one's large FA/GA/DYK output indicates a sound understanding of policies is persuasive; but please stick to content creation as well! As for Q20, that is without question serious misuse of rollback (to revert non-vandal edits without edit summary and to edit war), so I agree with Reaper's and Swarm's arguments there. And Heyward has a good point about the issue too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Answers to my questions is good enough to me, although I'd advice Cyclonebiskit to construe involvement a little more broadly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. The opposes below give me no reason to believe you won't be a competent admin. Calidum T|C 06:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. I believe that the candidate would be a net positive to the site as an admin. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 07:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support content creation plus no evidence they will misuse the tools.--MONGO 11:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support, fully competent and qualified editor. --Laser brain (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Yes!! --Pratyya (Hello!) 13:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support via WP:NOBIGDEAL. Plus, the oppose arguments are painfully just grasping at straws.MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 17:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support great editor. I've known him for 7 years, and their are few editors more prolific than him. He is a great reaserch when it comes to doing actual articles, and knows his subject area extremely well. Writing wise, he's done a very good job. CB has doezens of FA's, and plenty of more A class articles than can easily be an FA. No reason to deny him admit tools, based on his impressive contributions to WPTC for nearly a decade now. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  120. I nominated Cyclonebiskit back in 2009, and since then, I have watched him continue to grow as an editor. He is mature, clueful, helpful, experienced, and one of the most dedicated editors Wikipedia could hope to have. He will make an excellent addition to the admin corps. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 19:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Over six years ago I expressed (actually, I agreed with Dylan620 above) that I thought Cyclonebiskit "sounds like a good choice". I haven't changed my opinion. Acalamari 19:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak Oppose, In Q1 you mentioned that you want to work on WP:RVAN as an administrator, but a quick look at your contributions shows only ~20 reports to AIV this year, with a majority of the reports related to one IP-hopping vandal in July (17 reports). Your article work is great, but I don't see significant contributions in other admin-related areas such as WP:AFD or WP:RFPP, just to name a few. Nakon 21:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose per Nakon. I really want to support this candidate, and my gut says they would be a net asset to the sysop team, even with my conserns. That said, I need to see enough to demonstrate that they know their way around and have a sufficient grasp of policy that they are ready for the tools. This is an editor with an extremely impressive record in content creation. But I just can't pull the support trigger with such a thin record on the admin side of the project. I suspect that my reservations not withstanding, they may well pass this RfA. However, if by chance they do not, I would encourage them to spend six months focusing on Admin related tasks at AfD, SPI and RFPP. Then come back. I would almost certainly support with pleasure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking the "weak" part and moving to a straight oppose. It is quite clear that this particular train has left the station and is not coming back. That said, after rereading some of the questions and answers, as well as some of the commentary in both the support and oppose areas, I am more firmly convinced that this candidate's is not ready for the bit. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a candidate to hold a PHD in Wiki-Law or be a recognized expert in all aspects of administrative work. But some admin related experience is or should be a basic requirement for anyone seeking adminship. IMO the more or less total absence of said experience has been reflected in some of the problematic answers given and represents an insurmountable impediment to my support at this time. I bow to no one in my respect for Cyclonebiskit 2's outstanding contributions on the content side of the project. But the fact that I have been driving well for almost 40 years does not qualify me to be a traffic cop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I want to support. I really do. You write great content and you clearly have the project's best interests at heart. I looked through your deleted contributions to assess your understanding of deletion policy, though. There's not much there, and since you don't say anything about wanting to work in deletion in Q1, I'd normally shrug it off and just say to be cautious with your delete button. But the behavior in the most recent deleted edits, to the article that was eventually deleted at Instruments used to measure the maximum suistained wind in storm (after a series of a half dozen page moves), is appalling.
    Look. If you've got an article that doesn't expand meaningfully on an existing article, you can merge it, or you can redirect it (which, to your credit, I see you tried), you can prod it or can afd it or you can tag it as an A10. If the article creator just reverts you, ask an administrator to take a look at it; there's admins speedying articles 24 hours a day. But you don't redirect it six times over the course of 32 hours, and you certainly do not edit the article down to "== References == {{reflist}} == External links ==" and then add a "{{db-nocontent}}" to the top. Not even if the page consists entirely of WP:OR nonsense, which to all appearances it did. I'd be interested to know whether Tokyogirl79 saw the article's history before she deleted it. —Cryptic 23:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This was one of those moments where I should have definitely stepped back for some time, certainly not in disagreement that my actions were improper. I do wish to make one clarification though: at no point did I "edit the article down". The user who created and subsequently recreated the page multiple times gradually reduced the amount of content in the restored article. When they failed to add any information in their final move, that's when I brought it to AfD. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. My apologies. The deleted history page's interface is significantly less polished than the normal history page, and I misread a diff. I'm still opposing because of the repeated, rapid-fire redirects, but not nearly so strongly. —Cryptic 23:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Ad Orientum. While undoubtedly an outstanding content creator, I'm just not seeing enough experience in the administrative areas of the project. Only 2% of your contributions this year are to the Wikipedia namespace for example, and includes content focused pages in the namespace as well as administrative ones. That I can see only one edit to WP:AN/I and none to WP:AN in your last 1000 contributions means there is nothing to look at to evaluate how well you interact in such spaces and in relation to the topics that administrators deal with. I can find no examples of your interpreting policy and opining on matters related to user conduct, your last 5 contributions to AfD span 3 years, the only other XfD you have contributions to is TfD where you seem to have expressed a total of 3 opinions since 2013 - all related to tropical cyclones. Get some experience in the administrative side of the project over the next 9-12 months and if you are still interested run again and I hope to be able to support. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but staying away from drama is bad? He creates content, which is what we are here for, or at least I thought it was, and the mop is supposed to be WP:NOBIGDEAL. Do you have any reason to believe that he would abuse the tools? Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @GregJackP: being an admin is nothing to do with creating content - the skills are very different. Being an admin is all about supporting the people who create content, by identifying and removing vandals, by mediating disputes, by interpreting policy so that good content is kept and inappropriate content is removed. Adminship is not a badge or reward for work well done, it is a set of tools that you need to use with judgement and discretion in accordance with the rules and policies. I want prospective admins to show understanding of what the admin role involves, and I want to see evidence of them participating in areas where they interpret policies and exercise judgement - there is no such evidence. I don't think Cyclonebiskit will deliberately abuse the tools, but I have absolutely nowhere near sufficient evidence to make a judgement about whether they would use them competently or incompetently - and an incompetent admin is just as bad for the project as a deliberately abusive one. There are too few active admins as it is so it is unfair to ask those that are to spend their time cleaning up after a fellow administrator who does not understand their role (and an admin can make a much bigger mess than a normal editor can). Adminship must not be seen as a reward for creating good content because it requires different skills and removes good content creators from creating content. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand my position on content creation and adminship. Getting the bit is not a reward for creating content, but the lack of content creation serves as a valid gatekeeper before one evaluates other issues. I don't see the same value in spending time at the drama boards for determining what their character is like, but I understand that under the current system, that is what most editors want to see. Thanks for the response. GregJackP Boomer! 16:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The skills are not very different. There is actually a huge overlap between the too. Content creation involves the interpretation and understanding of our policies and guidelines as some of the purely administrative tasks, and often more. It constantly involves the judgement and discretion in accordance with the rules and policies. It does not remove content creators from the content creation process. The toolset is very useful for content creation, and access improves their productivity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly my point. You have to be able to work nicely with others to go through a GA, peer review, FA process. You have to be able to demonstrate that you understand the policy on articles, on BLP, on RS, on V, etc., ad nauseum. But that's not the typical way to become an admin, so people want to see the drama boards, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 00:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite baffled by this oppose. Wikipedia is content. It's a valid concern if a potential admin is unaware of content and content creation. But the reverse is not true. Trusted, long term content creators use the tools to streamline content creation. This is very similar to the differences between a technical person and a talent recruiter in a technical company. The recruiter's job is to find talent. Ultimately, the technical people conduct the interviews and make hiring decisions. A technical person can be plugged into the recruiter role and it is unlikely they will recommend unqualified candidates and being technical can only help them, even if they lack the people skills to recruit a high number of them. They won't actively damage the company. The same is not true of a recruiter that lacks the technical history. Recruiters can do damage despite excellent people skills if they lack the knowledge to evaluate talent. A non-content admin is very much like the "recruiter". They must overcome the lack of content creation to be effective and not a net negative in the admin role - it is a much greater risk that they will use the tools in a way that is detrimental to the project because of their lack of experience with the main obhjective. A content creator, however, is already proficient in the objectives of wikipedia. It is very rare they will damage the project with the bit. The major risk is they simply won't use it enough. The hurdle for the non-content admin ("recruiter") is that they must be successful at identifying value in an area they lack expertise. The hurdle for the content admin ("technical person") is to generate enough volume of admin actions after getting the bit. --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose A5 is the inverse of what I want to see. First you dip your toe in the admin side of things and demonstrate you understand how it works and how to navigate that world and then you request the tools, not the other way around. Do that and I see no reason why I wouldn't support a new candidacy in 6 to 12 months, or less. Also, I'd like to add an earnest thank you for all the work you do. If Wikipedia still had a higher proportion of editors like you it would be a much better place. GraniteSand (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose Stated area of interest is WP:AIV, but as Nakon pointed out, you've made very few reports there. Additionally, I've found no reports at all this year outside your topic area. Similarly, your history at WP:AfD appears to be almost exclusively related to your area of interest, and very small as well. My biggest concern is that you've expressed no ability to make decisions in areas of content that you are not knowledgeable, which is something an administrator must do on a regular basis. You've also expressed interest in using your admin tools specifically within your area of interest, despite the fact that you are likely WP:INVOLVED with many of those articles. I certainly have no problem with you reverting obvious vandalism in areas you're involved with, but I see no reason to grant the admin toolkit to someone who has expressed no interest in using it outside of their area of involvement. (struck in response to A10-12) You are clearly a very skilled content creator, and I'd like to thank you for your efforts there. (moved to neutral) ~ RobTalk 03:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If Cyclonebiskit already had two Admins who were active in his or her editing area, Cyclonebiskit may not have even needed to hit WP:AIV very often themselves, as one of the two Admins may have already dispatched the vandals in question before even needing to go to WP:AIV. Just an observation... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That would have left them with no AIV reports whatsoever, which is more-or-less my concern. With 10-15 AIV reports outside their subject area and a history of AfD participation (or other participation in similar discussions) outside their subject area, I would not have opposed. ~ RobTalk 03:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would require them to spend a significant amount of time doing vandalism patrol rather than important content work to accrue 10-15 AIV reports. What difference would that make? Vandalism is vandalism, it doesn't matter what subject area it occurs in, the editor is focused primarily on one subject area, that doesn't make their AIV reports any less valid. 30+ AIV reports is more than enough to establish competence, IMO, period. Second, I'm sorry but I'm afraid you're mistaken on policy here. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the routine use of administrator tools in an article that one is "involved" in editing. WP:INVOLVED prevents administrators from using the tools in disputes which they are involved in. Violations are considered abuse and can result in desysopping. Do you have anything to suggest that Cyclone can not be trusted to handle disputes properly and would likely commit such an abusive action with the tools? Third, the user has clearly expressed interest in using the tools outside of their area of involvement, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. They merely say that they would ease into the role and gradually branch out. This is literally the best approach a new admin can take. Swarm ♠ 04:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By expressed interest, I'm talking about action, not words. They have taken no actions related to administrator tasks outside of their area of interest up to this point, at least not that I've been able to find. As for involvement, that may have been a somewhat poor cite because I do not believe they would do anything outright abusive. To give an example of what I mean, one of their AIV reports ([1]) was related to 2010 Pacific typhoon season, an article they've edited several times in substantial ways. The edits they reported were not obvious vandalism (see: [2]). Actually, certain sources appear to support the higher number, such as the Unisys archive. I wouldn't consider this vandalism at all, now that I look at it more closely, and certainly not obvious vandalism that I would expect an administrator who had edited the article substantially to block. Based on the way Cyclonebiskit has worded their answers to questions and the self-nomination, it seems to me these are the types of situations they're interested in using administrator tools in. I'll pose this as a question for clarification in a few minutes, in case I've misunderstood his intent. ~ RobTalk 04:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to the IP vandal in question, there was no reason for me to assume good faith of an IP with a history of block evasion and vandalism. To someone outside the realm of meteorology it doesn't seem like vandalism, but the operational and final reports are very clear that the intensity was 885 mb, not 895 mb. The linked JMA advisory through Unisys is not at this storm's peak. WP:WPTC tries to keep a record of all tropical cyclone advisories for referencing purposes (Talk:2010 Pacific typhoon season/October covers Megi's advisories). An archived advisory shows it at 885 mb. The best tracks also state 885 mb. Un-sourced numeric changes are inherently questionable and considered disruptive, and when conducted by someone with a bad history and no signs of trying to improve themselves I think it's safe to call it vandalism. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose for a week I suppose - I am perplexed. After reading Cyclonebiskit's first RFA I'm seeing nearly identical opposition. Candidates on a second or subsequent RFA should expect that !voting participants will look at the earlier RFAs to see if the advice given was adopted by the admin hopeful, and to ensure they have overcome the shortfalls which caused the earlier RFA not to succeed. This is a first for me but I'll base my opposition on Juliancolton's 10 April 2009 rationale.--John Cline (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    John Cline, I'm perplexed too. You're opposing based on the 2009 oppose rationale of a very strong 2015 supporter? I don't get it. --Stfg (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Julian is a Strong Support at #18 above. Basing an oppose on a 2009 rationale that the writer doesn't believe is accurate today is misleading and stupid. John, you're trying way too hard to be clever here. Townlake (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reassess my !vote and either revise my rationale or vacate my opposition all together. It is a weak oppose and in fairness to the candidate, a knee jerk response at best; at worst, a manifestation of stupidity. I suppose smart money is doubling down on the latter. For now, I need to step away before I actually say something wise.--John Cline (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness to John, it's a weak oppose, and it probably doesn't deserve references to anyone's intelligence, Townlake. Samsara 17:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I called the action stupid, not the person. I stand behind my comment. Townlake (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Stubbornness about the wording choice makes it less not more likely that anyone will interpret it as needlessly uncivil. Calling someone's action stupid is no less a comment on the editor; there's not really even a veil.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool signature, buddy. Townlake (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very meowch.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well played, Garfield. Townlake (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have stricken the portions of my comment that gave birth to confusion. Nevertheless, I remain opposed because I did read Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cyclonebiskit and I do not see an inkling of the advice given there to have been adopted by the candidate. Cyclonebiskit's intransigence has resulted in the emergence of nearly identical opposition in this RFA. You quite literally could copy-paste the entire oppose section of RFA1 to the oppose section of this RFA and the comments would be entirely valid. This alone is the basis of my !vote. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose An excellent content creator obviously, very collegial and a very effective communicator by all measures... but not enough experience in the so-called "drama" areas of the project which is where policies and guidelines (and their nuances) are soaked up and understood. While some RFAs have been opposed based on the lack of content creation, I feel it's safer to let a non-content creator get the bits and give them time to work on content, than give the bits to a content creator with not enough admin-y "drama" experience. Nevertheless, my thanks to Cyclonebiskit for all they do here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Nice to want to help out in AIV, but knowing so little about the rest of admin work that you "would definitely need to read up on them to feel comfortable doing so" is not acceptable to me. I expect RfA candidates to know their way around admin-related work in general, and the applicable policies as a whole, and to have experience in the related areas of the site. We don't give out the admin tools piecemeal, for one area only. If you are not well versed and well rounded in admin tasks, come back when you are. Wanting to block vandals is an insufficient rationale for wanting adminship, in my opinion. Just report them at AIV (or, alternatively, directly to an admin whose main focus is that), and let admins take care of them. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. OpposeI do believe that Cyclonebiskit is a wonderful contributor who makes excellent content creations but I do not believe that adminiship is a reward for content creation. Nakon's oppose contains valid reasons but I do believe that he would remain an excellent editor and work harder and gain the community trust. If he wants to just block vandals then it is insufficient. He should focus on the other sections which are important --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Nakon, Ad Orientem, Free Range Frog, Softlavender and others. I always want admin candidates to have enough content-creation experience so they know and understand what the needs and problems of content creators are, so in this respect the candidate has an excellent background. However, as has been said above, admin work is primarily a different kind of beast altogether, involving knowledge of policy, the ability to understand both the obvious and the undercurrents of disputes, and, more than anything else, common sense. (Too many of our admins are lacking in common sense, and it shows in their admin work.) Given the candidate's lack of experience in admin-related areas, I'm going to have to oppose. I would have thought that they would have spent more time between their last RfA and this one working in those areas, and I'm doubtful about the extent of on the job learning that would be needed were the candidate to be promoted (which at this time seems likely). I could see supporting this candidate in a future RfA if they were to spend some time rectifying their deficiencies, but I can't do so at this time. BMK (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC) On second thought, I don't really care one way or the other. BMK (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Reconsidered again. BMK (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Too green and seems to want to use admin tools to facilitate editing his topics of interest, which would be contrary to WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Editing his topics of interest" is against policy? 41,000 edits over 8 years is "green"?! Goodness me. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When virtually none of the 41000 edits is in an admin related area, yes, that's "green." Content creation, no matter how impressive, is not the sole qualification for adminship. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think that's how "green" works. The administrative side of the project does not exist in a vacuum: it's all part of the same website that the candidate has been building for the better part of a decade. I won't try to argue with claims that Cyclonebiskit boasts something of an unbalanced editing history, but "green" is every bit of an insult. Anyway, Andrew's "rote articles" bit below this speaks for itself, so thanks to all for the responses. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate is mainly concerned with cranking out rote articles about tropical storms, right? Those are too routine for my taste but there still seems to be significant controversy for those that care -- the naming, units, &c. The candidate wants to use admin tools to do things to these articles that he can't currently. He also indicates that he regards admins as superior editors who have more clout in content matters by virtue of their status. This is not the no-big-deal model of adminship; the humble janitor who just keeps the place tidy. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: It seems you're misinterpreting one of my statements. I don't actually hold admins in higher regard than content creators. This is what I stated in response to one of the questions: The admin aspect of this may seem inconsequential, but it adds and air of authority (regardless of whether or not it's true) which makes consulting them for help more desirable. "Air of authority" means that they look like they're able to take charge of situations, not that they're above others. This statement is also in the context of a new editor who knows very little about the site, and as a rule of thumb someone who is an "administrator" has a higher level of authority (granted this is not necessarily true for Wikipedia). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll make a note of this again since apparently people don't like to read policies before referring to them: intending "to use the tools to facilitate editing his topics of interest" is not at all contrary to WP:INVOLVED. WP:INVOLVED is the clause that prohibits admins from using the tools in any disputes they are party to (e.g. blocking an editor they're edit warring with, closing an AfD they've voted in, unblocking themselves, etc.) Administrators are entirely allowed and entrusted to use the tools in the course of content work they're involved in. As for "too green", well...the allegation that someone who's 1200 edits away from being considered a {{Master Editor}} is too inexperienced for an RfA is, if you'll forgive my expression, nothing short of utter absurdity. Swarm ♠ 06:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read WP:INVOLVED quite carefully and, in particular, considered the sentence "Involvement is generally construed very broadly ... to include ... disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." to support my position. Like janitors and security guards, admins are supposed to be menials, not management. Their use of privileged tools should be within tight guidelines and subject to oversight. Using the tools to unilaterally override obstacles to ordinary editing for a topic of interest is therefore not proper. As for {{Master Editor}} status — that's just a grandiose way of styling an edit count, right? That is a weak measure of experience and, in any case, the candidate has yet to attain that level. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quoted the word "disputes" above and so was well aware of it. Functions which are restricted to admins tend to be inherently disputatious; that's why they are restricted. For example, the candidate says above, "having the admin tools allows for easier editing on my part. It'll allow me to freely move/delete categories and pages as need be." Deleting categories and pages created by other editors is naturally controversial and so that's why we have the XfD processes. These tools are not meant to be used "freely" and the candidate does not seem to understand this sufficiently. My impression is that the candidate is so deeply involved in weather-related topics that they might assume that they know best and so ride roughshod over other editors working in this area. Andrew D. (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Very strong Oppose on the basis of the answer to Q20 . The candidate actually says he would take admin action in an area he recognizes as being involved in, over a matter in which he has specifically participated in the discussion. Given that this is the considered response after the question was raised previously in the discussion, I read this as an open and admitted intention to violate policy. There is more than one admin at WP, and no one of us need think we individually must deal with every situation. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC) It is possible that I have misinterpreted--see comments below DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Erhmm, what? Unless I'm misreading something, WP:INVOLVED allows people to take admin action in the event of blatant abuse, including rollback abuse, which is the case for Q20. If somebody's going around randomly rolling back good faith contributions as vandalism and refusing to discuss, that's textbook rollback abuse and pretty much any reasonable admin would revoke it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'd be shocked at how many admins would separate the rollbacker abuse from the RfC. The rote answer is not to act with a broad "involved" determination/interpreation. Practically, many admins would revoke and then post their actions for scrutiny on AN. Absent a direct conflict with the rollbacker on that particular issue, admins claim "uninvolved." He didn't give the rote answer but he did give the answer that's practiced. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Reaper. What? Sure, if this were an ordinary edit war or content dispute we are talking about, of course it would not be appropriate to intervene as an administrator. However, the question does not pose a content dispute in which he's involved, it poses blatant tool abuse taking place within a content dispute. The dispute does not at all factor into the tool abuse and vice versa. It requires clear and straightforward action and would certainly be endorsed by the community upon review. I would do the exact same thing and would definitely not consider it to be a violation of policy. The candidate understands that we have flexible rules and would not be prevented from doing the right thing over some stupid procedural concern. I could not have hoped for a more clueful answer. Swarm ♠ 18:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, absolutely. I intended to sit this one out but then saw DGG's !vote and read the answer to Q20 again. INVOLVED has been an issue throughout this RfA, more or less, but this is blatant. The candidate indeed says that he would consider themselves involved, yet would act as an admin. DGG is absolutely right. In my view, this answer disqualifies the candidate completely. Great content work, but not ready to be an admin yet. Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hesitantly: I see DHeyward's point and in the same situation I would not necessarily have considered myself involved. However, I note that it was the candidate themselves saying they thought themselves to be involved. When involved it is always better not to the use the tools. Placing a carefully-worded comment/warning on the rollbacker's talk page could have stopped the edit warring and given time to another admin to intervene, if necessary. I find it also strange that the candidate argues that should they not have been involved more interaction with the rollbacker would have been needed. Involved or not, when using the tools you need to explain yourself. Anyway, going back to sitting this one out like I originally intended... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that answer is absolutely on point and only further strengthens my support for them. As Reaper says, that's a straightforward, correct action that any admin would take and would almost certainly be endorsed by the community upon review. WP:INVOLVED is meant to prevent abuse of the tools. The question presents an interesting scenario but one in which using the tools could not remotely be considered to be an act of intentional abuse. Process merely for the sake of process is discouraged by WP:BUREAUCRACY. Swarm ♠ 17:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Cyclonebiskit is a great editor with many valuable contributions. However I am not convinced that Cyclonebiskit will use the admin tools. He has relatively few contributions in admin-related areas. This application looks more like hat-collecting. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
I think Cyclonebiskit is a great content creator, but Nakon's oppose above contains valid concerns, and I am a strong believer that adminship is not a reward for purely content creation. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)moved to support[reply]
I do believe that Cyclonebiskit is a wonderful contributor who makes excellent content creations but I do not believe that adminiship is a reward for content creation. Nakon's oppose contains valid reasons but I do believe that he would remain an excellent editor and work harder and gain the community trust --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits)00:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)moved to oppose[reply]
  1. As much as I like Cyclonebiskit, especially after seeing his work on Satoru Iwata‎, I'm not too certain there's enough reason to give him the bit at this time. Though that might change later in the RfA. GamerPro64 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't have much more than moral support to offer right now, but I want to thank you anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked more, and may change my mind after Cyclonebiskit gets to my and a few other questions, but the lack of specifically administrativy edits (like, to AfD, ANI, AN, CSD) make it difficult for me to assess Cyclonebiskit's temperament and judgment as an administrator. Basically, you suffer from having stayed away from those contentious and sometimes chatty areas, which is great for you as an editor. An answer to Dirtlawyer1 and Dennis Brown's questions above could, if this does not succeed, pave the way for a more successful one. All the best. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking is the lack of being at ANI, etc, is evidence of temperament. He strikes me as the kind of content contributor that would instinctively use the tools the way they create content: no controversy, highly productive. I simply don't see harm from giving non-controversial content creators access to tools that will help them. Editors that live at ANI with no content history might warrant scrutiny for potentially giving out bad blocks or poor dispute resolution. I find that pure content creators generally stay in their lane and use the tools to fix the obstacles to creating good content. There are multiple Wikipedia's and creating a technical article, specifically, brings in a lot of high edit-count veterans that no one on the boards has heard of. Pretending they need more experience kind of misses this "other world." Tropical cyclones are on the boundary of hot button topics like Global Warming and if he has the instinct to have avoided ANI, AE, ArbCom and every other drama related to that - well, that pretty much makes him the most savvy editor and/or admin here. Newyorkbrad should be envious of these skills. --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Has a clean block log and experience but contributes mainly in weather related articles. If you become administrator, then take care of administrative backlog.--Aero Slicer 05:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm sympathising more with the oppose voters rationales regarding lack of experience in admin-related areas at the moment. I also, and apologies that my question was somewhat veiled in this regard, have some hesitation about their communication (or lack thereof) with other editors. Unless I'm missing something a huge number of messages and questions on their talk page appear to have gone unanswered, even friendly questions from new editors, which doesn't leave the best of impressions. Sam Walton (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Juliancolton, among others, have persuaded me against the oppose votes, but I still have concerns about communication. I'll make sure to conduct a proper review before the end of this request. Sam Walton (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Communication doesn't seem to be a major issue but I haven't got around to a full review. Sam Walton (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - I'm going to sit here for now, with WMF's horribly broken toolserver broken again, it would seem. Clearly adequate tenure, adequate edits, and no indications of assholery, which is about 7/8 of what I need to see... However, I do want to take a look at the trends and won-loss record at AfD before giving the big thumbs up. I will mention, as an aside, that I'm not exactly sure why this content writer needs tools: "I hope to learn more about Admn stuff and to start doing some of it" seems to be where the nominee is coming from. That seems a little bit cart-before-horse to me, but this is pretty much a classic "Adminsip Is No Big Deal" candidate, to my way of thinking, unless some real lack of competence at AfD emerges. Carrite (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carrite: You might find an AfD record from this URL. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning support - will research further as time permits. — Ched :  ?  15:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC) - will stop back later tonight to support. — Ched :  ?  20:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Cyclonebiskit clearly has a good record of content creation and improvement, which ticks a necessary box for me. However, adminship is not a training school - those promoted should already know their way around the relevant areas. Admitting (Q6) that they need to become "more acquainted with specifics the deletion policies (sic)" is not a good indication of readiness, nor is 23 contributions at AfD in the past 8 years. I also don't believe that the candidate has sufficient experience with AIV/CSD. I'd say 6-9 months of solid work in these areas would be a minimum before I could offer support, along with moves to address the communication issues Sam raises above.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Mainly per Carrite and Sam Walton. AfD isn't as much of a concern to me as the points SW mentions. Intothatdarkness 17:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral (moved from oppose) Upon doing some reflecting on the RfA process in general, I need to swing further towards WP:NOBIGDEAL. I have absolutely no reason to believe the candidate will use the admin tools in a malicious manner, and they clearly understand policy very well. At the same time, I cannot support given the lack of experience in administrator-related tasks, especially when restricting their experience to outside their area of interest. In the probable event that this RfA succeeds, I'd recommend caution (which I'm sure the candidate will exercise anyway) and possibly a mentor. ~ RobTalk 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reluctant oppose Moving to neutral pending answer question Moving to support: I was all set to support, almost obviously support, given the experience, but I can't get past 'On a more selfish note, having the admin tools allows for easier editing on my part. It'll allow me to freely move/delete categories and pages as need be.' That's absolutely not what adminship is for. Admins still need to go through normal consensus processes like WP:CFD and WP:RM.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't speak for the candidate themselves, but I'm assuming that this largely refers to CSD G6 deletions, as WP:WPTC has a minefield of redirects and many current/former members of the project often work on articles in userspace before moving them to mainspace. Cloudchased (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish, just to verify, did you see the candidate's clarification of that statement in answer #18? – Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I'd missed it. It's a sufficient answer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - No doubt about it they're a great content creator and I don't think they'd abuse the tools at all but they've not really participated in any admin areas at all except AIV, I can't support giving someone in essence a "Delete button" if there last AFD participation was in June 2014, If the RFA is unsuccessful I obviously suggest they focus on admin areas (IE AFD, CSD etc), Good luck anyway. –Davey2010Talk 19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cyclonebiskit_2&oldid=1158847916"