Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (42/10/4); Scheduled to end 05:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional question from Mkdw

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

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

Additional question from Ritchie333

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

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

Additional question from Ritchie333

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

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

Additional question from Ceradon

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

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

Additional question from Kraxler

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

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

Additional questions from SNUGGUMS

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

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

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

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

Additional question from TheMagikCow

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

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

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

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

    Staying where I am. If he's made use of existing unspotted copyvio material, he's no worse than others (including established admins) who have reverted to copyvios, or moved copyvios to better titles, or corrected the grammar in them. Do YOU check every bit of text to see if it's somewgere on Google? Peridon (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support I see no reason not to support this candidate. I may change my mind if a convincing reason to oppose is presented. Chillum 14:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support: their AfD work seems okay but what seems to be much more important (given their nom statement and Q1 answer) is that their vandal-fighting work is brilliant and could become even more helpful to the project if they were given admin tools. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support, don't see any major issues with the candidate's work. Nakon 17:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
19. Absolutely – I've been highly impressed with Cyphoidbomb's conduct and judgement in my various Reviewer activities. Also liked what I've seen from him at ANI (and elsewhere). I feel he's completely qualified. (Aside: If Cyphoidbomb can't make it through an RfA, I'll feel like no one can!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support A long time asset to the project which will increase with the tools. Huon's statement is also pertinent to my support. MarnetteD|Talk 17:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - Cyphoidbomb is a Good Egg with no history of problems and plenty of on-wiki experience. I remind everyone that administratorship was never intended to be a big deal, and we should stop trying to make it so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - I have worked with Cyphoidbomb at the TV project and they consistently use their knowledge of Wikipedia to collaborate with others and make the project, and the entire site, all the better. They are more than deserving to add adminship privileges to their repertoire. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support: GAs and FAs are essentially just trophies and for bragging rights (with the exception of Today's featured article). I don't deem admins fit because they have ten, five, or even one circle(s) or star(s) of bling. Just because one hasn't hit paywalls doesn't mean that they'll blow up the encyclopedia; it's ones who have little participation in maintaining the encyclopedia who probably will with the mop. I'm willing to give prolific counter-vandals the mop. An overlooked G12 is a very poor reason to oppose. Esquivalience ^t 18:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support We need vandal fighters. --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24. Support Polite, levelheaded, seems to know what he's doing. I get the content creation argument but, on the flip side, I don't want to spend my time vandalwhacking either. It's good to have admins with a diverse range of interests. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
25. —Kusma (t·c) 19:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support I have seen this user's anti-vandal work over the years, and am happy with it. Oppose suggestions that an admin should have created at least one GA are, IMHO, not defensible. The principal role of an admin is the maintenance and preservation of the encyclopedia, and expansion thereof is wholly secondary. This user will be seriously competent in the role as I see it. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support This user is good at vandal-fighting, and although he is a little quick on the draw sometimes and makes mistakes, I have the feeling giving him the tools will be a net positive to the project. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - Superb editor. The current vote for "oppose" is ridiculous. Orphan Wiki 22:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Supported their first RfA, and they're a better editor (and will be a better admin) since then. Miniapolis 22:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - AfD contributions have greatly improved, and I no longer have the concerns I had last time that the user is a bit too hasty in tagging for speedy deletion or !voting delete at AfD when the article should be kept. Everything else looks good (those were really my only two concerns last time), and the answers so far are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support as an asset for the project. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - Seems like a fantastic, trustworthy editor to me. Azealia911 _talk 00:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Opposed last time but I thought their answer to my question was outstanding. In so many ways, being a sysop is about taking care and time. More so than you might expect when you're an editor. Their content creation is low and while I don't think it is an absolute requirement, there is so much value in having a body of work. There really are things you will learn and see that you won't pick up from reading and patrolling policies and pages. I would suggest to make it one of your goals to do the lion's share of the work to get an article to GA or FA. Mkdw^talk 00:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Reaffirming my support despite the isolated issue identified in the Oppose section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support I think I've declined an RFPP from him only once, and it was a borderline thing that someone else might have protected. If he's asking, there's a good reason for it. Gives detailed rationales, which are incredibly helpful, and he's always civil. I'm in. KrakatoaKatie 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, finally. While the lack of content contributions is regrettable, the admin tools are primarily geared at protecting material and removing problems rather than at creating new articles or the like. Reviewing the user talk history and their edit histories on talk pages does not indicate to me any major problems, nor do the projectspace contributions indicate issues. Highly active in vandal/bad edit policing thus my baseline requirements "dedication to the site" are basically met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Moving to Neutral pending response on the copyright violation thing. That's a fairly big no-no. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

38. Support The turf he works in is difficult, subject to lots of mistruths and outright hoaxes. I used to work in those areas and it's troublesome trying to corral children with overactive imaginations so of course I support his nom, he does great work and would be a worthwhile admin, see you around RFPP! tutterMouse (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Useful editor per above. While copyright compliance is most important, I'm inclined to accept AussieLegend's well argued explanation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support The administrator tools have nothing to do with article development and almost everything to do with anti-vandalism and site maintenance. I see a lot of the latter, which is why I am supporting this candidate. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support, great, hard-working editor. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support for his anti-vandalism work, and willingness to discuss changes. Nobody will be "perfect," and if he has made some mistakes, then we can call that "experience" instead. Scr★pIron^IV 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose, Cyphoidbomb has only created 4 articles total, none above start class. GregJackP Boomer! 06:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Lengthy discussion moved to talk page at Discussion moved from oppose section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong oppose -- unfortunately, the very recently created WordGirl (season 7) has substantial episode descriptions copy-pasted from the copyright-protected source [6]. We cannot have administrators doing things like this. Note: I've put the copyvio boilerplate on that page, which covers the offending text. If you want to check, you can see it in the version before I did that. --Stfg (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope you're never on jury duty. The defendant will probably be executed for jaywalking on a country road. It's very obvious from a review of the WordGirl season articles that they were in a huge mess before Cyphoidbomb got to them. He created WordGirl (season 7) from content that had been improperly added to other season articles. For example "[Queso Mysterioso / Putt with Honor]" was originally in WordGirl (season 5) and several copyvios were added, including to that episode, on 23 October 2014 by an IP,[7] not by Cyphoidbomb. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   First off, @AussieLegend:, are you familiar with Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#How about copying and pasting from one Wikipedia article to another? There was no attribution when the material was put into the Season-7 article. Second off, if wasn't only the Queso section. The text of every single entry in the now-deleted page was a copy of the same entry in the Season-7 source. Plenty of it does not come from the version of the Season-5 article that it links to. This is not a question of copying someone else's copyvio from another article. It's a question of copying form the source. Third off, your comment about jury service is ad hominem, and irrelevant.

   @Ritchie333: any chance of temporarily undeleting the article so that everyone can see for themselves? --Stfg (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I fully appreciate the timing is not good, but I cannot restore a blatant copyvio. It's nothing personal against Cyphoidbomb at all, or anyone else who edited the article. I can tell you that the text was pretty much a word for word copy of the PBS source, albeit with the summaries in a different order. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   FWIW, I did see the page before the deletion and googling its content does indicate that it was copypasted from the URL linked in the deletion reason - or maybe copypasted from some third website which had done the copypaste first. These summaries went around a lot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Unfortunately the episode summaries were added in the first edit but surely it would appropriate to restore the article and delete the actual copyvios. I'm willing to do the work of deleting the copyvios. I'm somewhat used to that unfortunately. At least that way a lot of work won't have to be done again to recreate the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Stfg:I'm well aware of the issues of copying text. It's something that members of the TV project have to deal with constantly, as there is always somebody wanting to prematurely split a TV article and my experience is that they rarely do it with with the required attribution. However, all of the WordGirl articles were in a horrible mess and Cyphoidbomb is still editing the articles as of today so he's clearly not finished all that needs to be done. There are a lot of {{split from}} and {{split to}} tags that really need to be added to the articles. I use them often, but in this case I'm having trouble working out the best way to do it without filling the talk pages. Yes, I'm aware that it isn't just the Queso section. As I indicated, that was just one example. Before the page was deleted I had looked at several pages and I disagree that "It's a question of copying form the source". From what I saw when I investigated the text was the same as had previously been added to other pages, and Cyphoidbomb was just moving stuff around, not actually adding new content. My point with the jury duty was that you were quick to accuse, but you didn't seem to have carried out a proper investigation. Had you done so you would have realised that he wasn't the person who added the copyvios. We generally assume good faith that content does not violate copyright, so you can't really blame somebody who copied text without realising that it was a copyvio. Adding the tag was one thing, but you could have just removed the offending copyvios as I've started doing with related articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   (ec) @AussieLegend: actually I did do a thorough investigation, and if you yourself were AGFing, you could have suspected this. The article was created with extreme amounts of text copied from the source. There was no attribution of where it came from -- which is a requirement that any admin candidate should know. I don't see how I could know that this stuff was copied across from some other article about a completely different season -- even if it was -- with no attribution. Moreover this copyvio was extremely obvious, because it was written in a voice that's nothing like Wikipedia voice, and very typical of the voice in which such series summaries are written on fan sites. Cyphoidbomb added that source; did he not look at it at all? I have quite a lot of experience at chasing down copyvio, and I'll tell you for free that the most obvious sign of it is the presence of text written in a voice that you don't find much of here. Thake a look at the section headed "KID MATH: PART 1" in the source. That's the sort of cruft that, if placed in a Wikipedia article, should raise alarm bells in any copyvio-aware mind. It's not proof, but it's strong evidence and anyone worth their salt as an admin or experienced editor should know to chase down that kind of thing.

   I'll take your word for it that copyvio may be a problem in that project, but in that case, isn't it obvious that what needs doing is not to compound the problem by copying lots of stuff from one place to another on the 'pedia -- and without attribution at that -- but to find it and deal with it?

   Above you've asked for the article to be undeleted so that you can edit out the copyvio. That's pointless. The article was all copyvio, and the title hasn't been salted. Why not just create a new article with that title and without copyvio. --Stfg (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   That there was no attribution is an oversight and, as I've pointed out, Cyphoidbomb was still working on the articles less than 24 hours ago, so he clearly isn't finished. The edit history of the article indicates that the content was being copied from elsewhere, although I acknowledge that my experience in the TV project may be a factor that contributed to my ability to instantly recognise that. When I saw the edit summaries it was clear that related articles needed to be checked and that's how I found the original addition of the copyvios by someone else. When you say "very typical of the voice in which such series summaries are written on fan sites" I'm not sure whether you're implying that the source is a fansite, but it isn't. It's the official site. That said, we see that sort of voice all the time in episode summaries, so it's nothing that raises a red flag. It usually means we need to copyedit the summaries. The article itself wasn't all copyvio, only the episode summaries were. There was a significant amount of content that will have to be recreated from scratch, which means looking through the previous histories of the related articles. Deleting just the copyvio text is a much better, more appropriate and less time-consuming option. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose: A would-be admin who hasn't read WP:COPYVIO (or worse yet, has read it and violated the policy anyway) isn't acceptable, no matter what their good qualities. Needs to actually learn the rules they'd be called upon to enforce as an admin, then try again later. I won't hold this against the candidate at a second nomination, but the editor is clearly not ready yet. The early supports are going to have to be weighed in view of this revelation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Given that Cyphoidbomb didn't actually add the copyvios that's a bit harsh. All he did was copy content from another page. He even said in his first edit on the page, which Ritchie333 has conveniently deleted, that he hadn't verified the content. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Strong oppose per Stfg - I was on the fence anyway but creating copyvios is worthy of a block if done repeatedly. Absolutely not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. I just had a look at the copyvio thing and it is indeed a blatant violation. Moving here from support. --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong oppose(edit conflict). It is extremely rare that I use qualifiers such as 'strong' or 'weak' in my RfA votes. I was so concerned with the lack of content creation and the poor quality of the articles that I did not bother this time to continue my research, and to be fair, I made a 'neutral' vote. However, thanks to Stfg bringing to light this blatant COPYVIO that is only 10 days old, there is no way now that I can remain in the neutral section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   The copyvio is actually 9 months old and was created by an IP, not Cyphoidbomb. 52 other editors missed it in the original article, from which Cyphoidbomb moved the misplaced episode content. You can't blame all of this on him. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Which is all the more reason why RfA candidates should watch what they're doing. Not watching means more than an inadmissble COPYVIO, it also adds a possible habit of lack of attention. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC) lak[reply]

7. Oppose per blatant copyvio. -- KTC (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   But Cyphoidbomb didn't create the copyvio, he only copied the content. The original copyvio was missed by 52 other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   That's a fair comment; copyright checking is something we could all do better (including me). However, one of the pieces of advice I was given at RfA was "check your contributions". While anyone could (and should!) have spotted the copyvio, creating a content fork, particularly when it's done to show RfA voters you can create content, really ought to be checked and double checked. I appreciate the WMF labs copyvio tool has been intermittent, and you have to watch out for reverse copyvios when using it, but it's an easy tool to use, and if you don't check, the WP:NPP patroller reviewing your new article should! This really comes back to my overall unease with the candidate over making edits without really understanding the full ramifications of what they're doing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand that the content may originally had been a content fork from another article by someone else, but any potential assertion that Cyphoidbomb simply missed it not just initially but also subsequently are difficult to maintain. In an edit the day after the article was created, with the edit summary of "Double-checked titles, air dates and ep codes against references. Reorganized by air date where practical.", [8] (where the content was copied from) was added as a reference. It's hard to believe one can go though the pbskids page, using it as a reference to make sure the list was correct and not noticed that the episodes summary was a word for word copy paste. -- KTC (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   particularly when it's done to show RfA voters you can create content - Cyphoidbomb has already stated that wasn't the reason he was cleaning up the WordGirl articles. As I've said elsehwere on this page, we generally assume good faith and that means not automatically assuming that everything you move around is a copyvio. I'm generally paranoid about copyvios. I look at every new image that a new or otherwise "questionable" editor uploads as being a possible copyvio and I've checked thousands of episode summaries, but I would probably have done the same thing as Cyphoidbomb. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   But, AussieLegend, you are not aspiring to adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I've been asked to nominate, more than once, but I'm reluctant to because of things like this. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Ritchie333:one of the pieces of advice I was given at RfA was "check your contributions" and making edits without really understanding the full ramifications of what they're doing Of course you should always check your contributions, but we're human and we all make mistakes. The only people who don't make mistakes are dead. As for "really understanding the full ramifications of what they're doing", the ramifications of deleting the entire article instead of just removing the copyvios is that we're now missing 1 of 8 season articles and List of WordGirl episodes now has a gaping hole where Season 7 used to be. Did you check your deletion to see the effects and were you fully aware of the ramifications of deleting the article, other than that it would just be gone? You may have. I don't know. I'm just asking you to consider whether you might be holding Cyphoidbomb a higher level of responsibility than yourself. Although I've targeted this at Ritchie333, because he made the statements and deleted the article others can consider what I've asked too. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   (ec) @AussieLegend: the ramifications of deleting the entire article instead of just removing the copyvios -- the article was almost entirely copyvio. There was some ordering of the air dates (wrong, as two incompatible sources were used inconsistently) but no original prose except the (IIRC one-sentence) lede and the infobox. You might as well start over. (While I'm here, please don't put blank lines after your replies. It breaks the numbering.) --Stfg (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

   KTC re: It's hard to believe one can go though the pbskids page, using it as a reference to make sure the list was correct and not noticed that the episodes summary was a word for word copy paste. It's hard to believe, and so...what, exactly are you proposing? That I deliberately included copyvios in the article to make myself look good? Why would I do that when I only have a history of doing the exact opposite of that? The source you are referring to I used to get an accurate episode number for S7 and S8 (if I remember correctly) and to confirm (in cases where I had corrected erroneous episode titles) that they were consistent between both PBS sources. This is the reference that was of the greatest use to me, because it had episode numbers along with air dates. The summaries weren't even on my radar, particularly after I started noticing that the air dates were pretty much in line with the references. Any concerns I had about the article having been polluted by disruptive users were, at some point, negated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't vote "oppose" at RfA to be mean or belittling at all, and on the few occasions I have, it has been over concern that the candidate would cause disruption while still performing actions in absolutely good faith. I am absolutely certain you would never deliberately add a copyvio to an article, that's not really the issue. It really is nothing personal and it never will be - as it stands, you've got over 80% "support" which is generally enough to close as a successful RfA, so I wouldn't assume things are over just yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Cyphoidbomb: Regarding copy attribution templates for talk pages, they do exist, see {{Copied}} and {{Copied multi}}. Others include {{Split from}} and {{Split to}}. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose Manages to vote Keep at AfD an appallingly low number of times - and even on easy Delete stats is on the losing side 20% of the time. For writing - one article is deleted as a copyvio per se WordGirl (season 7) - which is a very big hurdle to overcome for someone seeking to become an admin. Another is based on a PDF from another person, another is simply one-line recaps of a TV show plot, and the last is a biographical stub citing a "Czech Dictionary" etc. as sources. Sorry -- the copyvio per se is enough for an oppose, the rest is mere lagniappe - but also quite sufficient. Collect (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Kadavr2000 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose - Not enough content work to show that editor can keep plagiarism down. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Cyphoidbomb's edit history shows that this was content he'd just removed from Season 4.[9] As for "here", that was clearly removed from Season 5,[10]. He'd added header information, an infobox, a brief lead, and changed the LineColor code. What he added wasn't "copypastes from sites elsewhere on the web", it was copied straight from Wikipedia articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral for now, still pondering... I find it strange that the candidate would need somebody to change his diapers, grown-up admins are supposed to speak for themselves. Kraxler (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Was I supposed to respond while I was asleep? I'm not sure where this condescension is coming from, but may I remind you that you criticized me in my original RfA for calling vandals (you know, people who actively and deliberately disrupt this project) "nuts" and "idiots". The fact that you're equating me to an infant simply because I have not written back in a manner you find timely, is extraordinarily hypocritical and rude. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I strongly advise you to read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates#During your RfA especially points 10 and 11, right now. If you can't handle constructive criticism at your RfA, how will you cope with it the minute a vandal takes exception to your block? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   RE Cyphoidbomb - "to need somebody to change one's diapers" is an idiomatic expression, I wish people wouldn't take everything literally; language is more than just a random sequence of words. I lament though if this came over as condescending, that was certainly not my intention. I was just baffled by the walls of text, replying to the opposers, written by somebody who is not even the nominator. At your last RfA I opposed, with regrets, for the abovementioned reasons. At this RfA I was on the verge of supporting, but it looks like things are getting out of hand again. Time to take a deep breath and show admin-worthy skills. Kraxler (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   the walls of text, replying to the opposers, written by somebody who is not even the nominator Clearly that's aimed at me. Where is it written that somebody else isn't allowed to defend a person who has what amount to ridiculous allegations being thrown at them? Anyone can criticise, so anyone can defend. Somebody claimed that the candidate had created copyvios when a simple check of article and contributor edit histories show that not to be the case at all. The candidate simply copied text without first checking every single episode summary to make sure that they weren't copyvios. Of course he was doing a ton of work that nobody else would lift a finger to do so maybe he was busy with something else. I'm sorry, but when I see somebody unjustly accused of doing something that they didn't do, I'll jump in to defend them no matter who they are. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   This is RfA, AussieLegend. Although it is indeed commendable to defend those unjustly accused, at RfA the candidate is supposed to show that he understands the guidelines and can intelligently and civilly take part in discussions. There is no need for anybody to jump in and do it for him. This is not a court of law which threatens anybody with a jail sentence, you can see the difference, can't you? Kraxler (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   And, yet, people wonder why no one is willing to agree to be nominated for an RfA... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   "No one"? Come on, were right in it. Lots of people run here. And about half a dozen succeeded during the last month. Pessimism is not the nicest outlook, really, IJBall. (I'm still hoping that Cyphoidbomb gets back on track...) Kraxler (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Exactly 2 RfAs have succeeded in the past month with only eight succeeding in the past six months combined. Look at this chart and then look at Category:Administrative backlog and tell me sufficient numbers of admins are being promoted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I must have counted in the May/June promotions, time is running away, it seems; and no, there are not enough admin promotions to keep up with the backlogs, definitely not. (I have myself taken a holiday from content creation, and am tackling these days the AfD and RfC backlogs.) And that's the reason why I was leaning to support, and hoped that all runs well, but AussieLegend's interference may have harmed more than helped the candidate. Kraxler (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   the candidate is supposed to show that he understands the guidelines and can intelligently and civilly take part in discussions. There is no need for anybody to jump in and do it for him. - The point is, a number of oppose votes were made because of the allegation and the failure of editors to check the facts before voting. That effectively could be a death sentence for this candidate's aspirations of becoming an admin. Prior to this he stood at 90.9% support.[11] Now it's down to 75%. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Your interference may have precipitated the derailment. Most !voters would wait for an explanation by the candidate, even it takes a few hours (at "user contributions" you can see whether somebody is on-line or not, and if they aren't we wait), but every action causes a reaction... Kraxler (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Somebody claimed that the candidate had created copyvios when a simple check of article and contributor edit histories show that not to be the case at all. That is a lie and a personal attack. I checked every diff in the article before I placed the boilerplate on it and !voted here. I knew which parts of the article had been put there by Cyphoidbomb and which by other editors (such as an IP6 and the editor who put in the categories). I saw the HTML comment saying that he hadn't checked the sources yet. I accept Cyphoidbomb's word that he was not the editor who first placed the words on Wikipedia, but he was the editor who propagated it to that article, and the text is so obviously suspect that anyone who looked at it should want to check it. Sorry that 52 other editors didn't check carefully enough, but I did. I don't deserve the vilification and badgering AussieLegend has directed at me today. As for ... opposers head back to their editing niches with self-satisfied glows -- wow, just wow. Time to put up or shut up: justify your accusation with specific details or withdraw the lie. --Stfg (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Neutral I moved from oppose, as this looks like, per AussieLegend, an inaccurate accusation is derailing this nom. Per Stfg and Ritchie333, the copy-paste issue and poor record at AfD are enough to oppose at this time. Admins must know how to identify copyvios, and the above would seem to indicate this user is still not up to scratch on this important policy. Come back next year after more work at AfD, and maybe we can forgive the copy-paste, which was blatant but not directly their fault and certainly not intentional. I don't know what the protocol is for this, but maybe a restart is in order. RO^(talk) 17:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]