Cyde (
talk·contribs) – Trustworthy, Loyal, Friendly, Courteous, Kind ... no wait, that's copyvio I think. Let me try again. Cyde is an experienced editor with a clear understanding of WikiPolicy, is fair and reasonable but not a pushover. A registered editor since late 2002, (most active since late 2005), he has
over 5,000 edits, is a strong asset for Wikipedia, and would make an outstanding Admin. Sensible, intelligent, and blessed with a surfeit of common sense, he has my full confidence. One puppy's opinion, which I am sure many editors will share. I am honored to be making this nomination.
KillerChihuahua?!?01:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support, I was going to nominate Cyde myself as in my view he has sound judgment and a good grasp not only of policy but also of the principles which underly policy. I believe he will make good and responsible use of admin tools. I deferred nominating at Cyde's request due to the userbox war issues; I think those should be ignored as a bad period in the community's history during which many people did things which they regretted on reflection and it's still not clear how best to resolve these issues. I have no reservations about Cyde, I know he can express strong opinions but I do not see that happening in an admin role - we are not required to be plaster saints while acting in our normal capacity as editor, although it does of course help if we remember to remain calm.
Just zis Guy you know?08:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support: User's issue /w userboxes is a bit goofy, but if the most serious stain on this user is something as banal as userboxes, he'll be fine. It's my distinct pleasure to affirm my support for
User:Cyde. —
Adrian~enwiki (
talk)
10:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support the userbox disagreement brought out the worst in many, and I'm unimpressed with the other complaints.
KI20:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Userboxes smuserboxes. Cyde is a solid contributor, a fine editor and I have no reservations about him getting a mop and bucket with which to continue cleaning up.
RasputinAXP c20:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Cyde and I went through similar cycles on the userboxes, though on different sides of the debate. In many of the discussions, he and I disagreed, but it was still pretty easy to assume good faith. I appreciate that he was trying to genuinely find a solution to fill the policy gap. I believe he will make a solid admin.
JDoorjamTalk21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I only remember associating good things with this username and I've seen it in quite a few places, most likely because of the annoying signature. Userboxes? Meh. Abortion:politicians::Userboxes:wikipedia administrators? I just don't think we need to use wedge issues in determining who gets a mop.
savidan(talk)(e@)08:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Good edit history, very solid answers. The oppose people below all seem be be making the same argument about the same fairly minor point, I don't agree with the argument but even if I did, I don't believe we should deny adminship over a single minor and stale point... not unless we just want to make adminship into a pure popularity contest. --
Gmaxwell01:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Level-headedness? Check. Great guy? Check. Hell, yeah. Definite support. (I initially thought this would be a pile-on support with little need for me to add, but since some people seem to have made it otherwise...)
Johnleemk |
Talk10:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support After some review of his edits and comments, I see no reason to deny him use of the toolbox. I've even butted heads with him, but that doesn't mean he's not admin material.
DanielCD02:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to neutral. Reinstituting vote.reply
Support. Look, the dude went a little bit mental over the userbox thing. So did a lot of people, myself included. And I'm pretty much on the other side of the issue from him, and I was annoyed. But I'm still supporting him, because he's qualified, OK? He acted in good faith to protect the 'pedia, in a stressful time.
Herostratus10:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Thought he already was an admin! Despite the ubx issue (which I strongly disagreed with him on), he'd make a good admin. -
Wezzo20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Box involvement none withstanding, I've had only good interactions with this user. He seems mature & able to handle controversy professionally.
Mikker...01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Cyde has a long history of support for Wikipedia (3 years!). He is an asset to the community. The only question we need to ask is if he can be trusted with admin tools. I believe he is a loyal supporter of Wikipedia, who could do it no harm. I think he'll act responsibly, as his three year record shows. --
Go for it!10:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per all the good comments above and a few of those below. The userbox thing will sort itself out eventually, and really has very little to do with candidate qualifications. Can't make a judgment wrt likelihood to wheelwar, but I don't think the danger in this case is sufficient to warrant opposition to this candidacy.
Tomertalk10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, I particularly like his recusal/wikibreak about userboxes, and his handling of the fairly strong and single-issue opposition here. --
nae'blis(talk)07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, Cyde Weys is a good editor and would make a great admin, and the factionalism shown by the Oppose votes shows just what's wrong with the whole userbox debacle.
User:Zoe|
(talk)21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, too late to be original. See above. |→
Spaully°
τ 22:57, 7 March 2006 (
GMT)
After a LOT of thought... support. The speedy delete tag placed on the "admins ignoring policy" template following a "keep" on TfD was a pretty bad mistake, and in fact, Cyde's whole conduct on userboxes was... iffy. But he's apologized and moved on, and God knows we've all made errors in judgement. 5,000 edits and a cool, reasoned temperment (and--OMG!--an ability to admit mistakes and deal with the consequences!) override the userbox stuff. I wish you the best of luck, Cyde.
Matt Yeager♫(
Talk?)05:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. He got too much involved in the userbox issue, but many others did likwise - let's just get over with it. Overall, I believe
Cyde has respect for
policies and hope he will make a good admin.
Misza13TC10:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Belated still-on-wikibreak support I can't believe I almost missed this. Cyde is a great editor and very knowledgable; the reason for every oppose vote seems to be because he is involved in userbox issues. This is, at best, faintly ridiculous.
Proto||type16:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, but change your signature! On a more serious note, the userbox issue is concerning, but I'm not sure its any indication Cyde wouldn't make a good admin. └ UkPaolo/talk┐16:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Seen good things on portals and other projects. Could have handled the 'box' debacle better, but the same (and more) could be said of alot of people ranked admin and higher. --
CBDunkerson19:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - looks like the closing hours, and there's been alot of hot air for the last week. I'd hate to see this guy lose because of all the userbox controversy. --
Rob from NY01:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose Too concerned with userboxes (e.g.
this DRV). Other researched edits look OK, and if the wikibreak on userboxes mentioned below happens, would not oppose in the future.
xaosfluxTalk/CVU05:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
His most recent activity involving a TfD which involved a ubox was that recent
[2], are you saying he has to avoid TfD in order to have quit the Ubox issue? I can quit a schools issue insofar as not making it a campaign or soapbox, or being a member of WikiProject Schools, or posting messages or nominating etc, but still vote on Afd's involving a school, there is a difference IMHO.
KillerChihuahua?!?06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose.
Tagged a template for speedy deletion after it had been on TFD twice and had a speedy deletion overturned on DRV. I don't like that template either, but an admin must be a bit respectful of consensus.
Sjakkalle(Check!)07:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I am aware of this; as I stated in my summary, I would not have mentioned it at all were it not that it appears this one may fall under b'crat discretion. As this is to guage community consensus, it may be that if the decision is on a hair-line between yea or nay, small details may make a difference. The closing b'crat is of course acting under their own judgment not mine, and may choose to completely ignore this. I know from closing Afds and such that experience may make a difference in how heavily one's view or opinion is considered in a decision. I meant no disrespect to Zaheer89.
KillerChihuahua?!?20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Creating as admins users that have problems with either side of the userbox debate and have recently and vociferously dived into that particular problem in such a clear way is not something I am at all happy doing at present. The sort of thing that Sjakkalle cites above is very ready to be taken a step further by an admin holding the same clearly-actionable and actioned opinions. -
Splashtalk17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose without prejudice to later renomination. Cyde Weys is one of the few still vigorously conducting the Userbox War; and there is enough evidence about other admins that an admin with that determination can be divisive, time-wasting, and destructive. If he pledged to abstain from all userbox/cat related admin tasks, I would reconsider.
Septentrionalis18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I'd just like to make one thing clear: I've never deleted a userbox and I don't forsee myself getting involved with that in the future. Why? Because I now realize that my actions weren't helping matters, so I've decided not to get involved with that anymore. There's plenty other stuff to do on Wikipedia. I'll leave the userboxes up to other people. --
Cyde Weys20:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I am concerned that this user can be drawn to rash actions and may act on impulse. In spite of my positive interactions with him, I cannot in good conscience remain neutral. I think him a fine chap and hope he will mellow enough to earn a more enthusiastic response from the community. -
Samsaracontribtalk19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Sadly Oppose Excellent user and would have been a speedy support if it was not for the userbox thing, I agree with Splash. Will clearly support in a month if he avoids userboxes --
Jarandawat's sup21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Though he has been a great contributor, Cyde has involved himself deeply in the userbox debate and has never proven receptive to discussion of the issue. This is exactly the problem we saw with other admins that have been accused of being abusive: a lack of respect for consensus that led to eventual pushing of Wiki-POVs. For that reason I don't think I can trust Cyde as an admin. —
Cuiviénen(
Cuivië)22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose - userbox involvement per above. Your comments at the ubx DRV have been at times incivil, and I'm not particularly convinced by your answers to my questions. However, you are a good editor, and I did think you were already one, and if there is a next time, I'd probably support.
NSLE(
T+
C) at 01:01
UTC (
2006-03-03)
Oppose because as he says, his involvement with the userbox saga wasn't helping matters, weakly, because he realizes and acknowledges this.
Alai04:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Cyde's conduct in the recent userbox debates has been too divisive and unnecessarily inflammatory. Case in point:
deletion review of Template:User Catholic Evangelical. Granted, since I created the userbox and proposed review, I did have a dog in the fight, and my proposal reflected my anger at
Improv's actions at the time (though I never engaged Cyde). However, I think if you read that debate, especially Cyde's four comments, I think you'll agree he was unnecessarily inflamatory. If he does abandon userbox wars, that would be one thing, but I don't see much evidence yet. To be honest, I just don't think he respects consensus; and he takes his unquestioned interpretation of nebulous statements by Jimbo to be a license to make sweeping declarations that do nothing but enflame. I wish it were not the case. GUÐSÞEGN –
UTEX –
19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose too often acts incivilly. Too opinionated on the userbox deal. We don't need another wave of speedy deletions right now.
Grue 20:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Would that be the part where he agreed with Jimbo's statement, displayed prominently at the top of the page in your first link, or the part where he decided to back out since his actions did not seem to be helping?
KillerChihuahua?!?22:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Personal attacks on religious people - 'You'd be surprised how many fundies can't take the joke'
Unnecessarily inflammatory response to a later comment- 'You shouldn't be bothered with playing with "trading cards" or whatever. If you want to mess around with little colored boxes I'm sure you can get some webspace somewhere where you can do it.'
WP:AGF/
WP:CIVIL-violating characterisation of opponents as hypocrites - 'you are being hypocritical about what you consider a waste of time'
My issue is not with Cyde's views on userboxes (with which I happen to agree, incidentally) but with his conduct.
Cynical11:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Has shown a lack of good judgment in the userboxes wars. I'd be prepared to reconsider some time in the future if he's shown no other lapses of judgment.
Metamagician300004:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose. This user is particularly vehement in eliminating userboxes from template namespace. Though some may need to go, he has listed templates for deletion without proper rationale and persistently dodges consensus. Anywhere I look in the delete log, he is always there, sometimes even leaving the delete summary blank. Sorry I was mistaken. Let me put it to you this way, he comes across, to me, as a rampant deletionist, one of which I couldn't support.
Эйрон Кинни (
t)
09:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Doesn't the deletion log list the nominating user (as well as the deleting admin) and the reason given by that nominator? (I'm asking, I don't know)
Cynical11:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)reply
It gives their name only. Reason for deletion is filled in by the closing Admin. If that was left blank, it was left blank by the closing Admin, so take your complaints to them, it wasn't the nominator's fault.
KillerChihuahua?!?11:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Can I ask for a link of exactly what Kinneyboy90 is talking about? I honestly have no idea. I'm not an admin, so I've never been able to delete anything, and I'm pretty sure I've always put reasons when tagging things. If you found my name in the deletion log somewhere I would be very surprised. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? -- 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This oppose vote makes as much sence as "Nomanee blocks users for no reason" or something ridiclious like that.
Mike(
TC)18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Um not to harrass you or anything, but could you please explain your reasons a little bit since Kinney's vote doesn't make very much sense.--
Alhutch19:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Splash and Sjakelle. Recent involvement in Userbox affairs has left a tarnish on an otherwise fine wiki-career. I like the user, but this is not the time to promote. Please reflect on calmer ways to solve problems.
Xoloz19:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose.WAY too much involvement in the userbox issue. While I think the whole userbox issue is a big waste of time for both sides, at this point I think there is already enough damage to the Wikipedia community occuring over this issue and would vote to oppose the promotion of any editor overly involved in the issue on either side. Come back and try again after this has died down. (Also, I'm somewhat biased against garish signatures that clash with normal formatting.) –
Doug Belltalk•contrib02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Must opppose. Too many examples of undiplomatic or straight out incivil behavior. Admins have to be held to a higher standard. Also did not acknowledge there were legitimate issues raised
here. --
Fang Aili18:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Just for recent actions with userboxes. Completely a recent thing, I'd be happy to support after seeing a good record.
Staxringold22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose - This user has a sparkling record... until we hit the subject of userboxes.
Here, he voted tons of userboxes for deletion, when the policy is still being voted on now - it has not been adopted. Other than that, I'd have no problems with his actions. If he can clean up the act on userboxes, it might change to 'neutral' or 'support'. But for now, I stick with my position - I'd rather not have an administrator who edits based on not approved policy. --N
omaderTalk23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Splash and others above. I appreciate Cyde's contributions to various discussions, and agree with him on many issues, but I have a gut feeling that discussion relapse into bloodbath if this is successful, and thus cannot support him in good faith at this time. — Mar. 8, '06 [14:10] <
freakofnurxture|talk>
Neutral Cyde is a good editor and I would like to support him without reservation, but this nomination comes too soon after the faux paus cited by Sjakkalle.
Ashibakatock09:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral Good editor, so would support, but too strident/divisive on userboxes, and answers below didn't quite hit the mark for me (for vague reasons that just leave me vaguely uncomfortably ambiguous (if I ask about a case, it sort of suggests that a net "don't know, don't care" is not quite the answer I was looking for, but I can't expect people to go read 300K tomes just on my say so!), not stormingly annoyed), so would oppose... net: still on fence. May change mind, haven't made up my mind about making up my mind yet. Normally when I can't make up my mind I just don't vote but felt that since I had asked questions, I should say SOMETHING! Hope that helps! (ok, maybe not...)
++
Lar:
t/
c05:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral. Later, not now. No real problems before userboxen issues came up, so here, not oppose, and if he keeps his promise on userboxen, then will support next time. But not now. Sorry. --
Jjjsixsix(
t)/(
c) @
03:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Cuivenen and
User:Idont Havaname/Wikiphilosophies#Userboxes. I was happy to see him running for adminship and was going to support until I found out about this. --
Idont Havaname (
Talk) 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral (switched from oppose). Since he has said he is no longer involved with userboxes and seems to be using the oppose votes as advice on how to improve his editing, I will most likely be willing to support him in the future, barring any unforeseen circumstances. --
Idont Havaname (
Talk)
04:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot02:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
Protecting pages in editing disputes from Mediation Cabal (if necessary)
Rollback!
Stop bugging admins on #wikipedia for their admin powers
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I first edited Wikipedia in 2002 under my current account name. Between then and a few months ago I had long periods of inactivity when I would just make a few anon edits here and there. I guess some of my favorite individual edits were stubbing a bunch of articles way back in 2002 that have become fully-fleshed out articles today. More recently, I'm proud about my work on maintaining various portals, especially
Portal:Biology and
Portal:Science. Portals, for some reason which is beyond me, seem to be languishing, even though they are one of the few things editable by non-admins that are always linked from the main page. I don't have any sort of usage stats on
Portal:Science but I've kept it up to date for over two months now .. who knows how many thousands of people have clicked over to it from the link at the top of the main page and found some interesting reading? I also do a lot of random article edits and add all of them to my watchlist. I have over 2,000 pages on my watchlist which I frequently check for vandalism, and although it's not something I can really say I'm proud of, I do think it is a useful contribution to the encyclopedia.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have gotten into some conflicts in the past. Not revert-warring conflicts, mind you, but more about Wikipedia policy. I'm specifically thinking of userboxes here. Eventually I realized I was spending way too much time arguing over userboxes and I self-imposed a userbox wikibreak on myself. I made a conscious decision to get back to writing the encyclopedia. It's been going great. My Wikistress levels are at an all-time low. Also, it looks like there's now a workable
policy, so all of that stress was probably unnecessary anyway. In the future I will probably use the same kind of strategy to deal with stress. If Wikipedia is causing me too much stress I will simply back away from the stressful activities. Wikipedia is a hobby, not my job, and if I'm not having fun doing it, I wouldn't stay around. It's probably best for everyone that I avoid the things causing me stress so I can stick around for a long time to come. And I should add that only really strenuous happenings are capable of making me feel stressed out. I can deal with AfD debates, vandals, Jason Gastrich, and my Mediation Cabal cases simultaneously with no elevated stress levels whatsoever :-)
Questions from
NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).
Q: You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A: I don't know, how do I know he's using sockpuppets? It doesn't seem right to just ban him immediately without proof. I'd await the outcome of CheckUser or something, though I'm sure by that time arbitration or bureaucrats would be involved. And being "well-known and liked in the community" wouldn't sway my judgement on this.
Q: While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at
CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is
patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
A: It depends on how salvageable I thought the article was. If I thought it was really good I'd probably bring it to DRV. I'd rather not be undoing the actions of other admins, however.
Q: You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
A: I don't really see that as a conflict of interest. It's very clear what the response to vandalism is, especially from sockpuppets of previously blocked users. I don't see speedying an article as personal as all, so I wouldn't really feel like I was personally involved. If not me, someone else, right? Though I've dealt with vandalsim to my user page often enough that I just come to ignore it unless it's really persistent.
Q: I'd like to hear your thoughts on a few issues before I vote, and I apologise that these seem to be focused on what you say you want to do less of, but deadminning is rather more effort than adminning, as well as more divisive!! So then... Which is more important/true/correct/key to moving the work forward:
WP:IAR or
WP:PI? What do you think of
WP:DIAR? Relatedly, have you been following Tony's recent
RfAr, and what are your thoughts about the balance between gaining and retaining consensus and doing what you know is right? Finally, on
WP:CSD#T1... there is a significant faction that think it may not be a correct interpretation of Jimbo's wishes on the matter. Support or oppose the criterion itself, and support or oppose the notion that it's not a correct interpretation?
++
Lar:
t/
c22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)reply
A: I think
WP:IAR is more important for normal actions, but
WP:PI is more important for admin actions, as one can sow the seeds of malfeasance and distrust much farther with admin actions. And no, I really haven't been following Tony Sidaway's case ... I'm not really involved in it and I have better things to do, like editing articles. As for consensus, I think
WP:ENC is the most important. Any "consensus" that doesn't have the goal of writing an encyclopedia in mind is irrelevant. A good example would be an AfD debate on a popular, yet non-encyclopedic topic. I agree with the spirit of T1, I just think using it as a speedy deletion criteria might be a bit too inflammatory. I fully support the new
Userbox policy though. I think having a set amount of time for people to subst: them and then delete them is better than just deleting them wantonly. But all of these issues are really in my past now ... I trust my fellow Wikipedians to deal with these issues and I'm moving on to other things.
The above 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.