Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:43, 2 March 2006

Cyde Weys

(27/7/1) ending 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly and graciously accept. --Cyde Weys 01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. KillerChihuahua 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC) As nominatior, of course I support enthusiastically.
2. I made number two! (Umm...) Support: great user, well worthy of admin tools. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Very good user, handles disputes professionally, would make a good admin. VegaDark 02:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Suppport.good userBlnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
6. 'Support, rock on, Cyde. - WarriorScribe 03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Speedy promote. I thought he was already like a developer or something. I can't believe he's not already an admin. --TantalumTelluride 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Support this is going to be a runaway, isn't it? --W.marsh 04:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Go Terps! But seriously, your edits look fine to me.--MONGO 04:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
10. TacoDeposit 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Support —Quarl 2006-03-02 04:55Z
12. Support Good editor, easy call! But please....lighten up that sig ;) Rx StrangeLove 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Unlikely to abuse the administrator's toolbox. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
14. 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)
15. Support. --Calton | Talk 08:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support, ticks all the boxes for me. Stifle 09:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
17. 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. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 10:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. I don't think he will abuse the tools. --Cymsdale 10:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. David | Talk 10:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support As stated above. DaGizza 12:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support --Terence Ong 14:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. The userbox 'debate' bores the tits off me but to each his own interests. I don't believe he'll misuse his admin powers. --Malthusian (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong Support A great editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Support: --Bhadani 17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support as per the above; I had intended to nominate this person myself as well. Hall Monitor 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Support per nominator. --Myles Long 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support the userbox disagreement brought out the worst in many, and I'm unimpressed with the other complaints. KI 20:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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. xaosflux /_CVU 05:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   It has already happened, its not a future plan. KillerChihuahua 05:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   The break may have begun, but edits in that link above show activity as recently as 2 days ago. xaosflux /_CVU 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   His most recent activity involving a TfD which involved a ubox was that recent, 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)

   Discussion continued on the Talk Page xaosflux /_CVU 06:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per Xaosflux. Moe ε 05:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. Oppose as above.Zaheer89 07:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. -Splash 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. Septentrionalis 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   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 Misplaced Pages. I'll leave the userboxes up to other people. --Cyde Weys 20:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

7. 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 and fine chap and hope he will mellow enough to earn a more enthusiastic response from the community. - Samsara _contrib 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 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. Ashibaka tock 09:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Mathbot 02:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Cyde's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Here's a list of things I believe could be done better with admin status:

• Closing AfDs
• Closing TfDs
• Blocking vandals
• Protecting pages from frequent vandalism
• Doing page moves (I hate it when the destination ends up being a redirect to the current page that I can't overwrite)
• Fixing occasional errors that I see on the main page or other high-profiled protected pages
• Speedy deleting nonsense pages from Newpages patrol
• Deleting pages on {{prod}} that have turned red
• Enforcing general policy
• 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 Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I first edited Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is causing me too much stress I will simply back away from the stressful activities. Misplaced Pages 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 ;)).

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.