The following discussion is preserved as an archive of asuccessfulrequest for adminship.Please do not modify it.

final (106/30/5) ended 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User signs asCyde Weys

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 hasover 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]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly and graciously accept. --Cyde Weys01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. KillerChihuahua^?!?01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC) As nominator, of course I support enthusiastically.[reply]
2. I made number two!(Umm...)Support: great user, well worthy of admin tools. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -Shazaam! -<*>02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Very good user, handles disputes professionally, would make a good admin.VegaDark02:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Sure.Mackensen(talk)02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Suppport.good userBlnguyen |Have your say!!!03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. 'Support, rock on, Cyde. -WarriorScribe03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Speedy promote. I thought he was already like a developer or something. I can't believe he's not already an admin. --TantalumTelluride03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support this is going to be a runaway, isn't it? --W.marsh04:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Go Terps! But seriously, your edits look fine to me.--MONGO04:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. TacoDeposit04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support—Quarl^(talk)2006-03-02 04:55Z
12. Support Good editor, easy call! But please....lighten up that sig ;)Rx StrangeLove04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Unlikely to abuse the administrator's toolbox.Christopher Parham(talk)06:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 zisGuy you know?08:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. --Calton |Talk08:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, ticks all the boxes for me.Stifle09:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 forUser:Cyde. —Adrian~enwiki (talk)10:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. I don't think he will abuse the tools. --Cymsdale10:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support.David |Talk10:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support As stated above. DaGizza^Chat©12:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support --Terence Ong14:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
23. Strong Support A great editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support: --Bhadani17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk)18:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support as per the above; I had intended to nominate this person myself as well.Hall Monitor18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support per nominator. --Myles Long20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. 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]
29. 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.c20:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Looks like a fine contributor at a glance --Obli (Talk)^?20:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. I really need to look at RFA more often.Guettarda21:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support without any reservations whatsoever.Silensor21:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. 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.JDoorjmTalk21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - I feel the "too concerned with userboxes" comment a bit too concerned about userboxes. //Gargaj21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, perJDoorjam.bd2412T22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support user tried to bring some uncommon good sense into the userbox debate.  ™22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support--Jusjih01:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong Support excellent editorJim62sch01:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. I'm with TantalumTelluride, I thought that he was an admin already. —A03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support, I thought he already was a sysop. --Jbamb04:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support, looks like a sensible candidate to me.Can't sleep, clown will eat me04:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Tentativesupport. The userbox thing is like a good sense drain, so I'm glad Cyde has dragged himself back from it!Grace Note06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. I have seen him doing good work since I arrived here. --Danaman507:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. 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]
45. 'Syooirt# —Dunc|☺09:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong Support very good user.--Alhutch10:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support though question answers aren't the most clear, they show a good attitudeRobdurbar10:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support per nominator.Pecher^Talk12:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support --Syrthiss16:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong Support. Impressed by his dilligence during the Jason Gastrich situation; should make a great admin. -Colin Kimbrell16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support.FeloniousMonk17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. SupportMjal21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support I think he'll do great. --Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk)22:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support --Latinus23:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support00:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. 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]
58. support he will make a good adminYuckfoo01:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. SupportKusma(討論)02:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Because of his work resolving a dispute onchimera.[1] Also, per nom and Grace Note.Walter Siegmund(talk)03:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support.SushiGeek04:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Although I didn't agree with his stance on userboxes, I still think he would make an excellent admin.Chairman S.^Talk06:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Level-headedness? Check. Great guy? Check. Hell, yeah. Definitesupport. (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]
64. Support - looks good to me.Essexmutant11:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support will be good admin --rogerd12:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support perBD2412Prodego^talk15:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. SupportAlibabs00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. 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]
69. Support.From his answers and comments I feel he has moved on from the userbox issue. I do hope this is right.Raven4x4x06:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. 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]
71. 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]
72. Support.jacoplane20:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support, he'll make a fine admin. -GTBacchus^(talk)00:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Box involvement none withstanding, I've had only good interactions with this user. He seems mature & able to handle controversy professionally.Mier^...01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. SupportPepsidrinka02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support without doubt. Competent, confident; right attitude, right choice.Rob Church (talk)08:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. 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]
78. 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.Tomer^talk10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Great editors make great admins.Mike_(TC)17:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. My pleasure.SlimVirgin^(talk)18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support good Wikipedian, from what I've seen.CanadianCaesarThe Republic Restored19:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support --Malber (talk ·contribs)20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support --Jay(Reply)22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support, promotion is overdue.Bahn Mi00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support. Seems reasonably sensible.Jayjg^(talk)00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. 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]
87. Support.16:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. 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]
89. Support, too late to be original. See above. |→Spaully°τ 22:57, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
90. Support. Solid work on portal maintenance, kind and level-headed. The userbox thing is notthat big of a deal.--ragesoss23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    εγκυκλοπαίδεια*23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    sadly, encyclopedist already voted. see #54.--Alhutch00:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

91. Support. If says he's done with userboxes, then I trust that he's done with them.howcheng{chat}00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support I think this editor got the message loud and clear about the user boxes.05:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. 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]
94. Support If this worst thing in his history is the userbox issue, Cyde will make a great admin.JoshuaZ06:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support, seems OK. I agree withUser:JoshuaZ, the userbox thing won't stop him from becoming a good admin. |Talk07:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. He got too much involved in the userbox issue, but many others did likwise - let's just get over with it. Overall, I believeCyde has respect forpolicies and hope he will make a good admin.Misza^TC10:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. 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.16:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. 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]
99. Support - Seen good things on portals and other projects. Could have handled the 'box' debacle better, but the same (and more) could be said ofalot of people ranked admin and higher. --CBDunkerson19:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. A good editor, I think he will not abuse admin tools.22:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support per conversation in IRC --Jaranda^{wat's sup}22:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support as a good editor.Ral315 (talk)23:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support. He'll be fine. --ChrisO23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support. Has some hasty things during the userbox arguments, but as it's a small blemish on a fine candidate and he's stepping away from the issue, I support.Mindspillage(spill yours?)00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. Userboxes seems to be digging at the bottom of the barrell, in my opinion.Jude(talk,contribs)00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. 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

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.05:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   It has already happened, its not a future plan.KillerChihuahua^?!?05:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The break may have begun, but edits in that link above show activity as recently as 2 days ago.xaosflux^Talk/_CVU05:50, 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]

   Discussion continued on theTalk Pagexaosflux^Talk/_CVU06:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Per Xaosflux.Moeε05:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. Oppose as above.Zaheer8907:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Note to closing b'crat: This user has 30 edits.KillerChihuahua^?!?19:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   RFA is open to all registered users. Unless there is evidence of sockpuppeting, the vote is entirely valid.Cynical19:54, 8 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]

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^talk17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.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]

   • SeeTalkSeptentrionalis16:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 a fine chap and hope he will mellow enough to earn a more enthusiastic response from the community. -Samsara_contrib^talk19:20, 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 --Jaranda^{wat's sup}21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. 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]
9. 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 01:01UTC(2006-03-03)
10. 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]
11. 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 atImprov'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.   – UTEX –19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. 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]

    He has stated that he's done with userboxes. Please make sure to read the answer to question 3.--Alhutch20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose. His conduct onWP:UBD andthe related RFC has been unacceptable. Don't believe he can be trusted with admin status.Cynical21:43, 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]

    Various comments on the {{User fsm}}deletion review:

    • 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]

14. Oppose too heavily involved in userbox issue, too recently..Sarah Ewart (Talk)00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose perAlhutch Grue. --CFIF(talk to me)20:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually Alhutch was a "Strong support" voter. Feel free to delete this comment once you get your vote reasoning fixed. -- 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    I would love to know what your reasoning is, CFIF.--Alhutch00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cited the wrong person, he signed under someone else's comment and I thought it was him. I'll find who that was.CFIF(talk to me)15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was Grue, sorry for the confusion.CFIF(talk to me)15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    okey-doke, understood.--Alhutch16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16. Weak Oppose Very good edits in main space, but very stereotypical with userboxe votes.WriterFromAfar75523:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. 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]
18. Oppose per Sjakkalle and others. —Guanaco05:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. 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 summaryblank. 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]

    Why would he be in the delete log if he's not an admin? I'm confused.Johnleemk |Talk09:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't the deletion log list thenominating 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]

    Hm...what log are we discussing? Because I don't thinkSpecial:Log lists the nominator at all...Johnleemk |Talk14:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, deletion log only lists the deleting admin.--Alhutch16:50, 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 bevery 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]

20. Oppose per Kinney and others.--God War19:27, 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]

21. 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]
22. Strong Oppose per NSLE, and per Cyde's own comment below.I recommend trying again in about a month, or when the userbox issues and politics have died down a bit. --Blu Aardvark |^{(talk) |(contribs)}21:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thought you went onWikiBreak? --23:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23. 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 Bell^{talk•contrib}02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose, was quite rudehere.Sam Spade07:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Mustopppose. 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 raisedhere. --Fng Aili18:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. oppose -- not on beliefs, but on behavior.... aa:talk21:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. 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]
28. 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. --omader23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. 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] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
30. Oppose Activist and career flamewarrior (irrespective of userbox issue). --Ben02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.Ashibakatock09:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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]
3. Neutral. Perhaps later. -Mailer Diablo13:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral. Gut feeling. I want to do some more reading before re-voting, if I do. --DanielCD14:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Replaced support vote.[reply]

4. 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]
5. Oppose per Cuivenen andUser: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]
• SeeCyde's edit count and contribution tree withInteriot's tool.

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:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check outCategory:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page aboutadministrators and theadministrators' 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 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, especiallyPortal:Biology andPortal: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 onPortal: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 workablepolicy, 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 fromNSLE:
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 atCAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree ispatent 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.

Questions fromLar

1. 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 orWP:PI? What do you think ofWP:DIAR? Relatedly, have you been following Tony's recentRfAr, and what are your thoughts about the balance between gaining and retaining consensus and doing what you know is right? Finally, onWP: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 thinkWP:IAR is more important for normal actions, butWP: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 thinkWP: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 newUserbox 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of eitherthis nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

• Successful requests for adminship