Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:16, 16 June 2005

Weyes

Vote here (23/5/3) ending 18:17, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I give up. A few days ago Jfdwolff was kind enough to nominate me for adminship, but I turned it down as I wasn't sure I wanted to commit myself that much. However it would appear that today one of the drains under the information superhighway burst and leaked large amounts of virtual sewage onto Recent Changes, which made it very hard to keep up; if the community approves I guess I'd like that mop you offered me after all. I hope you'll allow me to bend the rules a little and renominate myself so shortly after my previous RfA. --W(t) 18:18, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Sure; welcome to the cabal. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. RC Patrol could always use new people. --khaosworks 18:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
3. Support - The more RC Patrol, the better. --FCYTravis 18:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. I had asked him if he wanted to be nominated about 20 days or so ago. He's very good at fighting vandalism. CryptoDerk 19:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. --Carnildo 20:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Support A worthwhile nominee to be the first one on whom I've voted in four months. 172 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. Support.-gadfium 23:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. I still strongly oppose this nomination, which of course means, I support! El_C 23:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, RC patroller par excellence. JYolkowski // talk 01:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. The problem with IP address etc is that spamers persistently add their links here. While this was has been solved effectively for articles like Game or Real Estate, those people selling IP tools ignore any warnings or recommendations put there. I once wrote HTML comment into Externals links section asking people to describe new links and avoid redundancies and it didn't work for long. So until the reasonable set of links gets agreed and enforced periodical cleanups are useful. Pavel Vozenilek
11. Support -- the same way I voted for on the previous nomination that Weyes turned down. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
12. I wish I had had the honour of nominating him. It would be really cool to give a user both their welcome message and their adminship nomiation. Oh well. It's great to see that you've come this far, Weyes! Ingoolemo  05:53, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
13. Support RickK 06:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. You're not escaping the mop this time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
15. Support quick, before he escapes again! David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 09:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. NormanEinstein 13:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
17. Support, Ghakko 17:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
18. Support.  Grue  18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. --Kbdank71 19:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
20. Warmly support Weyes, especially for his RC work and his quest to make Misplaced Pages's external links less random. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Arwel 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
22. Support-JCarriker 11:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
23. Support I think Weyes will be a fine admin. Bratsche 22:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
24. Support I read the opposition below, but I think I'm going to side with Weyes on it. It seems a little gruff, but that's what some users (newbies included) seem to understand best. He's usually pretty good at researching the situation before he jumps to a conclusion. I think the man needs a mop. --Xcali 05:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. I can understand if a vandal hunter becomes a bit shortheaded sometimes, as the people who oppose state as reason. I assume that Weyes will learn from any mistakes he makes in that area. Thue | talk 09:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, having read this discussion I find the supportive arguments more compelling than the opposing arguments. Radiant_>|< 09:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Confuses guidelines with policies, mass blanked external links at BitTorrent, IP address and Whois, the latter 2 because I had pointed them out as 2 of the many sites containing such external links; only stopped edit warring his blanking after an admin told him to stop. This action left the sites temporarily wide open to spammers by removing the competition, but he wasn't watching the sites to remove the spamming that his actions had allowed. This all occurred very recently and shows he is not ready to be an admin, SqueakBox 18:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

   what exactly do you mean by "left the sites temporarily wide open to spammers by removing the competition"? Also can you give a few diff of the alleged "edit warring"? The only instance of W reverting you, politely, on BT appears to be this. dab (ᛏ) 19:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Weyes removes the links here and here before SlimVirgin rerverts here and asks him to stop :Weyes, please don't remove the external links again. If it gets to the stage where we have dozens, then we'll need to start deleting, but at the moment, it's a manageable number. SlimVirgin 03:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC). He blanks the Whois links here and here. Here he accuses me of breaking policy, which I had not done (the external links he was quoting elsewhere was a guideline. There has been another spat at BitTorrent today, and none of the search engines are now there. This creates a situation where spammers like Coyote376, who wants the MadTorrent search engine to be there and no other, are more likely to want to spam (because there is no competition), and tyo be able to. He claims a consensus for his view at BitTorrent in spite of the evidence tio the contrary. I cannot understand why this user is so anti having useful external links, and fear he wants a great purge of links through many sites, making wikipedia a poorer place as a result (my opinion), SqueakBox 23:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Behaviour with Ozdusters was totally out of order. Chasing off newbies who are creating content should be deprecated, not rewarded, even if that content is borderline. I don't think that people should be made admins just because they are willing to do RC patrol. There seems to be a feeling current that it's okay to be badly behaved so long as you're doing that, whereas, in truth, this is the area where the best behaviour should be employed, because it's so often the interface with newbies. Grace Note 06:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose Well, because this just occurred a few hours ago, I'd like to suggest that the interaction recorded here may not exhibit the kindness and assumption of new user good faith that we usually expect from administrators. On the other hand, I assume this was mostly a miscommunication, so I won't oppose just now. CDC (talk) 19:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (See also the discussion here. - CDC (talk) 19:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Moving from neutral to oppose; I'm now persuaded that Weyes would be too sharp with good-faith new users; several comments on WP:AN/I from others hasn't elicited any indication that Weyes recognizes s/he might have been off the mark. CDC (talk) 18:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. I saw him reiterating the line about how we put up with too much nonsense, which sounds to me like a scary thing for an admin to say. Everyking 07:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Why? Jimbo says it. RickK 06:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

   I don't think Jimbo uses it as an argument for slapping newbies about though. Grace Note 06:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose I commend his vigilance, however I have seen this user undo several perfectly good edits with no explanation. Also has a tendency towards antagonisation of members he disagrees with. - Marmot

   New account which has been making many suspect edits since it was created. RickK 06:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

   Agreed; user has already been discussed on Admin noticeboard. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 11:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

   ^ An attempt to silence opposision through discrediting a perfectly valid point. Typical liberal tactic. - Marmot

6. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • Would you mind telling us why? Radiant_>|< 09:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weyes seems like a good Wikipedian suitable for adminship, and I especially like his WP:AIV creation. However, I would prefer for him not to chase away newbies- otherwise, I would gladly support! Keep up the good work. Flcelloguy 19:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I fixed your "Vote Here" button as well.

1. I guess too much RC patrol makes anyone a bit heavy-handed at times. I would like W to make some sort of comment to SqueakBox's accusations (that should be rather straightforward, as the evidence does in no way look condemning), and I might change my vote to support. dab (ᛏ) 07:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. I find Weyes' discussion with Ozdusters to be very uncivil and not in the least helpful to a newbie who was not vandalising. Weyes makes a lot of reverts and just writes rv or rvv in the edit summary. I would like to know what Weyes has to say in response to points about newbies. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Kate's Tool says Weyes has approxiately 3800 edits. Flcelloguy 19:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• To clarify my actions which have caused people to oppose:
  • Ozdusters created a huge spree of articles with content that merely repeated the article title. He created them with the wikify and cleanup templates already one them, and some with the VfD template already on them. When the ozdusters account had accrued a number of warnings, he created a new account Sealpupsarecute and started doing the same with that account. (These articles have since nearly all been deleted, but I'm sure there's a few admins who were doing speedy deletions that day who can corroborate). I'm all for assuming good faith, but at a certain point you can't ignore accumulating evidence.
  • There has been lots of discussion on Talk:BitTorrent about removing the external links to bit torrent indexes. Everyone agreed that this made sense apart from Squeakbox, and at several points people have removed those external links but each time SqueakBox put them back. There was clearly both guideline and community support for removing them, with Squeakbox being the only one opposing it.W(t) 10:36, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • User:Ozdusters (backwards in time from last edit): *Shark related movies (limited to Jaws and Jaws 2) *Lion related movies (limited to Lion King; user adds VfD, cleanup, and expand tag to his own newly created article) * Tenis related movies (limited to Wimbeldon and Mr. Deeds; both are wikified, but Oz add a wikify tag. * * * I believe W is being judged too harshly over this. Please reconsider your votes, and very strongly oppose his nomination. By which I mean, support it! El_C 11:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I've just had another look at Weyes' contributions, and I would like to know why he/she deleted the following external links which appear to be helpful and appropriate to the articles. Poaceae, Bud, Tree. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I mainly expect to be doing RC patrol, it's kind of relaxing and you can stop and start at any time you want, which works for me. I don't think I'll become a regular maintainance page handler (like VfD, TfD, CfD, Copyvio), though I might help out incidentally if there's a large backlog to clear or something (and I should point out that I think the people that do this are doing a wonderful task at keeping Misplaced Pages running and are the true unsung heroes of Misplaced Pages).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I haven't made any major contributions to articles (I'm not good with prose, as the metaphor above amply demonstrates), but I do think WP:AIV is becoming a useful tool to complement WP:VIP.

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. The most annoying conflict so far has been the one over the cleaning up of external links and what is and isn't appropriate (please join in the discussion here), however as with most of what I do there's no long ongoing discussion and working out compromises to be done, I can take a day off wikipedia without inconveniencing cocontributors and go play outside instead. Usually, when I come back the next day things seem a lot less important.