Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim 3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Cyclonenim

Final (37/21/3); Ended 12:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn By Candidate

Nomination

Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) – I would like to present Cyclonenim to the community as a candidate for adminship. Cyclonenim has been a great contributor to this project, having brought one article to FA, and a further six articles to GA, as well as contributing to a wide variety of articles under the WikiProject Medicine umbrella. He's more than just a valuable content contributor though, as he works extensively in the AIV, CSD and XFD spaces, and is frequently observed participating constructively and civilly on policy discussion pages such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. He has also been granted the rollbacker and account creator flags and has shown that he can use them in a mature, helpful, and non-controversial way. In short, Cyclonenim is already a massive asset to the project, and I'm confident that he will be able to contribute even more if he gets the full set of the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination from User:Malinaccier

I am proud to be able to co-nominate Cyclonenim from adminship. Since his last request for adminship in July 2008, Cyclonenim has come a long way. His work in the deletion area in general has become phenomenal, while his edits in the mainspace show that he still knows that Wikipedia exists for the articles. As Cyclonenim's admin coach (which can be viewed here) I watched first hand as my reviews (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) quickly became little more than praise for his good and thorough work. Really, his editing and progress in both the projectspace and mainspace speaks for itself. The last point I would like to address is Cyclonenim's maturity and demeanor, which I feel have improved greatly from his last request for adminship. The user who used to sign as "CycloneNimrod" is almost unrecognizable in the editor before us today. In my observation of and in my interactions with Cyclonenim, I have found him polite, official, and helpful and receptive to newcomers—three very important qualities of a good administrator. Thank you for your consideration, Malinaccier (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honoured to accept the nominations by my coaches. I feel I should clarify a little upon a statement in Lankiveils statement, because I do not currently work at AIV extensively. However, I have had experience there in past and I believe I know how the system works there. Feel free to question me if you need reassurance. Thanks again to my coaches, let's see how this goes...

I'm withdrawing from this RfA. Most of the below opposes didn't bother me too much, because they're opposing based upon something I have learnt my lesson from (whether they choose to accept this or not is a different matter entirely). However, Jc37 (talk · contribs) has pointed out some fundamental flaws in my knowledge of policy, and although I do disagree on some points, there are numerous issues I can't look over myself. I plan to cease article work here entirely for the upcoming months, and focus on XfD discussions and CSD nominations to help improve my policy understanding. Thank you to all of the supporters of this RfA, I'm touched by your dedication despite some convincing opposes. To my opposers, I thank you to for bringing certain issues to my attention, and for helping to improve the encyclopaedia by being scrutinising every word I've said and pointing out the flaws. I won't be handing out RfA thankspam at this time, but I would like to thank Malinaccier and Lankiveil for nominating me, and I hope that they will continue to coach me for the upcoming months, and also SoWhy, who has fought hard in my corner for the entire RfA. Thanks, and happy editing. —Cyclonenim | Chat  12:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1-10

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

A: I've always found this the hardest question to answer properly, regardless of the fact it should be the first thing a prospective administrator should think about. Primarily, I started here as an article editor, and I fully intend to stay that way in as larger capacity as I can. In that capacity, I plan to use the tools to help me improve articles through consensus-established methods, such as requests for moves over redirects when needed, and to delete medical articles where consensus has been already been established at AfD. Secondly, I would like to delete articles that have been tagged for CSD, and I believe in my past edits I have demonstrated my accuracy of CSD deletions, but feel free to review that. I would also like to slowly move into the area of page protection, but that is going to be a slow progression given my somewhat lack of experience there. I certainly wouldn't participate there without the guidance of a more experienced administrator. This also applies to WP:UAA, where I would only ever participate under guidance to start with, and in non-controversial cases (for example, a while ago I reported a name with the term "Hitler" in). Should there be any doubt to how well you think I may act in these areas, feel free to ask questions regarding policy and common sense in these areas and I'll do my best to prove to you that I understand the areas thoroughly enough to contribute there. For example, my ability in UAA is most likely assisted by my knowledge of username policy through my work at the ACC tool. Finally, I feel I could contribute by blocking evident vandals who are disrupting the article building process despite reasonable (be it full set or not) warnings. In a 'mopshell', I intend to jump all over the place, but carefully, and behind my editing duties, which have recently been neglected over an interesting attraction I've had to discussions both at WT:RfA and at WP:MED.

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

A: I feel all good-faith contributions here are worthwhile, and as such all discussions I've taken place in are important contributions. In regards to content building, primarily my work has revolved around medical topics at WP:MED, and I also created the WikiProject Medicine neurology task force, as well as the featured topics project. A while ago (as mentioned in a previous RfA) I helped bring subarachnoid hemorrhage to FA status along with other strong medical editor such as Jfdwolff (talk · contribs) and Delldot (talk · contribs). I've also helped editors build articles to GA quality (such as doing several smaller edits to cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and subcutaneous emphysema) and reviewed a few (such as phagocyte). A list of articles I've contributed to can be found on my user page, to save me listing a massive quantity of articles here. By no means do I think I'm a grandiose editor, making large edits, but instead I feel I contribute by making smaller, yet still substantial edits, to improve the encyclopaedia. That said, I still feel I have enough knowledge of content writing to help me understand the position of other editors when confronting them in areas such as XfD.

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: To my knowledge, I've only been in one conflict worth mentioning and that was with ParaGreen13 (talk · contribs) and his use of certain derogatory (IMHO) terms to describe African-American persons. I soon got worked up with his baiting and insults, and started to lose my temper, at which stage some other editors (such as Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs)) actually intervened and helped get us back on track. As a sidetrack, this dispute also led to some flaming of tempers between me and CadenS (talk · contribs), which resulted in him throwing insults at me. We did eventually make up onto good terms, though, and ParaGreen13 was blocked for his actions. Essentially, I got too worked up over users being incivil and made some comments I shouldn't have done. I learnt a lot from this situation, in particular to take civility concerns very slowly and think carefully before I say anything, and I truly believe it's made me a better person both online and offline (however cliché that may sound). I recently discussed this issue with some users who feel it isn't as bigger deal as I'm making it, but I certainly feel it's worth mentioning for clarity and transparacy. As such, the respective threads are here, here and here.

Questions from CIreland

4. You have said that you wish to work at WP:RFPP. It is a common occurence that an editor involved in an edit war will make his third revert and then attempt to game the system by quickly making a request for full protection. How would you deal with such a request?

A: Thanks for your questions, CIreland. First I would take a step back to review the situation in its entirity, checking to see if the reversions are being done on pure vandalism, or a dispute of content. If the reversions are occurring over a dispute of content, and a user has made 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, this constitues a WP:3RR violation, and I would probably block the user accordingly, and dismiss the request for protection, because it's gaming the system and three reversions is nowhere near enough to constitute full protection in a case like this. As the user did not violate 3RR (as pointed in Q6), a block cannot be administered for 3RR. Encouraging the users to discuss the content dispute on the talk page and to request a third opinion, if needed, seems like a good idea in this case, too. Failing that, temporary full protection might be worth administering if both parties continue to edit war, and failing that, blocking might have to be an option for both users if they refuse to take the issue to the talk page. My apologies if I seemed to have skipped the answer you wanted, you can ask me to clarify further if you wish.

Also see Q6.

5. You have said that you would help with CAT:CSD. Could you explain or give some examples what constitutes an "invalid fair-use claim" that would permit deletion using WP:CSD#I7?

A: Fair usage isn't my best area, admittedly, and I'd be hesitant to delete any tags such as this. I've only ever come across one deletion where this has been the case, and it was due to an invalid/incomplete {{Dfu}} template being in place for a week without valid completion. Another situation is where a non-free image could be replaced with a free one, if the non-free image is not given a valid {{Rfu}} template within two days.

Questions from Looie496

6. Your answer to question 4 contains an elementary blunder. Please take this chance to explain what it is before people crucify you for it. Looie496 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A: At first I was confused by this, as I didn't think I'd made an error, but I went ahead and checked a few policies. On WP:3RR, it states a clear exemption as page protections being more preferable than blocking for 3RR violations. Also, 3RR only applies to more than 3 reverts, not up to three. Are either of these the "elementary blunder" you noticed?

The more than three error was the one that popped out at me. Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Timmeh

7.Can you explain the steady decline in your edit numbers, especially in article space, over the past few months? Timmeh! 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A: I anticipated this question because I noticed it myself yesterday when I checked my editing statistics. I don't think it was an intentional reduction, but rather one of necessity due to exam periods (from December through to early February), and other things that I've had to do in real life. My editing statistics are actually higher in the periods where I have free times, such as the past week when I've had the week off. As for explaining the reduction in article space, unfortunately this was because of the increased effort I placed in areas such as WP:RfA and XfD, to help me prepare for becoming an administrator (as advised on my previous RfA). I went through a stressful time in life where editing to the encyclopaedia in a more administrative manner (through areas like AfD and CSD) was much, much easier and less time consuming than article editing. I'd hope that after I pass RfA (or should I say if?), my article editing will become a much higher priority given the fact I won't have to prove my experience anywhere. That's not to say I won't be contributing in administrative areas, of course I will, but I'll have more time for editing in article space.

Questions from User:Geo Swan:

8. Here is a general question about WP:A7. Dick Pountain, a columnist for a British computer magazine, made a good faith experiment with the wikipedia, which I think did not reflect well on how our team of quality control volunteers interprets WP:A7. One of his contacts had written about: "...how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation... but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight." Pountain wrote: "This is such a strong claim that it needed checking..." So, he started an article on The Political Quarterly. It was nominated for speedy deletion, and this speedy nomination was confirmed. I am afraid his good faith experiment confirmed his associate's description. I regard it as embarrassing that quality control volunteers who have never heard of Benito Mussolini or Leon Trotsky feel prepared to play a role in the deletion of articles on politics. Can I assume you would not have deleted the article? How little a shred of a claim of notability would you require, before you would tell the nominator they should use {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? Geo Swan (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A: Hi Geo, thanks for your question, you can indeed assume I wouldn't have deleted that article. In a way, I find articles such as the one you have brought up as slightly easier to investigate than those which portray only a slight degree of notability. The mention of people such as Benito Mussolini immediately makes one believe that if the article is genuine, reliable sources on the subject should exist, given the high profile nature of some of the names mentioned. Clicking any one of the blue links in that article would immediately suggest that the article has some claim to notability, and is therefore entirely unsuitable for deletion under A7. Instead, AfD would be more appropriate, given the high-profile names mentioned and the potential reliable sources existing because of just that. I hope this answers your question.

Thanks for answering. Maybe I didn't phrase my question clearly enough, because I was hoping for an answer that would give more of an indication as to the extent you thought over-enthusiastic quality control volunteers were overly hasty in their application of A7. Some nominators lapse from policy, and don't bother doing web search prior to making nominations. I have found many other nominators lapse from policy by basing their nomination solely on the current state of the article -- not on whether the topic was itself notable. Finally, some nominators assert articles are eliglible for deletin under WP:CSD#A7 when they don't include an explicit assertion of notability. They are not prepared to recognize phrases like "stirred controversy" or "widely published" as implied assertions of notability. Personally, I think one of the main problems with wikipedian's implementation of notability is it has a strong component of subjective interpretation. In my experience the (innocent) failure to recognize the subjective component in the interpretation of notabilty results in innocent, but nevertheless damaging lapses from WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I entirely agree with your position there. A7 is (by far) the most overused, yet often wrongly used, tag in the CSD criteria, and there are numerous editors who are presenting articles for deletion under that tag when in fact, as you've stated, notability is explicitly implied. The problem with this is that there aren't enough editors as yourself who are around to notice these incorrect taggings so it increases the workload for administrators. On the upside, it ensures that admins do have a thorough knowledge of what A7 actually means, and that they have to be more careful with CSD deletions. The downside is that its going to increase the backlog as it's more time consuming.

9. You were a candidate for administrator before: in April 2008 and in July 2008. During those {{rfa}} you answered a bunch of questions, and repsonded to some comments. Are there any questions you would answer differently, now that you have more experience? Do you think you modified your work on the wikipedia based on the comments in your previous {{rfa}}. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A: I'll ignore my first RfA, really, as it was pretty much what we now call a SNOW RfA and the three compulsory questions are now what you see at the top of this page. As for my second RfA, that's a different matter altogether. I certainly wouldn't have answered Juliancolton's question the way I did, as it implied I still had a bit of vandal in me. Otherwise, I think I'm pretty happy with my answers to the policy questions there. As for changes to my work on Wikipedia, I don't think I changed the topics I work on other than becoming a bit more involved in administrative areas such as discussions at RfA. In retrospect, I should have perhaps gone and done some more CSD work to help calm some of the opposers worries, but alas, I didn't. That's probably my biggest regret before this RfA, except for the whole "negro" incident mentioned in Q3 and in the, albeit messy, oppose section.

10-

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 10. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 10a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: Blocks should be applied when a user is disrupting the project (e.g. excessive and/or hostile edit warring), banned from the project or somehow threatening the safety of the project or its users (e.g. through legal threats). If a user is disrupting the project through other means, such as constantly adding unsourced statements to BLPs, or by continually adding information which violates copyright laws, these users can also be dealt with by blocks. There are numerous other examples, too, such as inappropriate usernames and proxies.

• 10b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: A page should be protected when there is significant disruption of constructive editing of that article, be it by edit warring, vandalism or continual POV pushing by disruptive editors. Full protection of an article can be used for content disputes and heavy vandalism by autoconfirmed users. It can also be used in rare cases for the protection of talk pages. Semi-protection can be applied for heavy vandalism by non-autoconfirmed users and IPs, and also to other pages such as user pages which are being consistently targeted by vandals. A page can also be speedily protected if it's going to be under threat from IP and non-autoconfirmed users for a long period of time, such as biographies of very high media presence persons (e.g. Gordon Brown).

• 10c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: A page should be speedily deleted if it meets any of the criteria given at WP:CSD and it cannot perceivably be improved to meet the standards required (such as WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS), whether that be under the general, article or any other perceivable category. The first items that come to mind are attack pages, blatant copyright infringements and obvious advertisements. The second category in my mind are the articles which clearly lack any explicit notability, whether that be a biography, band, company or the like.

• 10d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: There are not set examples, per se, of where IAR applies because that itself kind of breaks the point of having the IAR policy. It shouldn't be used to try and game the system here (e.g. trying to get around the NPOV policy), but it should be used when the community determines that an exception is warranted.

• 11. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: Consensus at XfD and DRV is determined by a) the quality of arguments of both sides and, if the quality of both arguments is equal, b) the quantity of !votes (but only when quality of both sides are equal). However, number is never the set standard by which to go by. If only one !vote suggests the most reasonable idea, then that may well be the best idea to close the discussion with. At a discussion I was at the other day, someone suggested moving a lot of content to a portal, rather than deleting the good quality content. This was suggested and only one subsequent user supported the idea, but the closing admin decided this was indeed the best course of action. Now for the second part of your question, if consensus is being determined on a talk page, you clearly don't have a set number of !votes, so it's much more important to study the merits of each argument. However, the principle remains the same, and you essentially have to use common sense to determine who is correct in their opinion.

• 12. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Every persons perception of what constitutes an edit war seems to be different, and as such it's important to make sure that editors have plentiful warning about what they're doing. I would encourage them to read up on our policies regarding edit warring, and 3RR if they have breached that (which would also be accompanied by a block in that case), and hope that the situation can be dealt with like this, with minimal effort from everyone. If the continued point of view edit warring continues, it may be necessary to full protect the article for 24 hours and encourage them to discuss on the talk page. If this fails, blocking for edit warring for a short period of time may be worth considering. The key point is that we shouldn't be blocking good-faith editors without warning and plenty of effort to resolve the conflict without blocks.

• 13. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: I want to be an administrator so that I can perform tasks that I may need to do without requesting another administrator to do so. I feel that if a user is qualified to be an administrator, and can be trusted as such, then there is no reason why they shouldn't have the tools. After all, being an administrator isn't a big deal. Secondly, I'd like to help out with backlogs (such as CSD) and discussions (such as XfD). I truly believe it's as simple as that.

Optional questions form User:DGG:

• Q14 On November 24, 2008 you nominated the article ACUPARIS for deletion as CSD A7, and it was deleted by Thingg as G11 promotional. An similar article of the same title was recreated, and had not yet been nominated for deletion. The main difference is that it contains sightly less promotional language, and conforms a little better to wiki style. First, were you aware of it, or do you not keep track of what happens to your recommended deletions? Second, Looking atthe article, what is the appropriate step? DGG (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A Are you sure that's the correct article, I'm getting to a page with no deletion log. Presumably, it was an article about a company which I believed didn't meet inclusion guidelines for lack of explicit notability, and lack of reliable sources on the internet. Without viewing the associated article, though, I can't be sure how to answer your question. If you could clarify this, I'll try again. Thanks.

I think DGG is referring to ACUPARI. Regards SoWhy 13:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I still have many issues with that article, including notability and advertisement concerns. Might look into it a bit more, but it definitely needs some tags at least. —Cyclonenim | Chat  14:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Q15: I have never seen you contribute at a policy discussion on a WT page, and I have seen very little work in AFD. How can we tell you views on policy? Please select any one current debated policy question of proposal and give us your viewsx, and one currently hotley contested AfD, and rtell how you would close. DGG (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A Interesting question, I'm surprised you've never seen me at a WT page. I'll start with a current proposal, one which is hotly debated between editors, and that's flagged revisions. I initially voted in the straw poll as against flagged revisions being implemented because I feel it inhibits our very tag-line "the encyclopaedia which anyone can edit". Although the counter argument is that all people can still contribute except their contribution only shows after being checked for vandalism, I still feel that it's going to slow down the amount of people coming here to contribute as they can't see their contributions present straight away (which I know I love to see when I'm contributing). I did, however, vote support for a trial as it's important to see both sides of the argument, and I think a trial on selected articles will be a good way to see if the idea works or not.

Now I'll deal with your hotly contested AfD question, I choose this one. In my opinion, the nominator could not have been more right in their nomination, this kind of list specifically breaches WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and this particular list at the bottom even states explicitly that it's based on a directory! The keep votes in this discussion essentially discuss the notability of the topic, not the suitability of the article for inclusion, and I find them almost entirely unconvincing. I would close this discussion as 'delete' because of it's breaching of several important guidelines and policies like NOTDIR and LINKFARM. I'm aware that this isn't too contentious, like you requested in the question, but I couldn't find anything more contentious that was actually currently still going on.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim
• Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim 2
• Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim 3

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • X!'s edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, the oppose section is ridiculous. — R² 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay in answering questions 10 through to 15, I've been asleep and am just about to head out. I'll be back around 12:00-13:00 GMT. Cheers. —Cyclonenim | Chat  08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. <redacted by PeterSymonds> yes! I've been waiting for this one! --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 11:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, and also beat the nom support. :) --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 11:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

2. --Giants27 ^T/C 12:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Cyclo has a clean block log and is a cluefull contributor. I've reviewed the candidates AIV reports for September to December last year and they all seem good calls that resulted in blocks; I don't think that things at AIV have changed so radically in the last few months as to render that experience out of date. As for the oppose, well perhaps there are some circumstances on Wikipedia where it is appropriate to use the word Negro, but this is probably the first time I've typed it and I hope it will be the last. I'm happy to support a candidate who is concerned about use of that word. ϢereSpielChequers 12:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Vote for "The Cyclone"! Hey, luv, got your e-mail about your election. I hope this helps. Next stop, Downing Street! LOL! Elana W (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Removing blatant trolling. Nick (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Strong Support, as nom, obviously. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
5. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. I would have been a third co-nom but today is my g/f's birthday and so I chose to spend the day until now with her instead of here and now it already started. Anyway, first of all, I might be biased, as Cyclonenim nominated me for adminship in October 2008 but I think I can still make an impartial judgment. CN has shown a real cluefulness when it comes to Wikipedia matters and has enough experience in admin related matters. His CSD work is almost perfect too, something we know I really look for in a candidate. So are his contributions to AIV, ANI, UAA and other admin-y areas. He has really shown maturity since his last RFA, a change that one might not have expected. As for the opposes, they are not convincing. The conflict in Q3 is not a sign of lack of maturity, rather one of lack of patience with people who are trying to insert their personal interpretation of "neutral wording" into articles, after they were told that others are disagreeing with the alleged neutrality of those edits and especially when their "arguments" start consisting of personal attacks (one must read both sides to understand why CN reacted this way). I have seen senior admins who reacted much worse to such a situation. But if one reads the whole incident chronologically, one must admin that CN understood that those editors were only baiting him - not at once, but he did. His behavior afterwards shows no similar problems, so I am confident he has learned the lesson of this incident and will not let himself be baited like that anymore. As for Caspian's oppose, he clearly states he wants to work in CSD, UAA and RM. As for Q5, most admins, myself included, are hesitant to venture into file related CSD. But I see nothing wrong with his answer, just his honest admission that his knowledge is not perfect. But then, whose is? Pastor Theo's oppose strikes me as illogical, to say the least. Asking people who have opposed you in the past to review your actions to see whether you have improved rather shows honest desire to work on one's flaws and to reflect on mistakes pointed out by others. I don't think a "fairly obvious desire to become an admin" is evident, if one remembers that the last one was more than 9 months ago and that this RFA is the result of multiple people asking him to run again. So, the opposes are not convincing enough to make me hesitate to support this request. Regards SoWhy 15:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Definitely. Much improved since your previous RfA, which was nearly nine months ago. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 15:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. As nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. Opposes hold no water to me. I urge future !voters to do their own research on this one - Cyclonenim is an excellent candidate and will be a huge asset to the administrative team. Tan | 39 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
10. No reason to believe he will abuse the tools. Cyclonenim is not a perfect candidate, but we're not looking for perfect administrators, just decent ones who won't disrupt the writing of the encyclopedia and who will help with the backlogs. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support per answer to my question. He won't abuse the tools. Timmeh! 16:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support, although I'm happy to continue the conversation with the opposition and be influenced by them ... I can tell that something is bugging people, I just don't have a firm grasp on what it is yet. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Okay, Chris gave some good responses on the talk page, I'll watch for a while and then weigh in. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

13. Support - I understand the concerns in opposition, but this user has clue, and that's enough for me to put me firmly over here, really. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - The concerns raised below are understandable, but nothing so egregious that I am forced to oppose. Cyclo's knowledge of medicine is also a plus (maybe that's my own bias though). Nevertheless, he's a prolific contributor with a good head on his shoulders and an asset to the community. I can't foresee him abusing the tools. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Absolutely.  iMatthew :  Chat  17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support as candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards by having never been blocked, but rather by having contributed to multiple Good and Featured articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Clearly this editor has made mistakes in the past. Who has not? But he has shown an ability to learn and a committment to the project which I feel qualifies him comfortably for the mop and bucket. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support An excellent contributor to the project. He's shown willingness to learn and understand where others are coming from and I believe he will be a fine admin. Dean B (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - Besides, in an ideal world, terms such as "negro" would be made illegal. — R² 21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    I would contest that that would be as far from an ideal world as possible, but that is a discussion for another place. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

20. Support - not convinced by the issues raised by the opposers. While Cyclonenim's behaviour over the 'negro case' wasn't perfect, his intentions were right, and he apologised for his mistakes afterwards. It seems to me that he has learned since his last RFA failed, and as long as he brushes up on our policies like 3RR, he would make a successful admin. Robofish (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
21. I ran into Cyclonenim a few months ago, and he was helpful and seemed a decent sort. He's been here long enough to convince nearly everyone (even several opposers) that he has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. I do note, with some surprise, the "using 'negro' is illegal" incident, and do kind of wonder, if he had had the tools at the time, if he would have made a mistake with them. Many of the opposes seem to be based on this incident being an indicator of poor judgment. Since, on occasion, I have actually made a few mistakes in my life myself, I tend to allow others to do the same, and don't think we should be insisting on perfection. I am convinced by a review of his talk page contributions the last few months that he is open to constructive criticism, and learns from his mistakes. I don't think it's reasonable to insist on more than that. If Cyclonenim can assure us that, until he gets his bearings, he will err on the side of inaction when he's not 100% sure what to do, and will check with other admins frequently until he's very comfortable with the ins and outs of adminning, then I think he deserves our support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support a productive editor. He made a mistake but I don't think it's one that necessarily implies he'd be bad with the tools. He says (in his second comment on Nick mallory's oppose) that he'd have acted more cautiously with the tools and that we can only take his word on that; I for one am inclined to do so. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. Keen contributor to important topics, been around for a while, unlikely to abuse the tools and in fact likely to use them constructively. JFW | T@lk 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - My impressions of this user in the past have been good. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Majorly talk 01:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support - Quick review shows he has a clue; I'm not willing to require perfection. Yeah, he has made a few errors, who hasn't? Seems willing to learn from them, much more important than complete understanding of each and every policy and admin tool. King Pickle (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
27. I have seen Cyclonenim around and have had a positive impression, and am glad he is running for RfA. He is adequately experienced in several important areas of Wikipedia, and he is generally civil in his dealings with others. I liked reading his answers to the standard RfA question; they were honest, straightforward, and thoughtful, which are good qualities for administrators to have. He has demonstrated a willingness to admit to and learn from his past blunders, and his answer to Q3 (in my mind) refutes what I see as the major opposing point below; he recognizes his misjudgment, and I trust he will not make the same mistake again. Regarding the opposers, while I understand their concerns, I feel that their arguments are not sufficiently convincing to me that Cyclonenim will abuse or frequently misuse the tools; and were he to make a mistake, the simple way to handle it is to discuss it, and change it. We need more admins with the humility that Cyclonenim has. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support- I suppose I'm a little bit troubled by some of the opposes, but on the whole I think Cyclonenim will be a net positive with the tools. Reyk _YO! 05:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - because of the sheer amount of completely stupid questions being asked that get asked every time, you might as well have a free support. The fact that I recognize the name helps as well and i've only been here a short time. Matty (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Unconvinced by opposition. Húsönd 10:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support, I acknowledge that there are some continued concerns as highlighted by the opposers, but I don't view any of them as being major. No admin is perfect, and I think you'd be a clear net positive with the tools, as in general you are sensible, mature and knowledgeable. Best of luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. Wizardman 17:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
33. I think that Cyclonenim will be fine. I've never had any problems with him. Acalamari 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Of course. — Aitias // discussion 20:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. I've read the opposes very carefully, but none of them seem fatal to Cyclonenim's RFA to me and I struggle to take some of them seriously; so I'm !voting support out of a sense of fair play.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Weak Support Mature and knowledgable enough for the job.  Marlith (Talk)  01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support  My review of the editor's contribs show a desire to build the encyclopedia, sufficient knowledge of rules and policies, and in the recent incident cited by the opposes, contrition and self-examination. I see much benefit and little risk in giving the bit. --StaniStani  05:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The question remains from previous RfAs why an editor who is barely active in the various areas which require the tools can be trusted with them. Despite the nominator's having stated that Cyclonenim "works extensively in the AIV, CSD and XFD spaces", I do not see a single edit on AIV or XfD in the last two months - Cyclonenim said himself that he wasn't ready at that time - where's the evidence that this has changed? this exchange also displays an immaturity, and more importantly a rather serious misunderstanding of policy. That was only a month ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Does that last exchange show misunderstanding of policy? My interpretation is that Cyclonenim thought publishing the word negro was illegal. That's a major (and to me surprising) misunderstanding of law - but given that he thought that, it would surely be perfectly correct to remove the word from Wikipedia. I may have misinterpreted though: please feel free to correct me. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm aware that responding to opposes can be frowned upon, so I'll try not to do this too often, but I feel I should clarify some things that you've brought up. I'll start with the previous RfAs, being that my first was within literally a few hundred edits (so essentially a NOTNOW or SNOW closure) and the second, I was clearly too inexperienced in a wide variety of areas to gain community support. This third RfA is my attempt now that I feel I'm ready for the bit given past experience in most areas, be it only a few reports to AIV and UAA. As for edits to AIV, as I stated below my nominators statements, I admit I have not worked in this area for several months, and that is why I pretty much intend to stay away from it for a long time, and only return under guidance. If you feel my policy knowledge there isn't up-to-scratch, ask me questions and I'll try to prove to you that it is. As for XfD, here is an AfD I participated in yesterday. Finally, I'll comment upon the situation that I brought up in my Q3. I do not believe it shows immaturity, I believe it shows a very human nature to get a bit worked up when being insulted and baited, especially when you know your situation is the right one. I clearly had a major misunderstanding of the law, as Olaf has pointed out, but I don't feel that it's somehow questioned my judgement on Wikipedia as we all know that the word 'Negro' should not replace 'African-American'. Everyone, I believe, has times when they get worked up like that, and it's very rare that I do get quite so worked up, but even so I believe I've learnt from that situation. Please don't consider this an attempt to badger your vote, it's not, just an explanation of the issues I think you've raised. Thanks, feel free to ask more if you need clarification any further. —Cyclonenim | Chat  12:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   I also don't want to badger, but I'd like to clarify my nom statement with regards to AIV. Cyclonenim, at this point, has 53 edits to AIV, all of which, as pointed out, are of a good quality. I, as a medium-term editor who's handed out more than the odd block here and there, have 54 edits to that page. If Cyclonenim can keep up with an admin who often enjoys spending a little time working with AIV, without stepping over the line too many times, then he's got good enough experience for me to consider it 'extensive'. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

   Chris, neither of those links is working for me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Dank55, it may be your browser. They're from my talk page archives which use {{hat}} and {{hab}}. If you use something like IE, Firefox, or Safari, you should be able to unhide the messages. If not, then I'll copy and paste them to your talk page if you so desire. —Cyclonenim | Chat  15:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hm, I use the latest Firefox. I found the links. Chris, Cyclonenim says in the first link "this is a preliminary outlook until both my nominators have expressed their desire to nominate me" ... was that what you were referring to as saying he's not ready? Also, Chris, I see that Cyclonenim was getting worked up, but I can't see any immaturity in this: "The term 'negro' is racist, and therefore not allowed by law, not just by our policy. The foundation could get sued for placement of that term on articles..." "Negro" is indeed racist except when we're quoting historical material, and per our WP:BLP, WP:Attack page and WP:Libel policies, should be deleted on sight for exactly the reason Cyclonenim says, to minimize the risk of lawsuits. (What I'm saying here is, I trust your sense of dissatisfaction, Chris, but I can't work out yet exactly where it's coming from ... more detail would be helpful.) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   It'd probably be better to continue this thread on the talk page. I'll try to elaborate there later. UPDATE: more here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per A1 (does not look clear to me what he wants with the new bit), A3 (poor communication skills with incivility), A5 (lack of understanding image policy), especially A3. Although I have no interaction with him, I've happened to disagree with his view and opinion on RFA discussions. --Caspian blue 14:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I am in agreement with Mr. Cunningham on the points that he raised. I am also concerned about Cyclonenim’s fairly obvious desire to become an admin, as witnessed by the mass of inquiries sent out between February 8-11 to opposers of his last RfA – this could be seen as gaming the system to see whether the Opposers of RfA #2 will be back in RfA #3. This message from February 9 [1] asks someone to watchlist this page while acknowledging he is running the risk of canvassing – two months before this RfA went live. The full exchange between Cyclonenim and CadenS [2] shows Cyclonenim pouring gas on a fiery situation, especially when Cyclonenim keeps promising to stop posting messages and then returns for more. I am sorry, but I cannot support this RfA. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ironholds (talk · contribs) requested that I informed him when this when live, which I have done. At no point have I informed anyone of this RfA who haven't asked to be informed. Every person who has requested to be informed I have also told to watchlist this page instead. This isn't canvassing per WP:CANVAS. Not one of the previous opposers I consulted had an issue with me contacting them regarding their opinion on me running again, since it wasn't me actually asking for support, it was me asking for their opinion on my ability to administrate this encyclopaedia. Feel free to contact Ironholds directly and he will (hopefully!) tell you the same. My dealings with all these editors was conducted openly, on-site, and can be seen by my contributions. One such user was a bureaucrat, and they didn't raise any concern. Any more questions, feel free to ask. —Cyclonenim | Chat  14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   I am sorry, but your explanation has a problem. Your spamming of the RfA #2 opponents clearly stated: “I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my current status in the Wikipedia community, and if you believe I would be ready to run for adminship again in future?” But why would you ask for their input when you were simultaneously instructing Ironholds (and others, which you admit) to watchlist the link to RfA #3? It doesn’t appear that you were interested in your ex-opponents’ opinions since you were simultaneously telling your friends that RfA #3 was a done deal. From my view, FWIW, it looks like you were gaming the system – giving the impression to your former opponents that you genuinely welcomed their input on whether you should run while winking to your friends that party time was just around the corner, regardless of what anyone had to say. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   I was always convinced I would run again at some point, the question was when, and my comments to ex-opposers were to discover whether they thought I was ready or not. The conversations I've had with my friends are completely different, because they had already stated that they wanted me to run for adminship! Why, then, would I ask them to watchlist this page? Because they have already told me to inform them when it goes live, and they have already offered support. This is no different to systems such as User:A Nobody/RfA or similar links by people such as User:Synergy/Durova. I can assure you this wasn't an attempt to game the system, but rather an genuine attempt to improve my chances at RfA. That said, your mind is made up, so I won't bother you further :) Regards. —Cyclonenim | Chat  20:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   If you were always convinced that you would run again, why bother to ask people if they thought you were ready when you already knew that you were going to run again? That could be seen as insincere or illogical. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   The way I understand it, he never was convinced when he would run again. So it makes perfect sense to ask people for their input; because while he might have already known he would run again in the future if he was ready, he seems to have asked those people to determine when "ready" really is. I see neither insincerity nor illogicality in that. After all, the question "if" one should run is distinct from the "when" someone should run and one can have an answer to one of them while needing input to answer the other. Regards SoWhy 20:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   We have to disagree on that point. FWIW, I believe the spamming of the ex-opponents for their opinions while simultaneously telling friends to watchlist an RfA #3 link is problematic. I am sorry that I cannot support Cyclonenim. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   What exactly is problematic? To ask ex-opposers whether he was able to improve those things they opposed for? Or telling one person who asked to be notified to watchlist this RFA instead? The later especially strikes me as something you are taking way out of proportion. I could understand it if CN tried to canvass. But he told to watchlist this to a user who wanted to be notified when he starts a new RFA. I don't think anyone can blame CN for fulfilling a friendly request. Regards SoWhy 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW, I see his actions as being insincere -- asking people for their opinions on a course of action when his mind was already made up on how to proceed. Now, I have stated my opinion -- I hope I don't have to spend the next six days watching Cyclonenim and his friends pick it apart. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I read, with some incredulity, the exchange about the use of 'negro' which happened just a month ago. Cyclonenim wrote "The term 'negro' is racist, and therefore not allowed by law, not just by our policy. The foundation could get sued for placement of that term on articles, so adding it into articles when you know is wrong is downright unacceptable, and I will get anyone who does it blocked from editing." To be so ignorant of the language and the law is bad enough, but to fly off the handle like that and threaten to block people who have done no wrong without pausing for a moment to think or do even a modicum on research on the matter is not the sort of rash, bullying and self righteous behaviour a would be administrator should be indulging in. As to those who think the word 'negro' is racist outside of a historical use, perhaps they should sue the good people of The National Council of Negro Women with money from the United Negro College Fund? Nick mallory (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   We haven't had a good, serious discussion about race and other bias issues in a while; maybe this is the opportunity. The use of a term like "Negro" (and even the n-word, and "queer" or "faggot") by members of the group in question doesn't mean that the word isn't defamatory in other contexts; it is. Of course, for the purposes of Wikipedia policy and this RFA, we're talking about WP policy, not right and wrong, so for a full answer, we should consult User:Mike Godwin, the Foundation lawyer, and probably the AP Stylebook chapter on defamation law; I'll start a thread on the talk page of this RFA if anyone wants to pursue this. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   That's not what you said. You wrote 'Negro" is indeed racist except when we're quoting historical material, and per our WP:BLP, WP:Attack page and WP:Libel policies, should be deleted on sight for exactly the reason Cyclonenim says' and that's clearly silly, as anyone in The Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League would tell you. If you want to quote wikipedia policy then great, which wikipedia policy explicitly forbids the use of the word 'negro'? If it is forbidden then I suggest you put that wikipedia page up for deletion. Nick mallory (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   I feel the problem here is that I expressed myself wrong in that thread, and didn't quite get across what I meant to. I didn't mean to say that the very word "negro" is downright racist and its use punishable by law, but I thought that in certain cultures, being racist can be considered illegal. Since then, I have come to a better understanding of the law, and know that only U.S. law and internationally agreed law counts when it comes to Wikipedia, not those "other cultures". I don't believe all uses are racist, as pointed out by your Universal Negro Improvement Association and Asfrican Communities League. I do (currently, may I add) believe that the non-historical use of the word negro on articles to replace the term African-American is offensive and derogatory, and should be removed from Wikipedia on sight unless absolutely necessary (such as with the article on the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League). I also resent being called a bully, when previously I have made no such threats other than those with full warnings, and that applies only to vandals, not normal users. I made a mistake, I learnt from it. What more can I do? —Cyclonenim | Chat  16:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   My point was it was only a month ago. You should check stuff before you threaten action, especially in such a ticklish area. If you'd been an admin then, what would have happened? You jumped into something you were ignorant of with all guns blazing, what happens the next time when you've got all the buttons at your disposal? You've just said that you didn't mean to say 'the very word negro is downright racist and its use punishable by law' but that's exactly what you did say at the time. You see the problem here? If you'd said 'I made a mistake, I'll research these things in future before jumping in' then great, I wouldn't have opposed but you've made clear you've only learnt about the word in question, not the wider point about your rash behaviour and how that might have an impact if you're an admin. Nick mallory (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Whilst I agree and openly admit that my conduct there was not ideal by anyone's standards, I have learnt a lesson from it in general. Since then, I haven't gone in anywhere else with "all guns blazing", and I certainly wouldn't have acted like that with the tools. Everyone knows that an administrator shouldn't act where they have a conflict of interest, but instead ask for the help of others. I did that then (just not early enough) by taking it to ANI, and I would have gone to another administrator (probably at ANI too) if I had the tools. I guess you only have my word on that, but it's all I can offer. Sorry. —Cyclonenim | Chat  16:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Glad to hear it, we all make mistakes and learning from them is the best way to make progress. I don't have a problem with you personally at all, I just don't think you're ready for adminship right now. Nick mallory (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose Per questions 1 and 3. Also, per Chris Cunningham. As Chris said, the nom was incorrect with his info concerning AIV and Xfd. I can't support. Sorry America69 (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Could you please clarify on your opposition to my answers to questions 1 and 3? Also, as Lankiveil pointed out, I have made numerous contributions to both those answers, matching the contributions of some high standing, current administrators. —Cyclonenim | Chat  16:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   True, you have made many contribs, but the nom was wrong in the fact that you have not made many contribs in the past few months in AIV and Xfd. Was that what you meant? America69 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see how any of that is a fault of mine at all, I'm afraid. I have made edits to XfD in recent months, just look at my contribs rather than taking the word of one user above. I made one just yesterday, in fact. I clarified from the outset that my nominator was not correct in saying I had extensive knowledge of AIV, so I really don't see how any of this can be used as a judgement on me? —Cyclonenim | Chat  16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Just to add more, Chris added a bit more to his oppose at this RFA's disscussion page.[3] What he said, I strongley agree with. America69 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose I would love to see another admin paying attention to neurology, and I'm sure Cyclonenim's heart is in the right place, but there is a combination here of willingness to block and lack of understanding of when blocking is appropriate that is a big red flag for me. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose per answer to Q4. Saying that one cannot block for edit warring if the user hasn't done more than 3 reverts is not correct. This and the initial mistake in the answer shows a significant lack of policy knowledge. Mr.Z-man 16:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   I meant you cannot block for 3RR... —Cyclonenim | Chat  16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, that's what I understood it as; not being able to block "for 3RR", not for edit warring. Timmeh! 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   I think Z might have been pointing out that your answer should have read "4 reverts in a 24 hour period", if we're talking about the letter of it. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Isn't that the part he clarified in the answer to question 6? Timmeh! 17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, didn't see that. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   The question didn't specifically say anything about 3RR and the answer didn't mention anything about the edit warring policy, nor anything to do with the hypothetical user's attempt to game the system (which was even mentioned in the question explicitly). In any case, I don't particularly like the process of: Answer the question ... "no that's wrong" ... (read the policy) answer again. If you had to read the policy to answer it correctly the first time, that might be understandable if you aren't particularly familiar with dealing with edit warring, but such a process could go pretty badly if the candidate was an admin and the situation wasn't hypothetical. Mr.Z-man 19:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose - User shows a poor understanding of fair use and legal matters in general. The statements about the word "negro" ("The term 'negro' is racist, and therefore not allowed by law, not just by our policy") show an inability to act objectively, act calmly, and make statements that were appropriate to Wikipedia. The justifications for need of tools or activeness in areas he would use tools does not match what I have seen looking through their contribs. Sorry, but I do not think you are nearly qualified and your behavior is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Let's also not forget that Cyclonenim never bothered to state which country's law made the published use of the word "negro" a crime that, I presume, is punishable by arrest and imprisonment. Since Wikipedia editors come from all over the world and represent countries with many different laws, I would be interested to know which country or countries he was thinking of with that broad statment. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Please do not place words in my mouth, at no point did I say it could be punishable by arrest and imprisonment. Why did I have to believe there was a specific country involved? I felt that racism could be illegal in some countries. Yes, I should have consulted someone else before making such as a statement, and I think we're circling here because I've apologised so many times for not doing so, and there is nothing else I could do. Everyone makes mistakes, I would have thought people could be more understanding of that. —Cyclonenim | Chat  21:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   You said: "The term 'negro' is racist, and therefore not allowed by law" -- whose law? And wouldn't something that is not allowed by law mean it is criminal action -- even if it just a misdemeanor? Your apology is sincere, but you are shooting from the hip and that is a poor quality for an admin -- or anyone, for that matter. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   It doesn't really matter. NLT makes it clear that you aren't supposed to be using claims that something is an illegal act in such a manner to threaten behavior. To even throw out the law in such a careless manner in a content dispute while simultaneously misrepresenting the stance of WMF is problematic. I'm sorry, Cyclonenim, but such things need to have a buffer of time before they can be seen as not arising in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose Mr. Cunningham has found one strong reason to oppose; having one's heart in the right place doesn't excuse having one's head in the wrong place. Placing messages like that on people's pages serves as a chilling effect and reflects poorly on the candidate. If the candidate had the block button, I have no doubt it would have been (mis-)used (if one isn't going to block for something one feels is illegal pray tell what would one block for?) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    That's a pretty strong assumption, seeing as I made it clear on the talk page that I would not take any administrative action in an area where I am involved with a potential conflict of interest. Discussing a potential illegality is different to blocking over it, just as I would be allowed in a discussion to suggest protection of a page, but if I'm involved in the dispute, I wouldn't carry it out. —Cyclonenim | Chat  21:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose I think we all agree that ParaGreen13 was a vandal and that he deserved his block. As an administrator, you'll no doubt be coming into contact with many more such people, and I'm afraid that the evidence posted by others leads me to feel that you might make more such mistakes in the future. Especially considering the ParaGreen13 incident was only a month ago. Making a mistake and then apologizing for it shows that you can admit when you're wrong, but there may be many cases where the other person will not stick around to hear an apology. Also, this diff makes it look like you're admitting to having been editing other people's comments, although I searched forward and backward in the edit history of that page and could not find evidence that you'd done so. That is not the reason for my oppose; I only wanted to bring it to the attention of the others. --- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose: My main concern is the inability shown by the candidate to detach from an issue and walk away - it's really not pleasant to watch administrators trying to get the last word in on an issue and it only ever leads to situations escalating out of control. I also believe that the candidate is presently making too many errors to be trusted with the tools, now you're never going to get perfection from our admin corps, but I believe the error rate is excessive at the moment and ultimately, there would be a problem to deal with in the future. The high probability of unintentional misuse of the tools together with a stand-offish approach makes this candidate unsuited to being an administrator at this time. Nick (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Weak Oppose per judgment concerns raised by those above. GlassCobra 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose The first oppose is complete hogwash as reasoning, but there are other examples of extremely poor judgment listed above and in the answers to questions. Learning on a the job is okay, but only if you can demonstrate a capacity to do so while remaining basically trustworthy. I don't see that currently. Steven Walling (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Sorry, but I have concerns about your judgment, as many of the above opposers have elaborated on. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 07:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose, Agree with concerns about judgment as brought up by Pastor Theo (talk · contribs), Nick mallory (talk · contribs), Nick (talk · contribs), and others, above. Cirt (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
17. A lot of my ideas have been brought up already, but here goes. I most agree with Nick, I think that your judgment is not so much the problem rather than your over-focus on issues that have already ended. It's like a WP:GRUDGE; you just won't walk away from it. Also, per your poor judgment, though it worries me considerably less. Ceranllama chat post 10:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Per the above concerns, particularly Nick mallory's, I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet. I would glady support in three or four months if it appears you've taken them to heart. :-)--Patton^t/c 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Regretful Oppose per above. While I believe Cyclonenim has made some excellent contributions to the project, the issues brought up by multiple other users, especially Nick mallory, are causes for concern. However, I would be happy to support in the future and some more experience. Sorry, Fastily (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose based on A3 and A4. While Cyclonenim is a valued contributor, he lacks both the knowledge and the temperment to be trusted with sysop status. Majoreditor (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose per my criteria. Though I have several concerns, the answers to #11 and #15, in particular, were severely problematic. "Vote" counting of any sort in an XfD discussion is simply contrary to the wiki model. And the example that the candidate chose, or rather their reasoning thereof, leaves me even greater concerns. They gave their opinion about the list page (and supporting the nominator) rather than saying anything about how they would assess the discussion. While an admin indeed is allowed to be (and should be) mindful of current policy (the "broader" consensus), and may close solely based upon that under certain circumstances, the question of the applicability of NOTDIR was definitely not clear, and so at least some reliance on (and assessment of), the discussion at hand might have been at least somewhat appropriate? I think that the statement (concerning determining consensus) that most strikes me is: "...you essentially have to use common sense to determine who is correct in their opinion." - No. no. no. no. no. - jc37 10:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    So you're saying that XfD isn't a !vote? Because it really, really is. Sure, you have to justify your vote just like anywhere else, but it still comes down to "keep", "delete" or "merge" (similar to "support", "oppose" and "neutral" at RfA). It's an opinionated vote. I assessed the discussion by commenting about why I would discount the keep votes on that page, if you wanted an expansion upon that then you could have simply asked me for one before jumping straight to oppose. As for common sense, are you saying that you don't use common sense to determine consensus? I ask because that would worry me. I made it quite clear that number of keeps and deletes should be used in determining consensus only when arguments are of equal integrity, is that not correct? The application of NOTDIR in that list is clear, in that Wikipedia prohibits directory entries which are not notable in their own right (which most certainly applied to the list of gamelan ensembles). As an inclusionist, you might think that the article could have been improved, but I fundamentally disagreed, as did the majority of voters (or participants) in that XfD. —Cyclonenim | Chat  11:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    Reading back, that comes across as a bit of a rant, but it wasn't intended that way :) —Cyclonenim | Chat  11:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    No worries. Please consider my comments below in good faith as well. - jc37 11:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    (ec) - Wow. There are so many issues with your response, I almost don't have the heart to point them out.

    First, XfD is NOT a vote. Please see ALL of the related policy and guidelines. Though our over-riding policy is WP:CON. The only time that we have any sort of situation of "voting" on Wikipedia is when we're considering entrusting someone with more responsibility and or tools (such as RfA).

    And the issue is not the question of using "common sense", the issue is the idea that as the closer, you indicate that you would determine who "...is correct in their opinion.". That is SO not what a closer should be doing.

    And the part I "like" best (least) is that you felt that you then needed to turn this into an inclusionist/deletionist discussion.

    And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

    And besides my concerns about how you view consensus and the determination thereof (etc.), based upon your comments above, I have sincere doubts about trusting your judgement in any WP:IAR situation, and considering how, by having the "extra" tools and responsibilities of adminship, IAR may come more often to the fore, I simply don't believe I can support this nomination at this time. - jc37 11:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    And on that note, I feel I should now withdraw from this RfA. Most of the above opposes don't bother me because I know I've learnt from a situation. Your questions and your reply have clearly pointed out that I do not currently have the policy knowledge to be an administrator at this time. I disagree with some of what you've said, but that discussion is for another place. Thanks for your feedback, I'll put a withdrawal statement at the top of this RfA. —Cyclonenim | Chat  11:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Cannot decide. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral I was going to support, but, after reading the opposes, I am unable to do so at the moment. hmwithτ 04:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to support. #Neutral  - researching contribs and behavior. My initial lean is to support. --StaniStani  04:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral As with User:hmwith I was going to support but after reading the opposes carefully I now can't decide. Don't think any damage would be done with the tools though. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship 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.