Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2a

Weyes

Vote here (40/17/3) ending 16:23, 30 June 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Statement
Raul654 and I have assented to nullify the old vote on Weyes and start this as a new nomination, without prejudice. The reason for this action is that there were considerations of voting irregularities that tainted the earlier vote so that it was impractical to properly determine consensus, even with extensions. By "without prejudice," I mean that we are making no judgment whatever on the quality of Weyes' nomination or Weyes as user, and voters should not take this restarting of the vote as any commentary for or against the candidacy itself. Please look at this candidacy fresh. If you voted before, you must vote again for your vote to count. The original candidate statement and the candidate's original responses to the questions follow. Thank you, Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:33, 23 Jun 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; deserves the rollback button for his work on RC patrol alone. Good contributor. Antandrus (talk) 05:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. A good RC patroller who would benefit from the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. His contributions and grunt work far outweigh the (largely removed from context) two points being brought against him. Tentatively neutral. Was there ever plain comment from Weyes himself on that "Ozdusters" newbie incident? I don't like all the rhetoric from the last round's opposition, but would like to know his take. Shem^(talk) 06:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   At length, see the comments section of the old RfA. --W(t) 05:22, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

   Apologies and noted, I'd not read through the old page's closing comments recently. Shem^(talk) 05:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4. Support (and as this is likely to get long, I've added headers. I wanted to add support last time, but the file was just too damn long to edit). Grutness...wha? 06:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:31, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
6. Hope he makes it this time. Weyes deserves our support. This vote is also not a battleground for policy discussions. JFW | T@lk 06:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. No undeniable evidence says that I should oppose Weyes' nomination, and I have only had good experience with him in the past. He has done very good work in the WP namespace, and should be given a mop and bucket to carry out this behind-the-scenes work. Harro5 06:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Seems to do good work. --Carnildo 06:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Yes, there are two or ten examples of Weyes having behaved more grumpy than prefered among his thousand dealings with newbies, but it's human and I think he knows when he hasn't been at his best and has learned from them. Anyway, they are very few cases that don't ruin my picture of Weyes as a hardworking, civil and well meaning wikiholic who would clearly benefit from having a mop. Shanes 06:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
10. Support once more. Radiant_>|< 07:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Same as last time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. He shows an indefatigable willingness to clean up vandalism and other abuses (such as link spamming). I note some of the worries expressed by Theo below, and I hope that Weyes will pay heed — but on the whole I think that he'll make a good admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Good RC patrol effort, and mistakes made were easily fixable newbie mistakes. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 10:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
14. Strong Support just like last time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, as before: Notwithstanding valid issues brought up at the previous vote, I have enough trust in Weyes for him to be given admin privileges. Jitse Niesen 11:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
16. Third time now that I've voted both for and against this candidate (shush, JRM!). That actually means I voted SIX times! Which is pretty sweet, if you ask me, which I hope for. (still on break, btw, just wanted to see how his RFA was doing, and to my surprise... SIX times!). El_C 11:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
17. Support -- extra support for fighting link spam --Pjacobi 13:04, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
18. Still Support, as per the last RFA. Guettarda 13:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
19. Support again. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 14:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
20. Same as before. I should note that at the end of the 7 days last time he had right at 80% support if you disregard the sockpuppet votes, so I think he should have been promoted then. CryptoDerk 15:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
21. — Dan | Talk 15:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

    JackRabbitSlim101 15:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Argon443 15:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    support Raul655 16:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    note: First edit for these users. --newsjunkie 16:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

22. Support Elfguy 17:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. As before. Carbonite | Talk 18:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Again. 172 18:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
25. Support -JCarriker 19:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
26. David Gerard 19:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
27. Support As per previous vote. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, as per previous vote, and note this revoting thing looks too much like a certain VfD. --cesarb 21:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
29. Support, per previous vote. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
30. Support, excellent RC patroller. JYolkowski // talk 22:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. I trust him. Dan100 (Talk) 22:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
32. Support--Duk 00:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
33. Seems friendly Everyking 02:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
34. Support Stewart Adcock 11:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. No need to convince me this time El. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
36. Support, still convinced he would make a fine admin. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
37. Support, I have seen his committment to reversing vandalism in action. Ben Babcock 18:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. --NormanEinstein 19:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
39. Support --FCYTravis 19:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
40. Strong support. Wikipedia needs such active users as admins to keep the whole ship from sinking down. Pavel Vozenilek 22:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC), what a farce.

   What, you mean your opposition? JFW | T@lk 06:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   There seems to be plenty of opposition, so opposition to this vote isn't really a farce. Further, it has never been stated that reasons need to be given. Undoubtedly it's preferable, but it is left to the user's discretion, and when the user has a long edit history, there's no reason to discount or disparage it. --Scimitar 21:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Look at the talk page. JFW | T@lk 23:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose As per previous vote. -- JamesTeterenko 05:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose as per reasons set out in my previous vote. -- Joolz 07:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose because I still do not trust this candidate's judgement despite the support now and earlier by people whose opinions I respect. I note that Weyes' edit summaries have become more explanatory and I appreciate that. I also admire the good humour which he has displayed throughout this battering process. I remain concerned, however, about Weyes' tendency to remove external links wholesale and the apparent lack of doubt or reconsideration when the invalidity of a link is questioned. Similarly potentially misleading oversimplification in debate worries me. All this was covered in the previous vote so I will not rehash details here. I still see Weyes as a valuable industrious editor but I do not feel comfortable handing the delete button to someone with these behavioural patterns. I would be happy to support a renomination after a few months of demonstrated discussion before wholesale reversions, informative accurate edit summaries, accurate argument, and consistent courtesy.—Theo (Talk) 08:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Again. --Mrfixter 09:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose again. Same reasons as Theo, same reasons as previous vote. I think Weyes needs more time to soften his edges and temper his judgements. --Unfocused 12:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose As stated earlier. --newsjunkie 13:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose: what Theo said. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose as per previous vote. I am very unhappy at this tactic of restarting the vote on a new page, especially given that the people who voted before have not been informed. If Weyes is successful on this vote I would try and get it declared null and void. Dirty tactics and a complete farce, SqueakBox 15:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
   • It is, however, entirely according to the procedure, to the extent that the bureaucrats may in good faith ask for a revote if they think it necessary. Some people may choose to rethink their opinion, rather than repeat themselves. Censorship doesn't come into it, a link to the previous vote was already provided. Radiant_>|< 18:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

   This is what I put before (inc responses), thus avoiding the censoring of my comments:

   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 ^(talk) 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)

   IU don't see how mass removal of links at whois and IP address can be described as a knack for spotting illegitamte external links. My experience is the opposite, that he doesn't really know what he is doing with the external links, and would just like to remove them all. At the very least his conservative view around links is controversial, and should not be a reason to support him, SqueakBox 16:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

   Could you give any specific edits you object to (here or on my talk page is fine)? --W(t) 20:43, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

   This is an example of a conservative attitude to external links. In terms of knowing what you were doing I was referring specifically to when you left the whois and IP address without most of their external links. Here you eliminate ther external links at whois, including the one at Internic.net. An anon then replaces the internic link and a couple of others here, without, of course, replacing the competitors. A field day for spammers, in my opinion. Later another anon here again spams the site with one link. I don't doubt your good intention but I feel these actions were misguided, SqueakBox 21:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

10. Oppose - Better to wait a while, especially because we don't have any reliable way to revoke adminship in case promoting was a mistake. -- Netoholic @ 23:22, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I just found him starting off on a IP with {{test3}}. That seems a bit harsh. Just reinforces the issue with overly harsh treatment of newbies. (Also needs to learn to use subst:.) Kelly Martin 02:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose, per Theo's arguments. ElBenevolente 02:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. I'm not so much against the idea of Weyes becoming an admin; I like the guy and think he'd be good at it. I'm opposed to it happening this way. Unfocused makes some good points on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Weyes_extended. I think this whole thing is too much "let's just keep voting until it comes out our way." We should let things cool off for a month or two and then revisit the issue. --Xcali 06:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    You are certainly entitled to your vote, but voting oppose because you don't like the way something is done, kinda violates WP:POINT doesn't it? I mean, Weyes hasn't had any influence on this process being extended, it's the bureaucrats that did that. Please vote on the merits of the candidate and leave comments about the process to the talk page. - Taxman ^Talk 12:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

    How is this disruptive to the Wikipedia? In this case, the person and the process are almost inseparable. There was no consensus to promote last time, and therefore, I think that Weyes should not be promoted at this time. I think we should wait on Weyes at this point, and I am voting accordingly. Would you prefer that I post no reason a la Boothy443? --Xcali 14:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    No, like I said, you are entitled to your vote, and explanation of reasoning is helpful in order to determine community consensus. However saying Weyes and the process are inseparable is flawed if Weyes had no involvement in extending the process. Your vote appears to be about the process, not whether the user is trustworthy to be an admin. And it's not terribly disruptive, but not voting on the candidates qualities and only that, isn't in the spirit of requests for adminship either. So I haven't mean to harass you and won't continue to comment, but I would ask that you vote on the candidate's merits only, including to oppose, if that is what you think. - Taxman ^Talk 15:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

14. Oppose. It's funny, because everybody says that adminship is "no big deal", but everyone acts like it is, particularly here. The simple fact of the matter is that blocking users is a big power, and not everyone should have it, perhaps even (dare I say it) some of our current admins. Theo makes some good points, and I was surprised that on the original debate, sockpuppets weren't just discounted and the votes tallied, which would have resulted in Weyes application being rejected. I don't doubt that they (edit:the bureaucrats) acted in good faith, but it casts an un-needed cloud over Weyes application nomination. I would suggest letting it cool down, and coming back in a month or so. After all, if it's no big deal anyway, what does it matter if there's a bit of a wait? --Scimitar 13:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
15. "Well, Steven, that was very rude. You could have called to tell me you were not coming. Well, your loss. I got chatting to a nice German guy anyway, by the name of Wolfgang. He even gave me his 'phone number, so I guess I should go call him...... Oh, and that's an oppose. Toodles!" 62.253.96.44 15:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Marmot)

    Is this an inside joke? Because it sure isn't funny. Mike H 16:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

    "Do you have diabetes? Because I'd sure hate for you to drop dead in the middle of a conversation. Haul your fat arse onto the treadmill and get it sorted." Marmot.org 17:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    My "fat arse" is none of your damned business so just shut the hell up about it. Mike H 21:30, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

    Marmot, stop making persoanl attacks that are also insulting to diabetics. You seem determined to destroy the process here. Please desist, SqueakBox 17:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

16. Oppose Too abrasive. Dmn / Դմն 19:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Mike H 23:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I'm on the fence now. I do recognize the same concerns Theo points out and the Ozdusters incident, was out of line, even with a known and seemingly obvious problem user. But, I have seen impressive maturity from Weyes during this debate, which is the best example I can think of to see what an admin would do in tough situations. So I would ask Weyes to take the reason's behind the opposition (the well thought out ones at least) to heart, and doing that, you'll be fine. - Taxman ^Talk 14:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
2. "I am going to remain neutral until I've heard what this young man has to say at dinner tonight. See you later, Steven!" Marmot 15:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. I voted support during last vote, but I'll stay neutral this time, because this re-voting thing attracts needless controversy. I'd prefer a renomination after a month or so, which would've given Weyes enough time to adress concerns of those who opposed his nomination.  Grue  17:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Everyone should read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Weyes extended to discuss and understand the highly unusual "extend, extend, revote" process used in this Request for Adminship. Unfocused 14:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Any new users to this RFA should read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2 to see prior arguments in support and opposition, as they are unlikely to be reposted in full here, but are fully relevant to this nomination. Unfocused 14:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Impersonate an arb, I look at your IP. The impersonation socks voting "support" above - Zzyzx11, JackRabbitSlim101, Argon443, Raul655 - are all the same IP at around the same time period. I suspect it's someone opposed to Weyes making trouble, and the IP evidence strongly suggests MARMOT (who doubled his oppose vote last time with his sock, Master Shredder) - David Gerard 19:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about Zzyzx11 being a sockpuppet? Looks like a genuine contributor to me... -- Joolz 21:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you are not mistaking User:Zzyzx11 with User:Zzyxz11? User:Zzyzx11 is a legitimate user who voted here. - Taxman ^Talk 21:31, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

He better be, considering that Zzyzx11 is an administrator. Note that Zzyxz11 voted (placing his vote out of order) immediately after Zzyzx11 added Raul655 to the sockpuppet roster, but this vote was quickly reverted by SqueakBox and no longer appears above. --Michael Snow 22:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what to think when the impersonator successfully fools other admins. Does anybody know? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It means I should shoot not quite as quickly ;-) And of course you get to be really pissed off at the sockpuppeteer - David Gerard 10:54, 24 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 Wikipedia running and are the true unsung heroes of Wikipedia).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, 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.