Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.255.45.117 (talk) at 20:17, 8 May 2006 (→Other users who endorse this statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 12:32, 7 May 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

Cyde repeatedly abused his administrator priviledges by blocking editors he disagreed with in a content dispute.

Description

Even though Wikipedia is not a democracy, voting is evil and there are no binding decisions Cyde repeatedly blocked editors, who either removed the cartoon image on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article or moved it behind a link against the poll results from early February. Cyde himself voted[1] [2] for the cartoons to stay visible on the main article and many times outed himself for having an extreme free speech position [3] [4] with no respect for religions and unwilling to compromise in this issue.[5] [6] [7] IMHO this is a clear violation of WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

Powers misused

  • Blocking (log):
  1. User:84.233.248.6 has not been blocked for a 3RR, but for "Persistent censorship vandalism" with an expiry time of 1 week
  2. User:213.140.56.3
  3. User:62.135.119.144 the pure suspicion, that this user might be Wikipidian or myself attempting a 3RR evasion was sufficient to block him for "Censorship vandalism"
  4. User:213.140.56.4
  5. User:66.108.42.9 Guy calls it justified to forstall a 3RR violation, though clear 3RR violations of Pegasus1138, Netscott and Anjoe did not result in a block? [8]
  6. User:68.173.27.37 again the pure suspicion, that this user might be Vkasdg attempting a 3RR evasion was sufficient to block him for "Censorship"
  7. User:Wikipidian
  8. User:Raphael1

Applicable policies

  1. WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used explicitly states, that the "sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute".
  2. WP:VANDAL Changing the cartoon image display is not vandalism, because the motivation of those, who do so, is not to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Instead those who do so (incl. myself) do in fact want to increase the quality of the article, because they think, that an article on a controversy needs to have editors on both sides of the dispute. The blocked editors could have added valuable information regarding the muslim POV on this issue. Blocking users with a muslim POV results in a one-sided article on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, which is ultimately derogatory to this encyclopedia.
  3. WP:BP#Disruption Cyde repeatedly called the removal of the cartoons disruption, though WP:BP#Disruption explicitly states, that "inserting material that may be defamatory" may be considered disruptive, not the removal of this kind of material.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_9
  2. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_10#New_archive
  3. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_15#Cardiff
  4. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_15#Blasphemy_is_not_a_kind_of_apostasy
  5. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_17#Another_Picture.3F
  6. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display
  7. User_talk:Raphael1#Warning.21

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Raphael1 12:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikipidian 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) - please note I was blocked indefinitely by cyde for suspicion of sockpuppetry, even though I had a CheckUser (confirming my innocence) which was marked clearly on my talkpage.[reply]

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. BhaiSaab 22:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arno 23:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC). I'm not entirely satisfied that Cyde has always handled things objectively and tactfully in this controversial matter. An objective assesssment of his actions seem to be a good idea.[reply]
  3. I endorse this statement simply because I lived through similar or even a worse case. I have an impression that Cyde is taking discretionary actions and consider himself as unquestionable. In my opinion, his misuse of admin priviliges is appearent. In my case, my account was blocked for something, while the block was active, he claimed that 'I do not get it' and blocked my account indefinitely. Later on, the issue is brought to ArbCom and his remarks there show me that he is even not tolerant to a supportive comment by an ordinary user. His sarcastic response is frustrating. I checked his long block log and wondering now if his one of the main contributions is blocking fellow editors based on his unjustified decisions... Resid Gulerdem 00:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I'm being singled out for attack because I've taken a special interest in dealing with vandalism on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Soon after the story broke Wikipedians overwhelmingly supported (something like 200-20) the display of the cartoons. And then they largely forgot about it, thinking the issue was resolved. But over the past months some people haven't forgotten about it, and they've consistently been trying to vandalize the article by removing or hiding the image against extreme consensus.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Cyde Weys 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Netscott 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I endorse this summary except for the last sentence. I don't know if Raphael1 is the worst offender among this group, nor is it relevant. Those involved should be judged on their own actions, not on their actions in comparison to the actions of others. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Karl Meier 20:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mask 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KimvdLinde 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (Extreme free speech position???) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. StuffOfInterest 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Utterly baseless RFC. Yet one more misuse of DR process. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As mentioned, an utterly baseless RFC. Jersey Devil 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cyde deserves praise for his behavior with regard to censorship. WAS 4.250 14:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by JzG

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Anyone who wants to use the Jyllands-Posten article as an example of anything other than how not to go about harmoniously editing controversial content is probably missing something pretty fundamental along the line. A consensus has developed on that article - one which I personally disagree with (I would use :Image:foo not Image:foo as an easy way to allow the cartoons to be seen in context without causing gratuitous offence). That consensus is broad based. The way to change that is through civil debate, not through edit warring. Any admin will block anonymous accounts which attempt to push tendentious edits.

Specifically:

The supposed "attempts to resolve the dispute" merely amount to statements of a point of view which was not accepted by other editors. The term POV pushing accurately describes Raphael1's edits to this article.

Given that Raphael1 is the author of this RfC, and given that the least contentious of all the blocks is that of Raphael1, a serial violator of WP:3RR blocked as such by three separate admins on four occasions, I suggest that this RfC is vexatious and should be speedily rejected. I would state also that it violates WP:POINT.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. As author, Just zis Guy you know? 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cyde Weys 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blanning(talk) 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Netscott 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC) With one point of contention. User:Cyde did well to block vandal Wikipidian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who in addition to vandalizing the main Jyllands-Posten image also vandalized the El Fagr image (see file history) as well as the Image:Pig_person.jpg (see file history). User:Cyde should under no circumstance apologize to Wikipidian who indeed warrants having his/her permanent block reinstated. Netscott 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --maru (talk) contribs 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Karl Meier 20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mask 20:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Calton | Talk 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. KimvdLinde 21:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. After looking at Raphael's difs, I count only two times for direct 3RVR, the other blocks occuring for general edit warring, but other than that JzG is correct. JoshuaZ 22:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. What Guy said. FeloniousMonk 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Rory096 07:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. David Oberst 09:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Jersey Devil 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. StuffOfInterest 14:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. WAS 4.250 14:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. With the caveat that I don't see how this violates WP:POINT. Jkelly 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is coming to a head

Raphael1 is rules lawyering, which is not in keeping with the welcoming, cooperative spirit of wikipedia. The reason he is rules lawyering is that he has been specifically and very deliberately excluded from that welcoming, cooperative spirit on the basis of his religious beliefs. Rather than being included in a friendly, collegial project to document the sum of human knowledge, Raphael1 has been marginalised, trivialised, insulted and finally (as in this case), merely dismissed as too much trouble. He has found in wikipedia a group of people who are so content in their moral certainty that they intentionally republish religiously outrageous images — images which have led directly to hundreds of deaths — in as prominent a fashion as their own not inconsiderable wikigaming skills can achieve. This isn't about how to write the best wikipedia article on a controversial issue. It's not even about resisting censorship in wikipedia. Anyone who spends the time trawling the JP cartoons talk archives will have little difficulty grasping the situation; the history of that article reeks of fundamentalism, exclusion and hatred. I'm personally not going to support this RfC because there's a better way to resolve things: wikipedia as a whole needs to pull these bigots into line. Fast. &#0151; JEREMY 16:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Religious concerns are irrelevant to writing an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Especially when said user isn't a Muslim and doesn't live in a Muslim country. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that a contradiction? Since I'm not a Muslim, I obviously don't have religious concerns. I am concerned, that Wikipedia looses it's NPOV ideal and is becoming an American/British/Christian point of view encyclopedia. Raphael1 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that he is excluded on the basis of his faith, more ont he basis of his edit-warring. It is a common fault in those with strong convictions (religious or otherwise) that where those convictions conflict with Wikipedia policy, it is policy which loses out. Just zis Guy you know? 18:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, that strong convictions can easily result in a conflict with Wikipedia policy. But I don't agree, that three reverts in five days can be considered edit-warring. [9][10][11] particularly in comparison to [12] Raphael1 19:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bigots? Such uncivil language? I agree that there were some who one could consider bigotted who've supported the display of the image as it is now but when we know from previous straw polls that 80% of editors supported their currently established displaying characteristics it is very unfair of you to blanket label them all as bigots. Also, which religious beliefs of Raphael1's were you referring to Jeremy? Is User:Raphael1 a Christian and what of fundalmentalism? Fundalmentalism on who's side? Free speech fundamentalists? Your comments appear to be made from quite an uninformed position. Netscott 18:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get your facts straight. The cartoons have not directly killed anyone. They're fucking cartoons. It was men who put some manufactured religious outrage above human lives who caused those hundreds of deaths. --Cyde Weys 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, how about that -- cartoons don't kill people, people kill people. That some jackasses want to relieve from culpability those who claim "the cartoon made me do it" as a valid defense is quite pathetic. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View of the validity of this RfC by Bishonen

Firstly: note that this RfC was invalid as posted becaise it used an incomplete RfC template; the important top instruction, including timestamp, about the page being deleted after 48 hours unless it's properly certified seems to have gotten ... lost, somehow. I've restored it, so now y'all can all read what proper certification means, and the importance to it of prior dispute resolution attempts. I can't tell if any attempts at dispute resolution have taken place (I admit I have my doubts, as I see a clever fellow like JzG dismissing them above, though I don't know how he found them), as no diff links are provided in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", but only links to huge archives. I realize that these tricky technical requirements are a hurdle for newbies, and I'm sorry, but in order to communicate, you really must use diff links — do get some help making them — or, at an absolute minimum, quote the dispute resolution you're referring to. I really do find it literally impossible to know what posts in these archives I'm supposed to look at. I took a shot at it, but had to give up.
Secondly, note that dispute resolution needs to be neutral: one side restating its arguments isn't it. You don't have to have a formally appointed mediator, but you do need to appeal to somoeone not involved in the dispute to help discuss with both parties. If you haven't at least made a start on something like that after 48 hours, this RfC is toast. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
P.S. I have moved the page from "Approved pages-have met the two person threshold" (you have got to be kidding) to "Candidate pages- still need to meet the two person threshold" on the Requests for comment/User conduct page.

Users who endorse these points (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  2. FeloniousMonk 00:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Johnleemk | Talk 06:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, this is a garden-variety content dispute, with the janitor being cast in the role of bad guy for enforcing normal WP practice of not making controversial changes without first achieving consensus on Talk. It's also clearly vexatious, since the oine indisputable fact here is that the nominator is essentially bitching about being stopped from edit-warring. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I've just filed a mediation request. Raphael1 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're running the steps in reverse? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed here. Why on earth did you name Aecis as a party to the mediation? It's Cyde you're RfC'ing, isn't it — only Cyde? And it says on the mediation page that if one party refuses mediation, then they won't even try. Obviously, the more people you name, the less likely does actual mediation become. (And in fact Aecis has already rejected mediation, while Cyde has accepted.) I for one will not accept your present request as being a good-faith attempt to resolve things with Cyde. My advice is for you to go back and withdraw the request right now, and post a new one, naming only Cyde. Bishonen | talk 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I've just filed a new request. I hope you don't mind, that I've left User:Wikipidian as a party to the mediation, since he has been blocked by Cyde as well. Raphael1 09:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the situation, you and Wikipedian are on the same side of the dispute, so naming him/her is OK by me, it shouldn't cause any trouble. Cyde? You want to respond to the new mediation request? Bishonen | talk 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

View by Pegasus1138

This is a ridiculous RFC, this is Raphael attempting to justify his vandalism (defined as removing the image against overwhelming consensus and indeed when even uninvolved editors qualify their reverts of him with things as "revert vandalism" and "rvv") by accusing anyone who stops him as having a point of view to push or being too involved, or being insensitive and marginalizing any viewpoint that he does not agree with even if it means violating policy and in some cases even attempting to create new policy (such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics) to justify his vandalism.

Users who endorse these points (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jersey Devil 03:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. joturner 04:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. StuffOfInterest 17:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Please read WP:VANDAL to find out how vandalism is defined. Editing against consensus is not vandalism, no matter how many editors might believe it is. IIRC I have neither created Wikipedia:Wikiethics nor have I made a single edit on this policy proposal. Raphael1 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I confused you for a moment with Rgulerdem who has done similiar actions and he was the one who indeed tried to justify his actions by changing policy. I have struck out that part of my comments. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal attack. I think you have a lot more to struck out including your comments about me above. I can see that it should be hard for you to assume good faith, but it is a rule here. My attempt to propose a policy is not because of what you claimed. It is because of doing something good for Wiki. If you use up your eraser before your pencil, you need to change something. Resid Gulerdem 00:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a statement of fact not a personal attack and I think so far I've done nothing but assume good faith but AGF is not a suicide pact and only goes so far. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your statement: he was the one who indeed tried to justify his actions by changing policy. You are making a claim by reading my intentions negatively. There is no base for your claim. That is a perfect exaple for violation of 'assuming good faith'. Based on your false impressions you are making statements about me personally. It is a personal attack. Reading people intentions is not a good habit, calling your false impressions as a 'fact' is tragicomic. Resid Gulerdem 07:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

There seems to be a strong pattern of behavior shaping up around User:Cyde. I have no specific knowledge of the issues around the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. But in a number of cases, Cyde takes actions that are reasonable in isolation but that dramatically disregard consensus processes on Wikipedia, and shows a willingness to abuse administrator powers in advancing his goals.

I was one of the endorsers and writers of the recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde. The basic issue there was that Cyde was imposing the use of the often quite desirable m:Cite.php referencing system, even where doing so went contrary to the consensus of editors of particular articles. There are arguments for and against that referencing system/style which Cyde refuse(d/s) to acknowledge. In particular, he created a semi-bot called User:Cyde/Ref converter to change references, and both used the tool without checking consensus, and encouraged other editors to use the tool without seeking consensus (some technical matters of the tool and its description gave a false impression that the change was a purely technical, and fully decided, question).

More recently, I saw Cyde use his administrator powers to prematurely close an AfD to fit his political and editoral opinions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). In that case, votes were leaning moderately towards "delete", though quite likely the ultimate vote would have been "no consensus", had the AfD run it's full course rather than being closed in less than a day. For what it's worth, my own opinion on the AfD question is "keep"; so I agree with the ultimate result Cyde wished to obtain. The problem is that an involved editor should not close an AfD, let alone close it almost immediately (there was no suggestion it was a "speedy keep" candidate; the AfD nomination was minimally reasonable). Moreover, in that situation, Cyde went so far as blocking several editors who voted the way he felt was "wrong" on the AfD, specifically for alleged "vote stacking". A number of admins with quite a bit more experience than Cyde expressed the opinion: WP:ANI#Cyde must resign or be sacked as an admin immediately/

The Muhammad cartoons issue appears to be more of the same general attitude. Here I also probably agree with the result Cyde wishes to obtain. I am a free speech absolutist myself, and am suspicious of any inclination to make controversial material less visible simply because it is controversial. However, even in such political matters, consensus must reign on Wikipedia. A number of people have discussed and voted on opinions on the matter, and Cyde simply should not unilaterally impose his judgement, even if it is itself even a pretty good opinion.

Users who endorse these points (sign with ~~~~):

  1. BhaiSaab 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 172 | Talk 23:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

What an utter load of rubbish. Dude, I'm not clear what your problem with Cyde is, but it's obviously personal in nature. In fact, given your recent behaviour here your current statement is beyond laughable and seems to me to be a personal vendetta. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong ditto. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"dramatically disregard consensus processes on Wikipedia"? What? The consensus for including the image was so overwhelming that it's earned a place in WikiHistory on Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians actually agreed and voted to support something. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. It also earned a place in WikiHistory on Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians actually agreed and voted to support something. By the way, shouldn't this be moved to the talk page? joturner 23:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to fan the flames, and lacking an in-depth knowledge of the dispute at hand, I find it strange that Lulu considers his view to be that of an outsider when it comes to criticising Cyde. Probably the simplest way to illustrate this clash is with this google link. I don't know the nature of your conflict Lulu, but may I suggest that you spend more time on your wikibreak, and less time promulgating your sanctimonious, pompous rants - especially when you purport to be an objective bystander? StephenFalken 06:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redux: Lulu accuses Cyde of rouge admin abuse. Just zis Guy you know? 10:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Joturner

I'm normally not a fan of anyone who arbitrarily invokes ignore all rules, but for once I feel that someone (that would be Raphael) is using the wording of Wikipedia policy to his selfish advantage instead of utilizing it in the manner in which it was intended.

He states that there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia. Indeed, but that same policy says that does not mean you should ignore a consensual decision. He states that voting is evil. But so is censorship. He states that Wikipedia is not a democracy. But that policy failsto mention that Wikipedia is not a dictatorship either. We go by consensus even if, as with the United Nations, that consensus can easily be ignored. Our only defense against this usurpation of consensus, continuation of grossly unproductive disputes, and trolling comes through the administrator's ability to block.

Cyde may have trumped process through some of his blocks, and for that he should get a slap on the wrist. He may have also ruffled a few feathers during the first month and a half of his adminship, and for that he should get an even harder slap on the wrist; I advise him to cut the contentious behavior out immediately. But the disregard for process in this instance must be outweighed substantially by the benefits of his efforts toward defending Wikipedia from frustratingly continuous disrespect for consensus in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, among others. joturner 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse these points (sign with ~~~~):

  1. joturner 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Cyde may have been rough, but he did the right thing.[reply]
  3. StuffOfInterest 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Aecis

I am flabbergasted that someone has filed an RfC against Cyde. Raphael1 has been seriously, continuously and unrepentantly disruptive on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Cyde has upheld the consensus reached, wikipedia policies and guidelines, and general common sense by finally doing something against Raphael1. That is also why I disagreed with the request for mediation over the issue: I believe that there is nothing to mediate. Raphael1 needs to stop the disruptive behaviour that got him blocked. Raphael1 may disagree with the consensus that was reached, and he may argue his case on the article's talk page. But that is all that he may do. He may not singlehandedly fiddle with the image of the cartoons in any way, shape or form. If Raphael1 improves his behaviour, I'm willing to give him a second chance, and I'm sure this counts for all persons involved. But the change should fall squarely on Raphael1, not on anyone else. And if Cyde hasn't completely followed the rules of the game, then give him a slap on the wrist for it, but slap me on the wrist for it as well. I can't understand why an RfC has been filed against Cyde and not against me. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 08:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse these points (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 08:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jersey Devil 08:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Azate 17:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. StuffOfInterest 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by FearÉireann

I am unaware of Cyde's behaviour in the cartoons controversy and so cannot make a judgment. However from what I witnessed in his most recent behaviour his abused his position in a way that was unacceptable, to put it mildly. He accused two Wikipedians, without warning, of spamming to get votes to influence an afd even though their contacts, through unwise, did not canvass which way to vote, merely informed users there was a vote. He proceeded without discussion to block them. He then unilaterally ended a vote that was still live. When his actions were raised on the deletion review page, and another user informed someone that the issue was being discussed there, he blocked him.

His blocking of users (one a member of the counter-vandalism unit) was highly controversial and condemned by many users. He just bulldozed ahead and ignored any criticism. Having intervened in the debate to block two participants, to then intervene and close the debate himself was seriously wrong and should not have been done. He should have left it to others to intervene. To then go and block a user drawing attention to the fact that his closure was being revisited elsewhere, was such a gross abuse of power by an admin that frankly it beggars belief. No one admin should participate in a debate (through closing it) and ban other participants. No admin should ever ever be involved in banning a user when the issue being discussed in an action of that admin. That way oversteps the line.

On that basis alone, a rfc against Cyde is needed. Looking at the information from others, it is clear that Cyde has a history of overstepping the mark. At best at it involved serious misjudgments. At worst it involves an abuse of his position in a way incompatible with his role as an administrator. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This issue is unrelated to the one at hand, and, moreover, is stale. See the discussion here. Consensus is pretty clear there that vote-stacking is not acceptable. I don't know why Feiréireann is dragging it here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2&oldid=52196444"