Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim 2

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

Cyclonenim

Final: (30/28/6); ended 15:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) - Hi there! As you've probably guessed, i'm Cyclonenim (or CycloneNimrod according to my signature) and i'm here for my second application to become an administrator here on the en wiki. I first applied for adminship on the 17th April 2008 where my application failed pretty much per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW, I'd only been actively editing for a month or two. Since then, I'd like to think i've come a long way—in both my editing capabilities and within other areas. For example, i've now got better experience with WP:RfA, WP:CSD and WP:AIV. I've been actively combating vandalism using Huggle for the past few months, and i'll be honest i've made a few mistakes there and then but i've always tried to learn from them. Whilst I haven't actually nominated anything yet, i've got a pretty good understanding of how WP:RFPP works. Anyway, enough babbling on this introductory statement, really! I look forward to answering your questions and I really hope you find that i've improved enough since my last self-nom. Many thanks!

— CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'd love to help out at both WP:AIV and WP:CSD. The constantly have backlogs, particularly the latter, and it seems as thought they could always use a helping hand over there. After I finally get some experience of WP:RFPP, i'd like to help there too. I do not intend to compromise my article editing with my adminship, however. That is still my priority :)

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

A: Any constructive contribution is a good contribution but recently, in collaboration with JFW and Delldot and several others who are part of WikiProject Medicine, i've been helping to edit subarachnoid hemorrhage. Whilst working with these editors, we brought up the article up to featured article status. I've also worked on several good articles including cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and subcutaneous emphysema. In addition to article editing, I also formed WikiProject Neurology which aims to take the disease article workload off WikiProject Neuroscience—that said, it's not entirely active at the moment... must get round to that!

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: I like to think I deal with conflicts in a calm and coordinated manner—never taking rash decisions or retalliations. I had one conflict with DoctorDW about the naming of the article physiotherapy. We basically talked about it in a calm manner and I recommended that he post a topic on the talk page of the article itself. The result was a move back to physical therapy, which has now been removed back to physiotherapy per agreement with JFW, Davidruben, myself and most likely other medical editors. I also had a dispute with StuRat about the removing of medical questions from the Science Reference Desk. He accused me of being overzealous but we managed to come to agreements on the talk page of the reference desk itself. It became clear it was a simple misunderstanding on both parts, really!

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.

A: I'm a firm-believer in second and perhaps third chances for users who have vandalised. I once vandalised Wikipedia under the account CycloneNimrod (perhaps the only contribution, I can't remember) and I have since turned out to be a sincere, helpful wikipedian. In this situation, it is clear that the edits they made were not good faith edits but seeing as they have apologised in a sincere manner, I would most likely give them another chance. I would consult with the administrator who blocked the user and protected the page and assuming they are happy with my decision, I would unblock the user. Should further vandalism occur from the same user, it's highly unlikely I'd be quite as forgiving.

Optional question from The Great Editor In Chief

5. How have you improved from your previous Rfa?

A: The main reason for opposing in my previous RfA was lack of experience in pretty much all areas of Wikipedia. I believe that I have readily participated a lot more in the areas that I wish to administrate (such as WP:CSD and WP:AIV) and that can only be an improvement. As pointed out by some oppose votes below, some of those edits were badly carried out. However, I believe I have learnt from them and I will continue to improve in this sense throughout my adminship. In addition, I've now got a comprehensive knowledge of the vast majority of Wikipedia's policies, whereas before I did not. Thanks for your question.

Optional question for Bigvinu

6. Will you answer Questions for RfA Candidates? —Preceding comment was added at 18:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A: Is this a request for me to answer the questions listed or a simple "Would you but you don't have to" question? — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 18:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking you to please answer those questions here (some or all) to give more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not a problem.

Edit warring: Q1: Quite frankly, they haven't as of yet. I've never been involved in edit conflicts or edit warring. However, I know that i've learnt through Wikipedia that keeping a cool head gets you much further than aggrevation. Q2: No, I do not have such history. I hope you would trust me enough to handle one should one occur, though. Q3: I would fully protect the page for a period of a week in order to get the participants to talk to each other properly and try and reach consensus. Should edit warring continue one week later, I would start a mediation case in order to try and get the problem sorted by a third-party who is not involved.

Admin Tools: Q1: Administrative tools are needed for protection of articles, user and user talk pages and other pages which are involved in disputes and consistant vandalism. They are also needed for me to help out at WP:CSD so that I can delete pages which have been correctly nominated. I also need the mop so that I can block users who abuse Wikipedia's policies intentionally. Q2: I will only use the administrative tools for Wikipedia's improvement, not for my own reasons. Q3: I think a great example would be the one you gave in Q3 of the previous section. If a page needs full protection, only an administrator can provide that. A cool-off period for these editors would really help in improving the quality of the article.

Nomination: Q2 (ignored 1 per request): I nominated myself not because I wanted the tools so that I could abuse them or use them in a power-hungry manner but rather so I could improve the encyclopaedia. This is a very credible and worthwhile intention and I really hope you all find me suitable to carry out my goal. Q3: Not at all. Even if this fails, it can only be a good experience to learn more about the workings of Wikipedia.

Optional question from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

7. You said in one of the above answers that you have vandalized Wikipedia. Is there a way you can prove to me that you will not use administrative tools for that purpose?

A: For those who haven't seen the diff, look here. I think it's fair to say that an unblemished record after that date makes it overwhelmingly unlikely for me to ever vandalise again. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 19:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you have opposed based upon my answer to this, I feel I should clarify something—you can never prove or disprove anything. You can only make things overwhelmingly likely or unlikely and that is my point. If you want a more concise answer, it's this: I will not vandalise again. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, I honestly dislike the way you think that just because you haven't vandalized in a while, I should completely trust that you will continue in that manner. I'll do some more research on your contributions when I get a chance, and see if I can change my !vote. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how could he possibly have answered that question in such a way that you would have completely trusted him never to do it again? I don't see how anyone can definitively prove what you're asking him to. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Filll

8. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?

A. I agree with statements 2,3,4,5 but disagree, in part, with 1 and 6. I don't believe RfA is a tense environment, if you can't handle the stress of application what chance do you have with dealing with Wikipedia's promising legal threats or the like? I don't think we can ever make this an entirely stress-free environment, the very nature of RfA is to scrutinise the candidate.

9. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A. I'll transclude my answers tonight when I've answered them. I've got college now!

Sorry I still haven't got round to transcluding my answers as I promised above, the first question is answered but i'm really struggling to find time. I'll write up a second one pretty soon! If you want to see the first one, see here. Thanks for your patience!

Optional question from User:Oren0

10. Say you become an admin and you come across the following scenario at WP:RFPP: Editor X asks for a page to be indef semi-protected due to "heavy IP vandalism." Upon looking at the page's history, you find that two IP editors (IP A and IP B) have been trying to insert sourced material onto the page and that Editor X and Editor Y (both established accounts) have been removing it claiming synthesis and undue weight. Each of the four parties has reverted twice in the last 4 hours and there has been very little discussion on Talk. What, if anything, do you do?

Additional question from BigHairRef

11. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, when required to judge consensus, what weight do you give to a "Support/Oppose per X" or a similar !vote without further explanation; assuming that the reason that X gave was not the only reasonable applicable and likely reasoning?

A: I don't have a problem with it assuming that it is still a reasonable application of reasoning. If, however, it is not and it's simply a per !vote for the sake of per voting, then of course I disagree with them. Candidates should have a fair application, not one that is changed by people !voting for the sake of it. It depends upon how valid the initial support/oppose was, IMHO.

Additional questions from NuclearWarfare

12. Please define notability in your own words.

A. Notability, in regards to Wikipedia, is the worthiness of an item to be included within an article, based upon several factors. These factors include whether or not the item is original, or whether it is peer-reviewed or referenced to other articles. The item must be verifiable (i.e. ) and must also be as neutral as possible. A good example of a notable source would be, for example, a medical article published upon a large site that is reviewed by a large number of physicians. A bad example could be a site published on a free-hosting service, written originally by the author of the site and not verified elsewhere.

13. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A. Blocking is the physical prevention of a user editing Wikipedia. Banning on the other hand is the term used to describe a more formal process which defines a user as one which should not be editing Wikipedia in part or completely. Banning in itself does not actually prevent a user from editing unless combined with a block.

14. When should a cool down block be used and why?

A. They shouldn't. Ever. I've heard that it ususally makes things a lot worse.

15. Please answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A. Sorry I still haven't got round to transcluding my answers as I promised above, the first question is answered but i'm really struggling to find time. I'll write up a second one pretty soon! If you want to see the first one, see here. Thanks for your patience!

General comments

See Cyclonenim's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Cyclonenim: Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Comment — I wonder if I should withdraw my request for the mop? At less than 50% I find it unlikely I'll come back from this. Any opinions? — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 22:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to ride it out to the end (and believe me, these things can turn around) and garner all the feedback you can for improvement, then by all means, keep it open. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of the opposes were "not now" rather than "not ever" like ed poor's above. I suggest you wait a few months, keep up your article work and do some good AFD work.--Serviam (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — My apologies to everybody for the signature, on my screen it shows up pretty much the same size as everyone else's. It's been changed now. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 16:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, looks much better to me now. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Giggy's oppose, because of Cyclone's signature. Are you aware that you are not allowed to use any tags—including "font", "span" and <big> tags—that make the signature appear large enough to throw off the layout of the typing? Besides the fact that your signature is rather annoying, it may also not conform to the signature guidelines, and that is another reason your RfA is failing. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Acknowledged his change, my mistake. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably point out that this is due to end on the 20th, and I go away on holiday on the 19th. Therefore, I won't be able to answer any queries or questions after that date! Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have further questions and i'll answer them when I get back. It's gonna kill me having to cope two weeks before knowing the outcome of this, although I suspect it won't pass due to lack of consensus. — CycloneNimrod^Talk? 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support. He wants to work with AIV and CSD, so taking a look at his work there, I found quite a few reports to AIV and going through his deleted contribs, what I found there seemed to indicate a good understanding of what should be speedied; he meets my criteria. Useight (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, though, your use of "i" instead of "I" is pretty annoying to a WikiGnome like myself and it looks really unprofessional. Could you try to avoid doing that? Useight (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I usually try to uphold grammar and spelling to a high standard. When it's not, it's a genuine mistake! — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 15:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty anal-retentive about grammar, too, although I was intrigued by this idea. As you can tell, though, I've yet to put it into practice. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cyclonenim is a worthy candidate. He will use the tools reliably. Axl (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: An intelligent, honest editor with firm knowledge of admin-related topics and a clear potential to use admin privileges to maintain the integrity of WP:MED, should he so choose. Answered questions thoroughly, candidly, and downright impressively. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - there have been some silly mistakes made here and there, and I still think a brushing up on the Wikipedia-policy-knowledge is in order. But there is something about this user I think will make him a good admin. This candidate is well spoken, and the answers to the questions so far are detailed and thoughtful. There is some stellar article work under his belt too. He has also dabbled in some Wikipedia-related areas (although it is there where the mistakes appear to have been made). Despite this, I believe some essential reading and some good work at the admin school will make this user a good admin indeed. Lra drama 17:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I did last time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Have seen this user around, and I trust him not to make mistakes with the mop. Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye! Appears to be a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support — You need more experience, but if you come back in a couple months with more know-how I think you'll do well, best of luck until that day. :-) —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. –xenocidic (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - excluding the vandalism, nothing overly concerns me about the candidate. Wizardman 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support--I am eager to see how this editor would do with tools. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. constructive and helpful. has communication skills so can learn readily. Glitches like those highlighted below can be sorted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any/All of my issues have been met. Bigvinu (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your sig is confusing. At first, I thought that you were declaring that the candidate is diligent. Axl (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—in my experience, as well as going through cyclonenim's records, I've found him very responsible and helpful contributor. My experience has been with him at Medical Collaboration of the Week, which has been particularly pleasant, and goes to show he can be a good tea-person. He keeps his cool, too, and his conduct hardly invites conflict. —KetanPanchal^taLK 07:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: Most of the oppose reasons doesnt really convince me of denying him the mop. I am sure that he will be really able to learn and correct if made any mistakes.I have seen well established Admins making IP blocks even with very few edits.It has to be on a case to case basis. Vandalism should not neccessarily be weighed upon by no of edits. Many a times you dont need to wait till the vandal 'deleting the main page' (Though not possible for them :) ). You can understand whether it is an intentional vandalism or just editing tests by a newbie by the editing patterns.. Btw a bad signature is NO reason to deny adminship. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I vote on this one yet? Naerii 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Also per two diff's seen in oppose section. [1] and [2]. Garion96 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per incredibly annoying signature. RMHED (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely there are some experience issues, but overall your behaviour in this RfA and elsewhere pretty much tells me that you have the clue and maturity to take things slowly when it's appropriate. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support to spite the opposition. If this vote does not get removed, then shut down RFA indefinitely. --harej 03:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Content-focused editor with good collaborative skills. Unlikely to abuse tools and likely to use them constructively. JFW | T@lk 06:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my original reasons. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The user would not abuse the tools. That suffices for me. Additionally the user is very active and productive in science related articles. If this rfa does not succeed consider admin coaching. Best of luck. = ) --Cameron * 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Opposes are unconvincing to me. Misapplying CSD categories by accident is pretty bottom of the barrel, as are short, tentative AfD nominations (note that the article in the diff provided below was basically snow deleted. So all the diff shows is that the editor was not verbose. The diff does not show that the editor introduced a bad faith nomination (a problem for me) or a nomination based on unreflected ignorance (another big problem for me). Reflected ignorance is ok. I couldn't care less about how big his signature is. I also see nothing wrong with this nomination. NOTHING. Administrators may be ignorant of some of the hundreds of non-admin projects here. The claim made in the nomination ("Definitely wrong project, not sure if it's notable for inclusion in a foreign project since I can't read this language.", hist) is perfectly acceptable. This was the page in question. How, if you saw that string of text as an article, would you react? All of the text (along with the title) is non-english. Certainly if you know which language it was and which project could take care of it, you cold send it there, but why is CSD (and later AfD) an inappropriate choice? And why, if it is an appropriate choice, is the wording somehow improper. All in all, it seems to be making mountains out of molehills. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, I can easily see a problem with a "patent nonsense" CSD tag on a foreign language page. I don't share the view that this is a problem and I ask editors to view this application as a mistake borne of the fact that the chinese character set is fundamentally different from the latin character set. But I don't wish my comment to be construed as an attack on editors who might be offended at the notion of chinese being referred to as patent nonsense. Protonk (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like your answer to question 14. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, meets my criteria. Keeper ǀ 76 01:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No particular concerns -> default support. user:Everyme 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like his work and his style. The guy is honest, even in a place where honesty about past mistakes is obviously a bad idea. That shows character. Details like an annoying sig pale compared to that. Channel ® 00:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously still learning, aware that he is still learning and prepared to change/alter when given good reason... I wish there were more current admins like that. The mop is no big deal and any good faith mistakes can be sorted out. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for vandal turned good-guy. --Carbonrodney (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This user appears to need more training in the Wikipedia field. He seems confused and unready.--I Am The Great Editor in Chief (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion following this oppose moved to talk page. Note that The Great Editor in Chief has been indefinitely blocked on account of disruption. –xeno (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
should his vote count, then? —KetanPanchal^taLK 06:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In my humble opinion, anybody who as ever vandalized should NOT be an admin. bye bye.--World Qwerty (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Said the man who got indefinitely blocked for vandalism 20 minutes later. Channel ® 01:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked indefinitely for disruption and vandalism. This should no longer count, so I've struck it. Acalamari 01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The user's first RFA received many opposes based upon lack of experience in admin related areas. The user seems to have tried to rectify this by making a small number of edits in such areas, including involvement in a small number of xFD discussion (about 10 in the last 3 months, with nearly half in the week following the RFA) and a small number of reports to AIV (about 15 in the 3 months since the last RFA). After having a quick look through half a dozen of those reports I quickly saw two that raised concerns. In the first, the IP's last edit is at 17:37, they are given a final warning at 17:38, but then still reported at 17:40, having made no edits. A similar situation occured in the second report where the IP's last edit was 22:26, they were warned at 22:28, but still reported at 22:55, with no further edits and nearly half an hour after their last edit. Cyclonenim has, I believe spent a very small amount of time trying to accumulate somes edits to address the concerns, but in doing so has really gained no more experience in the processes. The mistakes at AIV show a lack of understanding, or possibly a desire to accumulte those edits without expending too much effort. TigerShark (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see that much improvement from the previous RfA. As Tiger Shark points out above with diffs. I personally witnessed those questionable reports. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is not an AfD I'd expect from a clueful editor, regardless of the outcome. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for replying to an oppose vote, I know it's frowned upon by some. I understand TigerShark's concerns, my apologies for those but as I said in my statement, I try to improve from my mistakes. I do not understand your diff though, Wisdom. I wasn't aware that asking for clarification from other editors could be seen as a bad thing (I wasn't sure if it should be AfDed at the time) — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 16:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies necessary, but if you are unsure if an AfD is appropriate, then you should probably ask another editor, try and establish notability on your own or tag it with a notability template. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On June 2, 2008 (11 41(?) days ago) an new user, Earfer (talk · contribs) created a page Minhs life which was correctly marked for speedy deletion as G1 (nonsense). Earfer then blanked the page, an indication that he agrees with the deletion. Instead of marking the page as G7 (author requested) Cyclonenim reverts the edit and warns Earfer with a general vandal message. Earfer continues to blank the page, and Cyclonenim continues revert his edits and warn him with general vandal messages, see User talk:Earfer. In the end earfer blanked the page 6 times and one time replaced the page with "please delete this page". Cyclonenim never explained to earfer that the page is going to be deleted as he wants, and that there is no reason to blank the page, instead he just reverts and warns. In the end earfer was block indefinably for vandalism. While I can't say that cyclonenim was wrong, as removing a speedy template is considered inappropriate, his actions lacked wisdom. I expect administrators to be able to communicate effectively to defuse conflict, not create conflict by mindlessly following the rules. Jon513 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd venture to say that such behavior was indeed wrong. Any editor that wishes to work at CSD (especially a prospective admin) should know that blanking the entire page by the author is to be considered done in good faith, hence why we have a CSD criteria for it. Secondly, whoever blocked the account like that was in error. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The situation seems to be a little more complicated than Jon is letting on. Cyclonenim was correct in tagging the page as G1 (admins, take a look at the page, it's total nonsense), and while the correct procedure would have been to tag the page as G7 instead of G1 after the first blanking, my money would be on betting that Earfur would have blanked the page repeatedly no matter what CSD tag was on there. His non-deleted contribs are all vandalism as well; the block was completely valid. GlassCobra 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edit-conflicted with Glass Cobra, saying the exact same thing. The situation is just a bit more complicated than Jon expresses. It's pretty clear that the blanking editor would have blanked any tag placed on that page. It should have been a G7 tag, sure, but either tag would have most likely been blanked by that editor. S. Dean Jameson 16:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all edits by the account were vandalism. This appears a legitimate one. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wisdom89. The 2 links that Wisdom89 included concerning Cyclonenim's AIV reports worries me. America69 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I only showed one diff, I was agreeing with the ones provided by Tiger : ) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I must have misread it. Sorry. America69 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per this statement: I think it's fair to say that an unblemished record after that date makes it overwhelmingly unlikely for me to ever vandalise again. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason seems quite weird. Are you opposing because he has vandalized before? Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per diffs given by TigerShark and Wisdom89. ~~Also, just a small thing, but I'm not sure how this could be considered a good faith edit.~~ LittleMountain5 21:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've certainly made the mistake of blanking a page (never submitted, I tend to realise that i've cleared it as i'm a touchtyper, so I undo it) and there's no reason why it may not have been a good faith edit. It was one of the users first contributions, they deserved a second chance. Vandalism is not defined as a single act. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking out that part of my !vote, as I realize what you're getting at, however, I still am going to oppose. LittleMountain5 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't really dispute this use of the 'good faith' button on Twinkle. Personally I rarely find myself using it (I either hit the vandalism one or, if any doubt, just use the normal rollback button and explain myself that way) but unlike mistakenly marking an edit as "vandalism" and insulting a well-meaning user, there's not really much risk in stating that you're assuming good faith. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jon513. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apologies, Cyclone. While I appreciate your honesty and openness in keeping your past history open, I'm not 100% satisfied with your response to Juliancolton's question. You do some good work around here without a doubt; however, I'm worried about your lack of substantive article contributions. You seem to have cleaned up a few articles here and there, but haven't yet taken the step of making any articles to a higher level, like GA-class. Combined with your relatively sparse AfD activity, I'm having trouble trying to determine what you'll be like closing AfDs and undertaking other admin actions. Also, it might be a good idea to turn on automatic edit summaries in your preferences. In general, I'm just not getting the overall temperament I like to see in admin candidates from you yet. I think that you should broaden your horizons beyond using Huggle; maybe contribute in some policy discussions, or, like I said, invest in a particular article and make it really shine. Again, I apologize, but I'm trying to be honest so as to give you the most detailed feedback, because I genuinely believe that you mean well here. Best of luck to you. GlassCobra 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote, GlassCobra. I'm confused about a few of your points though. I listed above some of the articles that i've brought to GA-class, and to FA-class. My edit summaries have also been 100% over the past 3/4 months since my last RfA. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 06:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're absolutely right! Hmm, I'm not sure where I got the idea that you hadn't done any article work, but I definitely apologize. I'll indent my vote for now and think a little bit more, okay? Sorry again, I feel terrible about this. GlassCobra 14:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies yet again, Cyclone, I'm not at all sure where my head was on this one. I'm going to move to Neutral out of sheer embarrassment. GlassCobra 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per incredibly annoying signature. —Giggy 02:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC) And per Wisdom89.[reply]
Oppose Questionable understanding on how AFD is supposed to be used. SashaNein (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't really want to pile-on, when the user seems a good Wikipedian with excellent intentions. But as well as points raised above, looking through the contribs I don't see evidence the user actually talks and works with others. An admin should be a leader, someone who can work with disparate people and help them work together, a conciliator. An admin has to resolve disputes, to do that you need to be able to understand other points of view. Can I suggest you get involved in some article work and try and act like an admin in adminny places. You don't need the tools to be a leader here. Dean B (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel really bad replying to all these opposes, it's seen it bad light but I somehow can't resist when I need to stand up for myself a little! I don't understand where you're coming from with your points. I participate in a lot of article work, particularly in regards to the WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Week and other medical topics. I've collaborated strongly with several users there. This may come across harsher than it's supposed to, and I certainly don't intend it to be, but you've said that you looked through my contributions but you appear to have missed all my article contributions? — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, cyclonenim is very right in saying that he contributes enthusiastically in article-related activities. I've been involved in three Medical Collaborations of the Week, and cyclonenim is the first to make the to-do list, and identify other issues related to article-improvement. He also simplifies the language, and makes other cleanup-edits. All these contributions have very helpful. He'd made quite a few helpful edits and suggestions when I'd nominated polyclonal B cell response for GA. I was relatively inexperienced then, and all his suggestions had come across as very warm, encouraging, honest (discouraging at times, but rightly so) and pertinent. So, it would be unjust to say that he hasn't had adequate contributions in the mainspace. —KetanPanchal^taLK 06:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be apologetic, your comments are pefectly polite. What I'm not seeing is evidence of you trying to build consensus at talk pages and work collaboratively, any attempts to resolve disputes, etc. It's not just about your own article contributions - I like to see evidence of people talking to and reasoning with other people. That's what I am not seeing - apart from here, I guess! Dean B (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Giggy. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Also per Wisdom89 and TigerShark[reply]
Oppose per CSD blanking incident, apparent vague understanding of AfD (as brought up by Sasha above) and the diffs presented by Wisdom89. Rudget (logs) 08:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jon513 above. While the candidate's actions were technically correct, I believe that they show an all-too-rigid mindset when it comes to administrative tasks. Admins should be comfortable using their discretion in situations like that, not simply applying the rulebook when that produces a clearly nonsensical result. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Wisdom and Jon. I know, I hate 'per' votes too. Asenine 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
per John and Wisdom. please review the relevant policies. please, do, make signature a normal sized font. thanks. Dlohcierekim 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with the arguments raised above. Also, you have an interest in medical articles (which I do too). Some of your diffs are imprecise. For example, I would have reverted this edit ~~and this~~ edit had I seen you do them. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Richard. Are you aware to the background to both those edits? Physical therapy to physiotherapy was done because consensus agreed the page move to physiotherapy. This is a perfectly valid edit. The NEUR0-stub was added since it was a stub under the WikiProject Neurology which I founded. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 12:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I retract my criticism of the edits to physiotherapy/physical therapy. It was the subject of dicussion; you're right. {{NEURO-stub}} results in a redlink. If you do it in lowercase it works fine. And the article you attached it to was of a decent size. It was not a stub. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. The 'NEUR0-stub' was originally used to include stubs into WikiProject Neurology. This process was done by a bot, I think. However, NEUR0-stub was nominated for deletion and was actually deleted, since the new WikiProject banners (put on article talk pages) now include an article-class parameter. This explains the redlink. The explanation for the lower-class working version (neuro-stub) is a bit of bad work on my part. This 'neuro-stub' is the stub template for WikiProject Neuroscience and since I couldn't claim neuro-stub for my new project I took 'NEUR0-stub' (with a 0 not a O) instead. Hope this explains things a little bit. — CycloneNimrod^Talk? 10:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretfully. I admire much about the candidate, but the brief flurry of recent Projectspace activity is not sufficient to make me think Cyclonenim is ready yet. If this is unsuccessful and you decide to run again with more experience under your belt, please do drop me a line because I'd like to think I'll be able to drop a support !vote on it. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i'm afraid. Your previous RfA shows little experience in admin-related area's as a concern, something which you seem to have rectified, but if this is your idea of a good nom, one made during an RfA, then i'm not convinced you'll make a good admin. Ironho lds 23:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Four days ago on this RfA you were advised by Wisdom89 that "not sure" is not grounds for bringing an article to AfD, yet yesterday you still nominated one on that basis - after incorrectly tagging it for a G1, and on both instances, failed to even whack it through a machine translator. You're a good editor, but your hazy understanding of deletion and failure to do really rudimentary things makes me unable to support you having the delete button at your disposal. No prejudice against supporting once you are able to demonstrate a really cemented, solid understanding at a later date. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My comment here is directed primarily toward the candidate, not toward the opposer. WilliamH has made an excellent point, and it is almost enough to weaken my support. But I'll super-duper AGF and trust that the candidate will remember the above comment and, should his RfA succeed, will heed it as an admin. I'm not too fond of fourth chances, though, so if another "not sure" AfD or CSD pops up while this RfA is still going, I'm afraid I'll have to change my stance, but would happily support in the future should this RfA fail and should the candidate reapply after having become more careful with his deletion reasons. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Struck through overreaction, per Protonk. But please bear in mind that foreign-language articles are not CSD G1's by any means: "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include...material not in English." Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WilliamH, and Cosmic Latte. I'd like to clarify my position on this, if this is okay? You two seem to have made a rather large deal about inappropriate CSD categorising but i'd like to point out that I did revert my CSD nomination once I realised my mistake. I then, since I wasn't sure (I readily admit that), nominated the article for AfD since that is part of the point of the process. Articles for deletion is a place to discuss the deletion of articles, if it turns out that the article shouldn't have been deleted then fair dos, that's fine. Same with the contrary. The fact is, I went there for clarification. Wisdom89 suggested that I should get other users to look if i'm not sure, that's exactly what i'm doing when I go to AfD. I'm asking for opinions from other editors. Thanks. —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's all good, as far as I'm concerned. We all make mistakes, and I made one by overreacting to yours (i.e., the CSD) and to the AfD, which I believe to be a lot less big of a deal than I did after taking the whole "'not-sure'-AfD" objection at face value. Indeed, the whole point of AfD is to deal with "not sure" cases, because if the case for deletion were certain, then it'd be a CSD instead. WilliamH's concerns are still understandable, but I don't think they hold as much weight in your case as I did at first glance. Sorry about that. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not criticising him for making mistakes (that's like criticising him for being human) and it is without a shadow of a doubt that trying to garner a consensus was the right thing to do. But is not making mountains out of molehills at all - the candidate says "Articles for deletion is a place to discuss the deletion of articles" - right, but one is not in a position to discuss whether an article should be deleted without having discerned what it is, and addressing problems with deletion, problems that aren't solved by deletion in the first place is something I find a little abstract. Again, good faith edits and a good editor...just misguided, that is my only contention. WilliamH (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>I certainly see your point, William. My defence is though, however, that I had no idea what the article was because I cannot read Mandarin. Yes, I should have at least tried a translator, that was another human error and in future I will do, but the sensible thing for me to do at the time, in my opinion, was nominate it for deletion (since there was an equally good chance it should have been deleted). Hope this makes sense. —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 20:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do excuse my ignorance, if it is so, but I think according to Wikipedia policies, acts of omission are more tolerable than acts of commission—by which I mean that it's better to remove unsourced, encyclopedia-unworthy material rather than tag it in some way like^{[citation needed]} to retain it. I might be sounding like speaking of out of context, but I'd like to point out that I'm talking of the spirit of the policy that unconfirmed info is to be removed. If it's a single sentence it is very easy—make an edit and remove it. But, if it's an entire article (with not a single character making sense; I am able to see only question marks and a few brackets in the deleted matter in question), one has to nominate it for AfD. And, as any way, transwiki-ing (sending the matter to another wikimedia-project) is one of the possible consequences of an AfD-discussion, such a nomination should be alright (as in this case the article would've been incorporated in the Chinese Wikipedia). Well, it turns out that the candidate had nominated it for CSD rather than Afd, which is just a bit inappropriate but not in bad faith, and definitely in accordance with the spirit of the policy. —KetanPanchal^taLK 06:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies for sounding so aggressive about deletion of any information or article, but when I cited unsourced information, what I actually meant was information that does not make sense. And the reasoning was that if unsourced information that makes sense, and has a "potential" to be verified some day, is asked to dealt with so strictly by the policies, then some piece of information that does not make any sense, needs to be dealt with at least the same order of strictness. In this case it was unfortunate that the article turned out to be from another language. And, I repeat, when I ran my cursor over the link to the articles log, I could only see question marks and brackets, which could've not made me think of a possibility of it being from another language. But, now that I've witnessed an instance, I (as well as others) must have learnt to think of this possibility before tagging an article for speedy deletion. —KetanPanchal^taLK 08:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So every time you find a sentence or fact or statement in any article on any subject which doesn't have its own inline citation you think it's right to remove it? You could remove 90% of wikipedia tonight then. Why don't you try looking it up first and adding your own citation if you doubt its veracity instead of just removing it on sight without doing a moments extra research? Nick mallory (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your computer does not have typefaces for chinese characters then taking what appears to be a page of boxes for deletion is understandable, but notwithstanding the outcomes other than deletion that may arise from an AfD discussion, not knowing what something means is grounds for finding out, then making a decision. I'm sure Cyclonenim will be an admin at some point, but missing out that key point of discernment just does not currently demonstrate the both the clue and understanding of deletion I would expect from an admin, and neither does this. If this is how I can expect you to handle it as an admin, superb, just not right now. WilliamH (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I have no more to say on this matter, but if it is unwieldly, no prejudice to it being moved to the talk page.[reply]
I must say, I'm not really sure what was wrong with the Quicktime.exe AfD. He suggested a redirect, and the AfD closed with the redirect that he'd suggested. Sure, he could have gone and done it himself, probably without any backlash, but I don't see the harm in garnering consensus first. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry CN, you've come a distance since your last RFA and whilst your article work has improved, I'm still not sure about some of the administrative decisisons I think you would make. ChaoticReality 10:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per jon and tigershark tabor-^{drop me a line} 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Q12 shows a major misunderstanding of WP:N, notability has nothing to do with originality, peer review, or neutrality. If I had to guess, I'd say the user confused WP:Notability with WP:Reliable sources. Mr.Z-man 23:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, WP:GNG disagrees with you. Particularly the first two statements. —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 08:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just asking for clarification over your oppose on my recent RfA as you said that WP:N has nothing to do with original sources, peer-review or neutrality.
Your original comment was: "Q12 shows a major misunderstanding of WP:N, notability has nothing to do with originality, peer review, or neutrality. If I had to guess, I'd say the user confused WP:Notability with WP:Reliable sources."

Question 12 stated: "Notability, in regards to Wikipedia, is the worthiness of an item to be included within an article, based upon several factors. These factors include whether or not the item is original, or whether it is peer-reviewed or referenced to other articles. The item must be verifiable and must also be as neutral as possible. A good example of a notable source would be, for example, a medical article published upon a large site that is reviewed by a large number of physicians. A bad example could be a site published on a free-hosting service, written originally by the author of the site and not verified elsewhere."

Now, according to the guidelines for WP:N (particularly WP:GNG) the first two statements say the following:

""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive."

""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."

""Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred."

""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc."

""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not."

This seems to go against your idea that WP:N has nothing to do with reliable sources or originality? It's further backed up by the statement: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."

Any clarification you could provide would be a great help. Thanks. —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 08:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed reply on my talk page. Mr.Z-man 17:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though you say you'll primarily work in AIV and CSD, I count in your last 500 edits 3 in AIV and 2 CSD proposals (though numerous notices). Also per TigerShark and Wisdom89's comments. Maybe you should have waited for someone else to nom you after your last self-nom. Good luck in the future, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per questionable edits mentioned above. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite experienced enough yet. rootology (T) 01:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, based on AfD problems, and past vandalism of the project. S. Dean Jameson 05:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Remaining neutral for now. Although a couple of the opposes are unconvincing, there are enough concerns from Wisdom and Tigershark to cause me to need some more time to evaluate this candidate. S. Dean Jameson 16:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral--LAA Fan 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I really like your attitude, and the answers to the questions were spot-on. Certainly there's great potential for a good admin here in future, but as some of the diffs in the oppose section demonstrate I think a bit more experience in the admin-areas - particularly WP:AIV - is needed before I support. Certainly a massive improvement on the first RfA but I don't know if you're quite there yet. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Screw it, I'm supporting. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per the worrying scenario brought up in the oppose section (involving CSD blanking by the author of the page). weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Per my original support, combined with Dean B's opposition. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning towards oppose - not convinced. I think the candidate needs more experience based on Q&A so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The sig worries me and puts everything else into a bad light. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclone changed his signature after realising its negative impact :) IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 16:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral GlassCobra 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Cyclone definitely has good intentions and a good understanding of the encyclopedia. However, I think this candidate should work a little more in admin-areas (as Mazca said). I'm caught on this one. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.