Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2

Weyes
(49/17/1) ending 18:17, 27 June 2005 (UTC) 5-day extension by Raul654  Vote nullified at 04:14 23 June 2005 by mutual assent of bureaucrats Cecropia and Raul654

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

Support
 * 1) Support. Sure; welcome to the cabal. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. RC Patrol could always use new people. --khaosworks 18:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - The more RC Patrol, the better. --FCYTravis 18:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I had asked him if he wanted to be nominated about 20 days or so ago.  He's very good at fighting vandalism.  CryptoDerk 19:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.  --Carnildo 20:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support A worthwhile nominee to be the first one on whom I've voted in four months. 172 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support.-gadfium 23:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) I still strongly oppose this nomination, which of course means, I support! El_C 23:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, RC patroller par excellence. JYolkowski // talk 01:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. The problem with IP address etc is that spamers persistently add their links here. While this was has been solved effectively for articles like Game or Real Estate, those people selling IP tools ignore any warnings or recommendations put there. I once wrote HTML comment into Externals links section asking people to describe new links and avoid redundancies and it didn't work for long. So until the reasonable set of links gets agreed and enforced periodical cleanups are useful. Pavel Vozenilek
 * 11) Support -- the same way I voted for on the previous nomination that Weyes turned down. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) I wish I had had the honour of nominating him. It would be really cool to give a user both their welcome message and their adminship nomiation.  Oh well.  It's great to see that you've come this far, Weyes!   Ingoolemo   talk 05:53, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * 13) Support RickK 06:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. You're not escaping the mop this time. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support quick, before he escapes again! David | Talk 09:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. NormanEinstein 13:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, Ghakko 17:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support.  Grue  18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. --Kbdank71 19:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Warmly support Weyes, especially for his RC work and his quest to make Wikipedia's external links less random. JFW | T@lk  22:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Arwel 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support-JCarriker 11:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support I think Weyes will be a fine admin. Bratsche talk  5 pillars 22:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support I read the opposition below, but I think I'm going to side with Weyes on it. It seems a little gruff, but that's what some users (newbies included) seem to understand best.  He's usually pretty good at researching the situation before he jumps to a conclusion.  I think the man needs a mop.  --Xcali 05:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. I can understand if a vandal hunter becomes a bit shortheaded sometimes, as the people who oppose state as reason. I assume that Weyes will learn from any mistakes he makes in that area. Thue | talk 09:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, having read this discussion I find the supportive arguments more compelling than the opposing arguments. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. What Thue said. Shanes 12:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Great RC patroller. --cesarb 13:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Strong Support I wasn't entirely sure about supporting someone who declined adminship so recently, but all the right qualifications seem to be there, and a look through some recent edits showed impressive results. Strong support. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  18:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Edit history suggests to me he will use his admin powers responsibly. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Gets my support vote. Dan100 (Talk) 22:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. After careful consideration, I see Weyes would get a lot of benefit from the admin tools, and would use them for the good of Wikipedia. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support: Please see below (in the "Neutral" section). Flcelloguy [[Image:Bass clef2.gif|25px|Cello today?]] Give me a note! Eighth note (crop).gif Desk  14:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) El C made me vote yes (see below), although I have no idea what he means by "Please reconsider your votes, and very strongly oppose his nomination. By which I mean, support it!" :p dab (&#5839;) 16:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. We need more wikijanitors, especially ones that will brave external pruning. Although I'd like to see some more tempered words to newbies and probable vandals alike, almost all of us are guilty of poorly choosing our words and failing to assume good faith from time to time. Gmaxwell 17:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support, dedicated RC patroller, any doubts I may have had have been allayed by El_C's comments below. -- M P er el ( talk 00:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) SupportGeni 02:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Support--nixie 06:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Support More wielders of the mop is fine by me. --MikeJ9919 07:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Carbonite | Talk 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Weak support. Weyes' curtness towards new editors is indeed an issue, and I hope that this will improve (it might be an idea to refer explicitly to the edit which is causing problems, though I appreciate that this takes time), but it is not enough of a problem for me not to trust Weyes with admin privileges. His behaviour towards external links is not an issue for me. PS: My first vote on RfA, prompted by Cecropia's plea. Jitse Niesen 14:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) I have to add that I am not very happy with his comment on Votes for deletion/Quantum sort2 though, iterating that the result of the previous vote was delete. Jitse Niesen 22:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. Looking through his edits, he shows an indefatigable willingness to clean up vandalism and other abuses (such as link spamming).  Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Support --Duk 04:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Support. The opposing arguments ring disturbingly hollow on all counts in my view. Harro5 07:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Support with reservations - some of the arguments below concern me (Squeakbox's, for example), but they are balanced by a lot of good work too. Guettarda 15:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Support. Active in reverting vandalism. Ben Babcock 17:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Support thoroughly, wondering how I missed this one earlier. &mdash; Dan | Talk 21:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Support. Will be good. May I say also that anyone who get out the sockpuppets on the 'oppose' vote must have something going for them - David Gerard 23:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Confuses guidelines with policies, mass blanked external links at BitTorrent, IP address and Whois, the latter 2 because I had pointed them out as 2 of the many sites containing such external links; only stopped edit warring his blanking after an admin told him to stop. This action left the sites temporarily wide open to spammers by removing the competition, but he wasn't watching the sites to remove the spamming that his actions had allowed. This all occurred very recently and shows he is not ready to be an admin, SqueakBox 18:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * what exactly do you mean by "left the sites temporarily wide open to spammers by removing the competition"? Also can you give a few diff of the alleged "edit warring"? The only instance of W reverting you, politely, on BT appears to be this. dab (&#5839;) 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)
 * 1) Oppose. Behaviour with Ozdusters was totally out of order. Chasing off newbies who are creating content should be deprecated, not rewarded, even if that content is borderline. I don't think that people should be made admins just because they are willing to do RC patrol. There seems to be a feeling current that it's okay to be badly behaved so long as you're doing that, whereas, in truth, this is the area where the best behaviour should be employed, because it's so often the interface with newbies. Grace Note 06:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Well, because this just occurred a few hours ago, I'd like to suggest that the interaction recorded here may not exhibit the kindness and assumption of new user good faith that we usually expect from administrators. On the other hand, I assume this was mostly a miscommunication, so I won't oppose just now. CDC   (talk)  19:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (See also the discussion here. -  CDC   (talk)  19:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))  Moving from neutral to oppose; I'm now persuaded that Weyes would be too sharp with good-faith new users; several comments on WP:AN/I from others hasn't elicited any indication that Weyes recognizes s/he might have been off the mark.  CDC   (talk)  18:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I saw him reiterating the line about how we put up with too much nonsense, which sounds to me like a scary thing for an admin to say. Everyking 07:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? Jimbo says it.  RickK 06:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think Jimbo uses it as an argument for slapping newbies about though. Grace Note 06:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I commend his vigilance, however I have seen this user undo several perfectly good edits with no explanation. Also has a tendency towards antagonisation of members he disagrees with. - Marmot
 * New account which has been making many suspect edits since it was created. RickK 06:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed; user has already been discussed on Admin noticeboard. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 11:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * ^ An attempt to silence opposition through discrediting a perfectly valid point. Typical liberal tactic.  - Marmot
 * Marmot, that's totally uncalled for. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * MARMOT also voted below using Master Shredder as a sockpuppet. I respectfully ask that MARMOT's vote be discounted as well. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Would you mind telling us why? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) *Because Boothy443 has opposed every adminship request on this page without reason, I have left him a polite comment/suggestion on his user talk page that he either provide reasons for his opposition or withdraw his votes. Flcelloguy [[Image:Bass clef2.gif|25px|Cello today?]] Give me a note! Eighth note (crop).gif Desk  21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. What Grace Note said. – ugen64 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Oppose because of strict opposition to external links. --newsjunkie 19:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia since May 1 2005, large percentage of edits are external links, hmm. Pavel Vozenilek 21:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have just checked a random sample of newsjunkie's contributions over the last week and found no external linking. This is not definitive but I feel that Pavel's observation may no longer be fair.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Master Shredder 19:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User has three edits. JFW | T@lk  19:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This user is a sock-puppet account of User:MARMOT, discovered in recent RFAr - David Gerard 23:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I've seen this editor appear on my vandal monitor far too many times to support his candidacy for adminship.  People who are frequently reverted by administrators are not likely to be administrator material.  Kelly Martin 22:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am one of them, but I was rightly corrected. W has a knack for spotting illegitamte external links and more subtle forms of vandalism. Unless I see strong evidence to indicate otherwise, which thus far I haven't, I trust him. El_C 22:18, 16 Jun 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)
 * 1) Strong Oppose. Far too new, far too abrasive.   Virtually no positive article space contributions, seems only interested in deleting and reverting.  Anyone doing RC patrol is appreciated, but any Admins doing RC patrol need to be much more diplomatic, even when dealing with vandals.  Treat people like dogs, they act like dogs.  It's a self-amplifying circuit I'd rather see in the hands of someone who wants to lower the hostility levels rather than raise them.  Would also like to see much better use of edit summaries. --Unfocused 19:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) * I disagree that you need article space contributions for adminship. Leaving alone his style, Weyes is happy with maintenance work, and I rather admire his judgement in deciding what to tackle. He actually uses edit summaries quite well where it matters. JFW | T@lk  23:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **I'll accept our differences, but will add my reasoning. We're building an encyclopedia.  Adding content is the primary task to do that and it is much more than just deleting what isn't an encyclopedia.  If there was a specific "maintenance only" level of adminship, I might vote for that; but in my opinion, that level of adminship already exists, and it is called "editor".  Further, I'd take twenty once a week admins with great attitudes over one dedicated person who isn't very friendly.  I think Weyes will probably make a good admin at some time in the future.  Not now.  Finally, as I'm on dialup half the time and broadband the other, I've concluded that ALL edit summaries are important.  --Unfocused 00:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose on several grounds: Abrasive style, frequently uninformative edit summaries, and deletion of useful links. All these build a picture of questionable judgement. I have no doubt that Weyes is an asset to the project and is well-intentioned.  I would expect to support a nomination after a few months of courteous interaction, consistent edit summaries, and more cautious link removal. Consider this edit in which Weyes removes a link to Lexmark's company profile at Computer Business Review with the summary "rv spam". It is one of dozens of similar deletions made yesterday. I understand that CBR sells more detailed reports than those it publishes on its web-site (and is, therefore, a commercial site) but this is no different to linking to Stuff, the Daily Telegraph, or one of the many other publishing sites that sell subscriptions. Inappropriate deletions like this have been flagged to Weyes repeatedly. To be persisting with them after such warnings and while such behaviour is being discussed at RFA is not the behaviour that I seek of an admin.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 09:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A link which the user in question had just spammed to 46 articles. I think both the removal and the edit summary were entirely justified. --W(t) 15:23, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that you consider your actions entirely justified. That is part of the reason for my opposition.  Another is your imprecision when addressing the crux of a debate.  The editor had pasted individual links from appropriate pages of the same site. The Lexmark report was linked to Lexmark, the Unisys report to Unisys, and so on.  Not the same link, as your phrasing implies. Each link is to a reputable information source and provides information that enhances the associated article.  I recognise that strict application of the policy can justify these reversions but admins are called upon to make judgements and to recognise when a fine judgement may merit further discussion (the extension of this RFA is an example of such referral). Your absolute confidence worries me. I would hope that I would seek the consensus on such a wholesale act before implementation. I further hope that I would use more explanatory edit summaries; in this case you could have explained why you saw it as spam.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's worse than I thought. I agree with Theo, those were valid links that were removed, personal crusade fashion (46 at a time), that should have at least been discussed on the relevant talk pages.  To check if they were linkspam, I went to Computer Business Review's website from a virgin browser window, searched for Unisys and Lexmark (as examples) and came up with the exact same URLs that were removed.  This should confirm that there were no referrer IDs encoded in them for linkspam commission payments.   If they're linkspam, someone please tell me how the commission is paid so I can watch for it in the future.  This looks like a violation of Assume Good Faith to me.  Unfocused 13:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose seems a bit too abrasive.     17:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I agree with Theo.  -- JamesTeterenko 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for now, may support in the future. Before next nomination, I'd like to see more descriptive edit summaries, a user page with something meaningful, and a bit more diplomacy toward newbies. Jonathunder 21:34, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
 * 4) 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 @ 00:31, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that this user has voted "oppose" on an RFA before (mine, actually), citing this exact reason, and was warned by his mentor (Raul654) for violation of WP:POINT. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not believe this person (or you at the time of my vote) are qualified to be administrators. There would be enough willingness on my part to assume good faith though if we had a system to fix mistakes that get through the RFA process.  Stop trolling.  -- Netoholic @ 04:13, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * Yes, I most definitely agree with Netoholic on this matter. So sue me. – ugen64 04:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Neto, WP:NPA. Also, sofixit. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Too abrasive. --Mrfixter 00:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I agree that he seems a little too abrasive. -- Joolz 00:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Weyes seems like a good Wikipedian suitable for adminship, and I especially like his WP:AIV creation. However, I would prefer for him not to chase away newbies- otherwise, I would gladly support! Keep up the good work. Flcelloguy 19:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, I fixed your "Vote Here" button as well.
 * I have changed my vote to support after hearing Weyes's side of the argument. I believe that he would make an excellent admin! Flcelloguy [[Image:Bass clef2.gif|25px|Cello today?]] Give me a note! Eighth note (crop).gif Desk  14:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess too much RC patrol makes anyone a bit heavy-handed at times. I would like W to make some sort of comment to SqueakBox's accusations (that should be rather straightforward, as the evidence does in no way look condemning), and I might change my vote to support. dab (&#5839;) 07:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I find Weyes' discussion with Ozdusters to be very uncivil and not in the least helpful to a newbie who was not vandalising. Weyes makes a lot of reverts and just writes rv or rvv in the edit summary. I would like to know what Weyes has to say in response to points about newbies. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've changed to support after hearing from Weyes and others about my concearns. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Needs careful consideration. Neutral for now. JuntungWu 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Neutral after consideration. JuntungWu 15:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Moving to Neutral. Oppose. Looks like a lot of great work, but simply way too abrasive with newbies. Assume good faith and be civil. Take the information given on this vote into account, and I'm sure you'll be a shoe in admin next time. If you do get promoted, doubly take it into account. - Taxman Talk 15:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC). I'm moving to neutral to balance out a few very questionable oppose votes and Weyes has made a lot of good contributions. I still feel the behavior relating to Ozdusters was out of line. Even given it was a known problem user, civility is still important. Keeping it civil, even when dealing with vandals keeps your hands clean. So like I said, please keep that in mind in the future. - Taxman Talk 13:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

Questions for the candidate
 * To clarify my actions which have caused people to oppose:
 * Ozdusters created a huge spree of articles with content that merely repeated the article title. He created them with the wikify and cleanup templates already one them, and some with the VfD template already on them. When the ozdusters account had accrued a number of warnings, he created a new account Sealpupsarecute and started doing the same with that account. (These articles have since nearly all been deleted, but I'm sure there's a few admins who were doing speedy deletions that day who can corroborate). I'm all for assuming good faith, but at a certain point you can't ignore accumulating evidence.
 * There has been lots of discussion on Talk:BitTorrent about removing the external links to bit torrent indexes. Everyone agreed that this made sense apart from Squeakbox, and at several points people have removed those external links but each time SqueakBox put them back. There was clearly both guideline and community support for removing them, with Squeakbox being the only one opposing it.W(t) 10:36, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * User:Ozdusters (backwards in time from last edit): * Shark related movies (limited to Jaws and Jaws 2) * Lion related movies (limited to Lion King; user adds VfD, cleanup, and expand tag to his own newly created article) <font size="+2">* Tenis related movies (limited to Wimbeldon and Mr. Deeds; both are wikified, but Oz add a wikify tag. <font size="+2">* <font size="+2">* <font size="+2">* I  believe W is being judged too harshly over this. Please reconsider your votes, and very strongly oppose his nomination. By which I mean, support it! El_C 11:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just had another look at Weyes' contributions, and I would like to know why he/she deleted the following external links which appear to be helpful and appropriate to the articles. Poaceae, Bud, Tree. --<font color="A29EBA">Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll take that: Those are commerical links, the majority of that user's contributions. I refer to Silversmith to what should not be linked . Apperently, though, http://www.infovisual.info/partners_en.html reveals Wikipedia as its partner alongside http://www.netref.net. Looks like this Visual dictionary is largely a commerical Wikipedia clone. El_C 13:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't see anywhere on the site that they are selling products. They just seem to be a "visual dictionary," suggesting sites like WP might benefit from linking to it.  Did you notice the "wiki" link on the grey toolbar? It goes to the WP article that their page is linked to.  It only works if it's blue, as you can see here. But if Weyes deleted the links due to viewing the site as "commercial" then I see he was following policy.  --<font color="A29EBA">Silversmith Hewwo 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please refer to their "Ads by Goooooogle" link. El_C 22:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for your help El. --<font color="A29EBA">Silversmith Hewwo 23:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, thanks for reconsidering. El_C 00:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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.