Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim 3

Editing stats for Cyclonenim at 13:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC):

General user info Username: Cyclonenim User groups: accountcreator, rollbacker First edit: Jun 06, 2006 20:20:02 Unique articles edited: 3,557 Average edits per page: 2.53 Total edits (including deleted): 8,989 Deleted edits: 393 Live edits: 8,596

Namespace totals Article	       2210	25.71% Talk	       1277    14.86% User	       801	9.32% User talk	2098	24.41% Wikipedia	1664	19.36% Wikipedia talk	338	3.93% File	         3	0.03% Template	 74	0.86% Template talk	 19	0.22% Category	 68	0.79% Portal	        44	0.51%

Month counts 2006/06	4	2006/07	2	2006/08	22	2006/09	0	2006/10	10	2006/11	27	2006/12	9	2007/01	10	2007/02	4	2007/03	0	2007/04	0	2007/05	36	2007/06	0	2007/07	1	2007/08	1	2007/09	9	2007/10	0	2007/11	0	2007/12	27	2008/01	430	2008/02	170	2008/03	49	2008/04	664	2008/05	2101	2008/06	550	2008/07	400	2008/08	891	2008/09	603	2008/10	548	2008/11	341	2008/12	549	2009/01	439	2009/02	321	2009/03	244	2009/04	134

Logs Accounts created: 210 Pages moved: 34 Pages patrolled: 109 Files uploaded: 2

Top edited articles Article

* 85 - Zygomycosis * 60 - Subarachnoid_hemorrhage * 50 - Teardrop_(band) * 38 - Sézary's_disease * 38 - Infectious_mononucleosis * 35 - Chondrocalcinosis * 29 - Meningitis * 29 - Hypereosinophilic_syndrome * 26 - Stroke * 25 - Tolosa-Hunt_syndrome

Talk

* 52 - Subarachnoid_hemorrhage * 19 - Zygomycosis * 18 - Meningitis * 13 - Pectus_excavatum * 13 - Subcutaneous_emphysema * 10 - Stroke * 10 - FairTax * 9 - Infectious_mononucleosis * 9 - Physical_therapy * 7 - Neurodevelopmental_disorder

User

* 341 - Cyclonenim * 51 - Cyclonenim/Admin_coaching * 51 - Cyclonenim/Icons * 45 - Cyclonenim/Sandbox * 35 - GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion * 34 - Cyclonenim/monobook.js   * 31 - Cyclonenim/New_talk * 19 - Cyclonenim/QuiFriends * 18 - Cyclonenim/huggle.css * 15 - Cyclonenim/Awards

User talk

* 156 - Cyclonenim * 71 - Jfdwolff/Archive_33 * 53 - Delldot * 31 - Kilbad * 27 - Stevenfruitsmaak * 25 - KC_Panchal * 21 - SoWhy * 19 - Fvasconcellos * 19 - Malinaccier * 19 - I'm_Spartacus!

Wikipedia

* 424 - Reference_desk/Science * 53 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 40 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 34 - WikiProject_Medicine/Missing_Article_Trophy * 31 - Requests_for_adminship/Cyclonenim_2 * 22 - WikiProject_Medicine/Neurology_task_force * 21 - Bot_requests * 20 - Administrators'_noticeboard * 17 - WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week * 16 - WikiProject_Medicine/Neurology_task_force/List_of_...

Wikipedia talk

* 145 - WikiProject_Medicine * 88 - Requests_for_adminship * 16 - WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force * 15 - WikiProject_Medicine/Neurology_task_force * 9 - Reference_desk * 7 - WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces * 4 - Friendly * 4 - WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week * 4 - Request_an_account * 4 - WikiProject_Pharmacology

File

* 1 - SAHCT1.jpg * 1 - SAHCT2.jpg * 1 - Wikipedian_Cyclonenim_2.jpg

Template

* 12 - Vandalism_information * 7 - User_Good_Articles2 * 5 - WPMED_Navigation * 3 - Time/doc * 3 - Neurotrauma * 3 - MEDFT * 3 - Medheader * 3 - User-MCOTW * 3 - RD-med * 3 - MEDMAT

Template talk

* 13 - Did_you_know * 2 - WPMED * 1 - In_the_news * 1 - User * 1 - Time * 1 - Diseases_of_the_skin_and_appendages_by_morphology

Category

* 5 - Stub-Class_dermatology_articles * 4 - FA-Class_neurology_articles * 4 - Start-Class_neurology_articles * 3 - FL-Class_neurology_articles * 3 - B-Class_neurology_articles * 3 - A-Class_neurology_articles * 3 - Stub-Class_neurology_articles * 3 - Low-importance_neurology_articles * 2 - High-importance_neurology_articles * 2 - Mid-importance_neurology_articles

Portal

* 14 - Medicine/Did_you_know_archive * 9 - Medicine/Did_you_know * 6 - Current_events/2008_November_2 * 4 - Medicine/Selected_article_candidates * 4 - Medicine/Things_you_can_do * 3 - Medicine/WikiProjects * 2 - Medicine/Selected_article/49,_2007 * 2 - Medicine/Quotes_archive

Trolling
Just a quick note - I've stricken the vote made by the new account as it's quite clearly trolling, I'm not keen on semi protection to keep new accounts away as it penalises any established editor editing from an IP address from commenting on the RfA. If, however, there are more decidedly unhelpful comments from new accounts, I would consider semi protection whilst the issue is dealt with (by a Request for Checkuser, most likely). Nick (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are few editors who I've had significant disagreements with, and if further trolling occurs, I don't think it'd be hard to find out who it is via Checkuser. Thanks for dealing with it, anyway. — Cyclonenim | Chat 13:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

More on my opposes
Dan asked for some more info on my oppose, and I'd rather not have huge extended threads on the main RfA, so here we go.


 * 1) Cyclonenim has done literally no clerical/admin-type projectspace work since putting out feelers for this RfA two months ago, which seems extremely strange to me given that it's previously been pointed out to him that this is an area he's lacking in. Why is an admin candidate not regularly participating in this kind of work? Cyclonenim has intimated that he's happy to answer policy questions, but I'm far more comfortable with looking at a user's editing history to get an understanding of his attitude than the open-book exam format which is RfA questions.
 * 2) The "negro" situation. The problem is not that he disagreed with the content - it's that his approach to resolving the issue was immature and reflected insufficient understanding of policy. His understanding of a) the legal issue and b) the way that the law relates to WP policy was flawed, and yet he went threatening editors with blocks. This isn't ancient history - this happened a month ago. Bear in mind that he hasn't actually carried out any clerical/admin-type projectspace work (with the exception of a couple of no-brainer AfD participations pointed out to me in the last couple of days) since that point. Regret is all very well, but I don't see any move to correct this.
 * 3) I'm generally of the opinion that Cyclonenim jumped the gun on accepting this nom. It should have been obvious from the replies to Dylan420 on WT:RFA that his judgement on admin suitability had some serious flaws; that Cyclonenim is the only one of the five candidates proposed who accepted is telling.
 * 4) I'm further disheartened by his having replied to five of eight opposes thus far, after having said that he didn't intend to do so in his first reply to me. This demonstrates the same kind of lack of restraint he's pointed out as a personal failing himself in the past.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, now I follow. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, I guess I'll give another long winded response despite, as you've pointed out, me originally restraining. Regarding that point, first, I don't feel I should have to restrain myself to answer to the opposers, otherwise people's word is taken without questioning. I do recognise, however, that some people are against me doing it. Even so, I find it hard to sit back and get opposed by people's reasonings who I do not agree with. You'll notice that I have not replied to several opposes.


 * Regarding point 1, I have to strongly disagree. As well as the "no-brainer AfDs", which by the way still need voting on by somebody, of which I'm usually one of the first, I contributed to a sockpuppet investigation that I came across at AN, made some CSD A7s today, made some CSD A7s in February etc. It's not that I disagree that my contributions are less frequent than a lot of current applicants to RfA, it's more that I question why this is an issue. Per WP:NONEED, it's generally a poor argument as long as the quality of the current contributions are good, which I believe they are. Very few of my AfD votes, CSDs, AIV reports from last year, UAA reports from a while ago, etc. were in dispute, and very few were considered wrong. I feel I have to potential to take things slowly, and I'm clearly open about all issues regarding my adminship, being that I'm been transparent about all my flaws from the outset. Do you think I'm going to jump the gun and make rash decisions with the mop? I all I can offer is my word, and perhaps a recall procedure, but others oppose that so what would be the point.


 * I disagree about Dylan's ideas of good administrators. The fact is most users on that list were good applicants, it's just many can't forget the past and get over block logs. Both and others with block logs could make incredible admins given the chance, the problem is people don't give them the chance despite the fact the tools can be taken away relatively easily with minimal effort from bureaucrats or stewards.


 * I can't argue my view much more than this, you're position is still entirely in your hands, I just have to hope you can trust me to make amends. Regards. — Cyclonenim | Chat 17:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with you arguing with everyone who opposes you if you like; it is, however, generally considered poor etiquette, and for you to do so after having specifically said that you were going to try not to is worrying. Don't defend yourself. As for your comments on the other admin candidates, that just further reinforces my opinion that you're a risky candidate yourself, too easily influenced to be objective. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cyclonenim, Chris's response may seem unfair to you, but a lot of people think the single most important quality for an admin is the ability to disengage when they see something going on that might screw around with their objectivity. Obviously, it's okay to get upset about racism, but if it upsets you, that's usually the time to pull someone else in and say "you deal with this, it just pisses me off".  Same with your own RFA ... you can't be objective, and no one will expect you to be.  Some voters see a candidate responding to a lot of opposes and think, "If he can't figure out that he's not the most objective person to be making the call on this, when everyone is looking at him, is he going to pull back when he's not objective and he has a mop, and no one is looking?"  I think they're good points, and I have no problem with Chris's oppose.  My own take is that you've got the idea, you just don't apply it perfectly and consistently, and I'm largely in agreement with the supporters. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, Dan :) By no means do I think this is unfair, its entirely my own doing and Chris (just like every other opposer) is welcome to vote whichever way he chooses. I just wish I could somehow display to people that I've learnt from that mistake, but it seems that only gets me in further trouble and I get told I'm not being objective. This is probably the case, and I will try to stop myself responding in future, but if there are any fundamental flaws in an oppose, I may feel the need to speak up again. Should this RfA fail, anyway, I'd like to thank Chris and the others for their feedback. — Cyclonenim | Chat 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if Chris can show any other situation where CN made the same mistakes as in that "negro" case. I think we have to assume that he did made a honest mistake in what he regarded the law in the US (remember, CN is British) and feared that such (in his view) breaking of the law would get Wikipedia in trouble and tried to prevent it. And unless there are multiple instances of such mistakes, we have to assume that this was not a sign of lacking maturity but rather a honest mistake that can happen to everyone and that he will not make again.
 * And it's quite unfair to say that the fact that posted CN's name on WT:RFA now is a reason to oppose him. Multiple people have suggested to CN that he should run, for months now and the comments on WT:RFA and his talk page where quite positive on this subject. Nor did he accept a nomination by Dylan but by two established admins ( and ) who both have been coaching him and both share the view that he was ready for RFA. So either you have to say that both noms are mistaken as well because Dylan had the same idea and told everyone about it or you should not raise that WT:RFA thread in your oppose reasoning. Otherwise, people could just go around suggesting multiple bad candidates and one good one and after that suggestion has undoubtedly been shot down as being full of flaws, the only good candidate will draw opposes because he had the bad luck to have been named publicly by someone who was assessed to have bad judgment in those matters. That cannot be right. And I see no reason to distrust the judgment by both noms in these matters. If any third-party opinion should be given weight, it's theirs. Regards  So  Why  22:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)