Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cyde2

Response to FearÉireann's view by Samuel Blanning
This issue is unrelated to the one at hand, and, moreover, is stale. See the discussion here. Consensus is pretty clear there that vote-stacking is not acceptable. I don't know why Feiréireann is dragging it here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Samuel Blanning here as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  08:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As often, I agree here with Cyde's intentions (and I also agree with him that the article in question should be kept). But closing an AfD after 27 hours was an abuse of powers. If the mop is nothing special, it should not be used to impose your opinions. Septentrionalis 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about using it to unblock yourself after being blocked for WP:POINT trolling? I'm not too fond of that either. Cynical 23:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have every confidence in the judgement of the admin that blocked Cyde for disruption. Cyde should not have overruled him so lightly. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyde's confidence in the judgment of that admin is, fortunately, not entirely unlimited. But we will see if the block has accomplished the purpose of blocks. Septentrionalis 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display proves, that I'm not just re-stating my position over and over. Instead I've showed my will to comprimise - contrary to Cyde, who clearly showed, that he will not accept any compromise:  Raphael1 10:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On that page I see one comment by Cyde Weys, under a section where you have not commented. Where have you tried and failed to resolve the conflict with him? Weregerbil 14:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Cyde has used an image signature, which makes it impossible to text search his posts. You can find our dispute at the end of Showing the cartoons in the article violates Wikipedia policies and in Why not put the pictures on subpage?, when I've still edited with my IP-address User:62.116.76.117. Besides  it's not a question of how much I've tried to resolve the dispute. The very fact, that we had a dispute over the cartoon image display is IMHO enough evidence, that he shouldn't block editors who change the cartoon  display characteristics. Raphael1 01:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Statement of the dispute: Cyde repeatedly abused his administrator privileges by blocking editors he disagreed with in a content dispute. I still am unable to find you discussing this matter with Cyde on the pages you mention. You are discussing other matters (display of an image) but not trying and failing to resolve this dispute (alleged blocking abuse).
 * And your assertion that resolving is not an issue: it is! Read the very top of the RfC page itself: In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. In the pages you mention you are discussing a different dispute with several users. I can't imagine how more obviously this RfC could possibly be breaking those rules. Weregerbil 07:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The evidence of trying and failing to resolve this dispute (alleged blocking abuse) can be found in the link #7. Unfortunately this dispute is rather short, because Cyde refused any further communication after I summerized his engagement in the other dispute (display of an image). Raphael1 16:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again: This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. Notice the words "single" and "multiple". Several administrators were in agreement over your block, as the link you provide shows, and you were discussing it with several of them. And you were not discussing the issue of Cyde repeatedly abused his administrator privileges..., you were discussing your block, more than a month before you started the RfC. Please try to understand: you should have discussed the issue first, and made an honest attempt to resolve the issue. RfC is not a weapon for attacking editors, it is a dispute resolution process after real attempts at discussion fail. The second link (the diff) you mention is not a very constructive comment in my opinion; telling what an editor thinks or likes or knows borders on a WP:NPA violation. I should hope I had the presence of mind not to answer a comment like that should one be made against me. Weregerbil 10:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)