Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for comment that is now closed. Please do not modify it.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 12:32, 7 May 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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

Description[edit]

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

Powers misused[edit]

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

Please note, that in spite of this RfC Cyde continues to block editors in this context:

  1. User:62.135.119.204 removed the cartoons twice and has been blocked 31 hours for "Vandalism"
  2. User:200.51.32.150 removed the cartoons twice and has been blocked 48 hours for "Vandalism". After the editor stated not to vandalise, Cyde replied: "Yeah, and it's not murder if you kill someone over the cartoons because the cartoons made you do it."

Applicable policies[edit]

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

Display of cartoons dispute:

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

Blocking abuse dispute:

  1. User_talk:Raphael1/Archive_2#Warning.21
  2. Cyde disagreed to Mediation Request

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Raphael1 12:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikipidian 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) - please note I was blocked indefinitely by cyde for suspicion of sockpuppetry, even though I had a CheckUser (confirming my innocence) which was marked clearly on my talkpage [9].[reply]

Other users who endorse this statement[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. BhaiSaab 22:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arno 23:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC). I'm not satisfied that Cyde has always handled things objectively and tactfully in this controversial matter. The examples cited above are a reason for this concern. An objective assessment of his actions is a good idea. One concern of mine is that if the wrong people take charge, this objective assessment may not take place.[reply]
  3. I endorse this statement simply because I lived through similar or even a worse case. I have an impression that Cyde is taking discretionary actions and consider himself as unquestionable. In my opinion, his misuse of admin priviliges is appearent. In my case, my account was blocked for something, while the block was active, he claimed that 'I do not get it' and blocked my account indefinitely. Later on, the issue is brought to ArbCom and his remarks there show me that he is even not tolerant to a supportive comment by an ordinary user. His sarcastic response is frustrating. I checked his long block log and wondering now if his one of the main contributions is blocking fellow editors based on his unjustified decisions... Resid Gulerdem 00:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Stifle (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

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

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

  1. Cyde Weys 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Netscott 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I endorse this summary except for the last sentence. I don't know if Raphael1 is the worst offender among this group, nor is it relevant. Those involved should be judged on their own actions, not on their actions in comparison to the actions of others. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Karl Meier 20:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mask 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KimvdLinde 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (Extreme free speech position???) •Jim62sch• 22:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. StuffOfInterest 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Utterly baseless RFC. Yet one more misuse of DR process. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As mentioned, an utterly baseless RFC. Jersey Devil 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cyde deserves praise for his behavior with regard to censorship. WAS 4.250 14:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I concur in the assessment of this RfC as wholly baseless and further in WAS' praising of Cyde's actions with respect, inter al., to the Jylllands article. Joe 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  16. Hit bull, win steak 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. William M. Connolley 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC) As per FM and WAS[reply]
  18. MaxSem 05:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Calton | Talk 08:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Why is this still open? There is not a single valid entry in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section, just someone re-stating his reasons for edit warring against clear consensus. Weregerbil 09:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2#Addendum_by_Aecis where I elaborated on the evidence. Raphael1 09:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Amount of evidence of trying to resolve the dispute: still zero. Please explain in the talk page if you have any such evidence, not just re-stating your position over and over. Weregerbil 10:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Postdlf 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Will (E@) T 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strongly support, Cyde is doing his job and enforcing consensus, which happens to get in the way of a certain disruptive editor's agenda. --tjstrf 07:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Cyde is just doing his job. Zeq 19:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by JzG[edit]

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

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

Specifically:

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

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

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

  1. As author, Just zis Guy you know? 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cyde Weys 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blanning(talk) 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Netscott 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC) With one point of contention. User:Cyde did well to block vandal Wikipidian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who in addition to vandalizing the main Jyllands-Posten image also vandalized the El Fagr image (see file history) as well as the Image:Pig_person.jpg (see file history). User:Cyde should under no circumstance apologize to Wikipidian who indeed warrants having his/her permanent block reinstated. Netscott 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Why have we held the straw poll on the article's talk page, if we allow Raphael to toss it out of the window? The result of the polls were very clear: more than 80% of voters wanted to keep the image in the article. That figure speaks for itself. We can't let this RfC override that consensus, and we must not allow Raphael1 to ignore that consensus and disrupt the article to prove his point and push his pov. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --maru (talk) contribs 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Karl Meier 20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mask 20:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Calton | Talk 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. KimvdLinde 21:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. •Jim62sch• 22:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. After looking at Raphael's difs, I count only two times for direct 3RVR, the other blocks occuring for general edit warring, but other than that JzG is correct. JoshuaZ 22:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. What Guy said. FeloniousMonk 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Rory096 07:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. David Oberst 09:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Jersey Devil 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. StuffOfInterest 14:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. WAS 4.250 14:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. With the caveat that I don't see how this violates WP:POINT. Jkelly 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. joturner 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Noting that I too adopt JKelly's proviso, I otherwise agree. Joe 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  26. Agree with the spirit and intent of Guy's comment. FloNight talk 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Hit bull, win steak 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Largely agree; but also agree with caveats; they represent Cyde doing the wrong thing for the right reason. Septentrionalis 22:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Hetar 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Though a little more caution and judgment is desirable when blocking, overall Cyde mostly did the right thing to stop censorship against consensus. Loom91 05:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is coming to a head[edit]

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

JEREMY Response[edit]

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

  • Especially when said user isn't a Muslim and doesn't live in a Muslim country. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that a contradiction? Since I'm not a Muslim, I obviously don't have religious concerns. I am concerned, that Wikipedia looses it's NPOV ideal and is becoming an American/British/Christian point of view encyclopedia. Raphael1 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that he is excluded on the basis of his faith, more ont he basis of his edit-warring. It is a common fault in those with strong convictions (religious or otherwise) that where those convictions conflict with Wikipedia policy, it is policy which loses out. Just zis Guy you know? 18:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, that strong convictions can easily result in a conflict with Wikipedia policy. But I don't agree, that three reverts in five days can be considered edit-warring. [10][11][12] particularly in comparison to [13] Raphael1 19:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bigots? Such uncivil language? I agree that there were some who one could consider bigotted who've supported the display of the image as it is now but when we know from previous straw polls that 80% of editors supported their currently established displaying characteristics it is very unfair of you to blanket label them all as bigots. Also, which religious beliefs of Raphael1's were you referring to Jeremy? Is User:Raphael1 a Christian and what of fundalmentalism? Fundalmentalism on who's side? Free speech fundamentalists? Your comments appear to be made from quite an uninformed position. Netscott 18:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get your facts straight. The cartoons have not directly killed anyone. They're fucking cartoons. It was men who put some manufactured religious outrage above human lives who caused those hundreds of deaths. --Cyde Weys 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, how about that -- cartoons don't kill people, people kill people. That some jackasses want to relieve from culpability those who claim "the cartoon made me do it" as a valid defense is quite pathetic. •Jim62sch• 22:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These "f**king cartoons", as you put it, are red rags to a bull. Jim62sch is just the guy I don't want to be examining this matter. To him, it's a case of cartoons=right, therefore Cyde is right. Arno 07:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not censored. Thus religious beliefs are irrelevant to what goes on this encyclopedia. I also don't like the mud slinging of calling other users "bigots".--Jersey Devil 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same page that says that Wikipedia is not censored also says that wikipedia is not a soapbox for social change. Some at Wikipedia seems to have mounted a significant soapbox here. Arno 07:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, you're the one soapboxing. America has had its current amendments regarding freedom of speech for over two centuries now. If anyone is trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for social change, it is the people who are pro-censorship and want these cartoons censored, as that is pretty clearly the opposite of the established American way. --Cyde Weys 07:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's where your cultural bias comes in. This is not American wikipedia, it's a NPOV English language wikipedia. You (and users like Jim) are taking a provocative stance over something that, to use your vernacular, are just "f**king cartoons" Arno 05:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an American wikipedia, but this is a wikipedia registered in the US. The wikipedia servers are located in Florida. Wikipedia falls under the laws and constitutions of Florida and the US. The American legal tradition is highly relevant. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 22:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A sharp turn into pure irrelevancy. But it further confims the cultural and political bias mentioned before. Arno 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View of the validity of this RfC by Bishonen[edit]

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

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

  1. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  2. FeloniousMonk 00:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Johnleemk | Talk 06:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, this is a garden-variety content dispute, with the janitor being cast in the role of bad guy for enforcing normal WP practice of not making controversial changes without first achieving consensus on Talk. It's also clearly vexatious, since the oine indisputable fact here is that the nominator is essentially bitching about being stopped from edit-warring. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. joturner 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Certainly. Joe 04:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen Response[edit]

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

So you're running the steps in reverse? •Jim62sch• 22:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, let's not blindly assume bad faith here. Arno 07:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arno, let's not blindly assume bad faith here. --Cyde Weys 07:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed here. Why on earth did you name Aecis as a party to the mediation? It's Cyde you're RfC'ing, isn't it — only Cyde? And it says on the mediation page that if one party refuses mediation, then they won't even try. Obviously, the more people you name, the less likely does actual mediation become. (And in fact Aecis has already rejected mediation, while Cyde has accepted.) I for one will not accept your present request as being a good-faith attempt to resolve things with Cyde. My advice is for you to go back and withdraw the request right now, and post a new one, naming only Cyde. Bishonen | talk 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I've just filed a new request. I hope you don't mind, that I've left User:Wikipidian as a party to the mediation, since he has been blocked by Cyde as well. Raphael1 09:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the situation, you and Wikipedian are on the same side of the dispute, so naming him/her is OK by me, it shouldn't cause any trouble. Cyde? You want to respond to the new mediation request? Bishonen | talk 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately Cyde disagreed this time stating: "there's nothing to mediate here, Raphael1 and Wikipidian are editing against a heavy consensus. I alone am not capable of changing how the cartoons display, thus a mediation with just me is pointless. You need to go to the article talk page and try to make your case there." Raphael1 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I blame Cyde. But in that case, since Raphael1 and Wikipedian have now made a bona-fide, if late, attempt to find a mediator, perhaps the RfC can be reckoned properly certified? Mind you, I consider it frivolous, but that's not the point here. What do people think? Please don't delete it until this has been somewhat discussed. Bishonen | talk 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Cyde's behavior in general requires disccusion (as Jtdrl remarks below). I am not persuaded that the Jyllandspost incident itself warrants an RfC; but the purpose of certification is to prevent RfCs on the basis of one user's say-so; which noone claims. Either certify this on the basis that the original incident did actually happen, or change the description to abuse of admin powers in general, which I would certify. Septentrionalis 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View by Pegasus1138[edit]

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

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

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

Pegasus1138 Response[edit]

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

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

Outside view by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  1. BhaiSaab 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 172 | Talk 23:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cynical 23:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Septentrionalis 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Stifle (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters Response[edit]

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

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

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

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

Outside view by Joturner[edit]

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

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

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

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

  1. joturner 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Cyde may have been rough, but he did the right thing.[reply]
  3. StuffOfInterest 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Inasmuch as this outside view properly embraces the idea that one may disagree with other of Cyde's actions (thinking them, nevertheless, not to rise to the level of the RfCable) and, irrespective of one's personal perceptions of Cyde, support his actions with respect, primarily, to the Jyllands article, I surely agree. Joe 04:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cynical 23:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Pretty much, yes. Cyde's friends should rally round and help him to use the tools with slightly more care and discretion. His behaviour thus far is absolutely not suficient to bring his fitness for adminship into dispute, but as a newish admin myself I'd say that finding out when to count to ten is part of the learning curve. Just zis Guy you know? 14:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 17:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I concur with this; but the second paragraph is a perfect description of what Cyde does too. Septentrionalis 22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Except for hesitation about this line:"We go by consensus even if, as with the United Nations, that consensus can easily be ignored.", whose meaning isn't very clear to me. Netscott 09:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Aecis[edit]

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

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

  1. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 08:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jersey Devil 08:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Azate 17:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. StuffOfInterest 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. JoshuaZ 03:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Netscott 09:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I'm feeling a need for a slap too. heh.[reply]

Outside view by FearÉireann[edit]

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

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

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

Users endorsing this view (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Cynical 23:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BhaiSaab 06:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Septentrionalis 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 172 | Talk 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 21:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Cyde's behavior doesn't seem to be a good model for future admins.[reply]
  6. @Stifle (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raichu 23:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by CBDunkerson[edit]

I think there is often a RFC problem in separating the underlying content issue from the behaviour in question. A quotation above by Johnleemk is illustrative, "Cyde may have been rough, but he did the right thing." If he was 'rough' then... he did not do the right thing. Unless I missed a Wikipedia:The ends justify the means policy that just isn't the way it is supposed to work. As admins we can't say, 'this is the right outcome so we can steamroll any dissenting opinions'. Why not? Because we are human and no human is right all of the time... and certainly other humans (equally imperfect) aren't always going to agree with them. Jamming through the outcome we think 'right' in such circumstances is inherently disruptive... we are admins precisely because the community of flawed human beings trusted us not to act that way.

I agree with Cyde on the cartoon debate and it does look like the people he was in conflict with were gaming the system, but we have procedures for dealing with that which don't include an involved party acting as a one man ArbCom. I agree with Cyde that the new ref system is better overall, but in specific situations where there are reasons to use a different referencing scheme that consensus must be respected. Jtdirl didn't provide the details behind the vote spamming/blocks situation above so I don't know what my take on the underlying issue would be, but the recounting of the actions unallayed by the topic of debate speaks for itself - if there were actually 'vote stacking' going on, rather than simply policy suggested notification of involved parties, then some admin who wasn't at the center of the debate should have been called in to deal with it.

Cyde tries to just 'get things done' and when there is little or no controversy that's a good thing. However, when people have different opinions on what is 'right' he sometimes (not always, I've seen him discuss or let the other view stand) bulls ahead and/or uses admin powers to achieve the 'right' outcome. The problem is that even when 'right' on the issue the disruption and animosity generated are always going to be a net negative. We have seen admins go down this path before. Sooner or later they inevitably disagree with a large segment of the user population (or the ArbCom / PTB) as to what is 'right' on some issue and it goes downhill fast from there. If people are complaining about your decisions/actions then it is time to stop and ask another admin to look at it. Cyde generally seems like a 'proactive fix-it-myself' admin, but the occaisional hand-off of a messy situation to someone else would probably save everyone involved some headaches. --CBDunkerson 11:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Special endorsement for the first paragraph. Raphael1 14:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cynical 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BhaiSaab 06:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Precisely; especially the second and third paragraph. Septentrionalis 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBDunkerson response[edit]

The issue is not whether Cyde did the right thing in converting references, as that is not the subject of this RfC. This RfC is about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and most importantly whether it was appropriate for Cyde to block Raphael1 for 1 week over continuous linkimaging and removal of the image of the cartoons from the article. Raphael1 is not the first who was blocked for this behaviour. I don't understand why this particular block of this particular user by this particular admin is singled out in an RfC, and why so many seem to fall for this. As I said in my own outside view: I can't understand why an RfC has been filed against Cyde. He wasn't the only admin who took action over disruptive behaviour on the article. Yes, Cyde was involved in the dispute. But in this particular case, just about the entire wikipedia community was involved. This would mean that no admin would have been able to stop Raphael1, and that he would have gotten a free ride to disrupt wikipedia as he sees fit. And in a broader perspective, this means that the more important articles on wikipedia, ones that are already prone to vandalism, will become a lot more difficult to maintain, since more admins will inevitably somehow be involved in those articles. This in turn means that users will see that they can get whatever they want if they whine about it long enough, because after some time there won't be any uninvolved admins left. This means that there's no use in trying to find community consensus, because the system can be hijacked anytime. Whatever has been agreed upon by the community will depend completely on the whims of one or two persistent trolls. Was that intended when the policies were created? Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 17:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, Cyde was involved in the dispute."
"I can't understand why an RfC has been filed against Cyde."
The mind boggles. As one of the (apparently non-existant) admins who wasn't involved in the cartoon controversy I can't really say whether it featured the near universal level of admin involvement you suggest. If there were that many admins involved and just "one or two persistent trolls" defying community consensus then it'd seem fairly clear that any uninvolved admin and/or the ArbCom would place needed blocks. Where's the 'hijacking' by dissidents? Just follow normal procedure. --CBDunkerson 18:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an individual who has been a long term editor on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article and being intimately familiar with the editing style of those who've been editing on it since, I have born witness to Raphael1's single-mindedness in doing everything short of establishing a general consensus to do so in his attempts to have the display characteristics for the cartoons altered. Raphael1's extremely single-minded actions have been very disruptive to the point of indeed being trollish. Due to this fact I would ask those who are not so familiar with this article's history to please bear this in mind when commenting on User:Cyde's highly warranted blocking of User:Raphael1 (and vandal User:Wikipidian who should be name blocked regardless for taking a name that's an impersonation of User:Wikipedian) relative to it. Netscott 19:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you quote my remark "I can't understand why an RfC has been filed against Cyde", I would appreciate it if you would also quote the sentence after it ("He wasn't the only admin who took action over disruptive behaviour on the article"), in relation to my own outside view ("And if Cyde hasn't completely followed the rules of the game, then give him a slap on the wrist for it, but slap me on the wrist for it as well. I can't understand why an RfC has been filed against Cyde and not against me.") Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind filing a RfC for you as well, if you plead for it. You have been involved as well and i.e. roughly blocked 83.238.213.26 for altering the cartoons display characteristics. Raphael1 13:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I say Cyde did the right thing, it's because being rough was the right thing to do. Yes, we have process, but we also have IAR. (I know it's frequently abused, but bear with me.) Cyde was absolutely correct in this case to block an editor who has consistently edit warred on a prominent article and gone against a clearcut consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 05:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that interpretation of IAR is "frequently abused" because it is inherently a rationalization of why 'abuse is ok'. The original 'do not worry if you don't know all the rules, just go edit and it will all get straightened out eventually' meaning of IAR was fine. The later recasting of that as 'even if you know something is against the rules go ahead and do it if you are sure you are right' is an abomination. Regular users never get away with invoking that so it becomes a special privilege of admins to not follow the procedures that we have all established to avoid and reduce conflict (things like not having a person involved in the argument decide the matter)... with the utterly predictable result of greater conflict. It could be rephrased as 'users most follow the rules, admins should follow the rules but don't have to, and some admins can do whatever they want'. It is bad policy. If we don't abide by the same standards we expect the regular users to then people will call this unfair and biased and elitist... and they'll be right. Just because Cyde was 'right' that doesn't make it ok. :]
Dial back a bit folks. I'm not saying that, 'Cyde is a horrible vicious ogre who makes terrible decisions and is destroying Wikipedia, nay the entire world!' I'm saying that if he was, 'so absolutely and clearly right and wonderful and perfect in all things' then surely any non-involved admin brought in to review the matter would have seen that and taken the same actions. Thereby avoiding this whole unpleasant argument. See how that works out better? --CBDunkerson 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say he should be slapped lightly with a trout for indef-blocking Wikipidian (although a block was probably justified); however, the principal complainant is the one mainly at fault here. Raphael is also arguing the toss at WikiEN-l about it. The cpomplaint amounts to "how dare you stop me making tendentious edits". Sure, Cyde needs to chill. But equally, others need to not raise the temperature in the first place. Just zis Guy you know? 14:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This RfC makes it seem as though Cyde is the culprit and Raphael1 is the victim. This is utter bullshit. The one in the wrong here is Raphael1. He is the one who has been disruptive, he is the one who needed to be blocked, should have been blocked, deserved to be blocked, and was blocked. This was all of his own making, and he can only blame himself for this. He, and only he, is responsible for the situation that he's gotten himself in. Raphael1's victim mentality is astounding. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 16:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This whole damn RFC is helping Raphael1 with his "I'm the victim here" ploy. Too many people commenting here are not remembering that there was an overwhelming majority support for displaying the cartoons, and Raphael1 censored or removed the images against that consensus over a dozen times over the period of months, all the while being warned against what he was doing. This was simple vandalism. Vandals need to be blocked until they desist, period. It doesn't matter what admin does the blocking. Raphael1 has been trying to say that anyone who has ever edited the same pages as him are "involved" and are thus ineligible to block. That's ridiculous. This is a specious RFC where a vandal is trying to play the victim mentality to gather sympathy. But his edit history speaks for itself. --Cyde Weys 16:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am astonished to read, that you still don't seem to know how vandalism is defined. I'd expect an administrator to know, what he's supposed to block for. Neither editing against an alledged majority nor "censoring" constitutes vandalism. Besides, I've never claimed that anyone, who has ever edited the article, is involved in the cartoon image dispute. But those admins, who many times clearly stated their position in the dispute on the talk pages, are definitely involved. Raphael1 17:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am astonished that you have still not realised that removing images against the wishes of the vast majority of interested parties is considered vandalism. Just zis Guy you know? 17:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider it vandalism. WP:VANDAL does not say so. Raphael1 17:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raphael, you might wanna read this section... Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep foul language out of it. Also, I wonder why people like you keep involving Wikipedia in matters such as http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19109973-23109,00.html. Wikipedia and the US may not be mentioned, but it shows that al-Qaeda is prpared to exploit the caartoon publishing for it own ends. Must Wikipedia be caught up in that? Arno 11:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to remove the cartoons from the article, would that magically make them disappear from the face of the earth? No, it won't. The cartoons are there, and whether we decide to show them or not has no effect. Please do not use such fallacies. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 08:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are deliberately misunderstanding this, in the manner one would expect from extremists. Arno 08:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh, proportionally admins tend to be perceived as more abusive of IAR. What do you expect when they tend to be our highest-profile editors and have an extra mop and bucket to wield as opposed to other users? Naturally they'd have more opportunities to abuse IAR, whether or not there is an actual greater tendency for admins than ordinary editors to abuse IAR. The "users must follow the rules but admins don't need to" statement is specious because the only opportunity for editors to use IAR at all is when it comes to editing.
Of course, there is a very strong argument (which I agree with) that states because of their additional privileges, admins ought to be more cautious in exercising them. But I think Cyde's application of the privileges in this case was correct, process be damned. If our only issue with what Cyde did is the means he used to achieve a particular end which we all agree is ultimately a good one, there shouldn't be a problem. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made my 'comments in response to the request'. Obviously there is alot of disagreement on what the 'right' course of action is. I can't stop you from saying, "process be damned"... but I also don't have to listen to the complaints of the people who were on the receiving end of the 'be damning'. You've all got my thoughts on how this sort of thing might be avoided in the future. If you shake a hornets' nest you have little cause to complain about getting stung... yes, the hornets are aggressive and destructive and territorial and all that, but then... you knew that before you shook them. --CBDunkerson 23:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CB, you were probably there when the community decided on whether or not to keep the image of the cartoons on the article. I can't find a vote of you on the poll, but you were probably aware that something was going on. Regardless of that, the outcome of the poll deserves to be taken seriously, by admins and non-admins alike. It should be upheld until and unless there is a consensus to the contrary. There was no consensus to the contrary. There has never been a consensus to the contrary. Raphael1 argues that straw polls cannot decide article content. Perhaps not, but in this case a straw poll was the best available option, and there's certainly nothing ruling out that option. And the outcome of that poll is definitely more important than Raphael1 view, or my individual view for that matter. Cyde has done what any decent admin would do, and what many admins have done, supporters and opponents of keeping the cartoons in the article alike: act against editors who engage in edit wars to get their way against an overwhelming community consensus. Perhaps Cyde has done some things wrong in the process. And if so, he should be slapped with a wikiherring. But Cyde didn't act out of the blue. It's not like he shook some random penalty against some random user out of his hat. Your reasoning above is turning the policy-enforcing admin into the culprit, and the disruptive troll into the victim. I'm sorry, but that is absurd. Noone shook the hornets nest. The hornets came here out of their own free will, noone forced them to do what they did (which is to disrupt the article), and they should be held responsible and accountable. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to understand is that straw polls are ineligible means for minority issues. Why should a majority, who is not affected by the cartoons, decide whether a minority should get insulted by placing them on top of the article? Wikipedia should neither be an Ochlocracy nor a Mobocracy, but by polling issues like that we are going in that direction. If you want a "western only" english Wikipedia, where you can write a one-sided article on the cartoon controversy, I wish you good luck, but I am not interested in such a project. If you truly want a neutral point of view, you need to incorporate the other side of the story. You won't be able to do so, if you simply ban all visitors, who are insulted by the cartoons and remove them. Raphael1 22:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that "the other side" is not represented fairly in the article, work on it. Don't misrepresent the facts. Noone is being banned from viewing and reading the article. If people decide not to come here because we've got the cartoons up, it's their choice, and their choice only. So be it. You're basically saying that the numerical majority should not enforce its views on the numerical minority. But why should it happen the other way around? Why should the numerical minority enforce its views on the numerical majority? Why should the feelings of those offended by the cartoons matter more than the feelings of those who were not offended? And why should that influence our decision? We're an encyclopedia informing the public, we're not a newspaper engaging in a public debate. And even if you disagree with the consensus, you cannot deny that a consensus had been reached. The fact that you chose to simply ignore that consensus is preposterous, and you playing the victim here is even more ridiculous. Your editing the image has been reverted about 40 times (guesstimate). Somewhere in that timeframe, you should have thought to yourself: maybe this isn't the way to reach what I wanna reach. You should have simply argued your case on the article's talk page. But you should never have fiddled with the image against clear consensus and after so many reverts. You are the one who should have been rfc'd, not Cyde. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 08:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the feelings of those offended by the cartoons matter more than the feelings of those who were not offended? What about the feelings of those who are not offended? Would they feel annoyed, if they'd have to click a link to see the offensive cartoons? Would they feel betrayed, because they can't use Wikipedia as a platform to insult the "Muslim enemy"? I've just counted my cartoon "removals": I have moved the cartoons 8 times behind a link, since I've created my account on the 5th of march. I have argued my case on the article's talk page over a hundred times and you repeatedly urged me to "stop beating this dead horse" for doing so. Raphael1 11:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The linkimage option has already been suggested. Only 19 people supported it. That's even less than the number of people favouring removing the image. Please stop ascribing motives to the 202 people who favoured keeping the image in the article. Not everyone is "out to get the muslims". When will you learn that? And even if they were, that is their responsibility, and theirs only. That's no reason to discount a vote. User:ViewFromNowhere complained about a "Straw Man portrayal of opponents of cartoons" on the article's talk page. You are making straw man portrayals of those favouring keeping the cartoons in the article. And that's just as bad. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 11:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (PS. Yes, I've urged you to stop beating a dead horse. But have I ever blocked you for your talk page activity?)[reply]
First of all, I am very grateful, that you haven't blocked me for my talk page activity. Secondly you claim, that the votes of editors, who are "out to get the Muslims", are valid? I'd say, that any editor, who is "out to get anyone", because of his faith, should be blocked immediately. Wikipedia should not be a place for incivility or religious wars being fought. The whole cartoon voting has been nothing but scapegoating fueled by sites like [14] and [15]. Raphael1 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those votes are indeed valid, because there is nothing in the wikipedia policies ordering the discounting of such votes. And if there is no such policy, the votes stand. There is no ground in wikipedia to discount the votes, even though one may disagree with them as a human being. Active attempts to get one or more editors or a group of people may count as wikistalking, trolling, disruption and possibly vandalism. Those are valid reasons to block someone. But supporting keeping the image of the cartoons on the article, upholding community consensus and enforcing wikipedia policies are not wikistalking, trolling, disruption or vandalism. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment by Septentrionalis[edit]

I trust that this, from WP:UBD was intended as a joke; nevertheless, an admin who declares

  • "our" intention to ignore a part of the voices on one side of an issue
  • and "our" lack of appreciation for other arguments on that issue

should really not be closing or kibitzing such debates. Someone might take him seriously.

Doc suggested two interpretations of the "we" here. There is another one; [16] Cyde is an editor; although he doesn't seem to have done much with article text lately. There was a time when he thought there were more imprtant things he could contribute to the encyclopedia than fighting the UserBox Wars. [17][18] which also demonstrates his one-time conviction that Process is Important for admins. Perhaps he will recollect himself.

But the following incident suggests that Cyde may not have been joking.

  • There was a Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_24#Automobile_manufacturers_categories CfD about renaming categories of automobile manufacturers by country.
    • Fairly early on, a amendment was suggested, making the categories for the UK and the Dominions Motor manufacturers instead. It got a sound majority; I would count it 7-2-2.
  • Cyde did the renaming, making all the cats Automobile manufacturers instead.
  • When asked about it, he cited a slogan of his own, that Consistency is God as though it were policy; all this just to start an Anglo-American usage dispute.

This is no way for an admin to behave. Septentrionalis 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Cynical 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BigDT 18:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 21:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC) I've been worried about Cyde's behavior as of late.[reply]
  4. Stifle (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by Aecis[edit]

Raphael1 provides seven links as "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". Those links are no "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" at all. #1 is a link to an entire 90kb talk page archive where Cyde features sparsely and Raphael1 isn't visible at all, by that name or by any of the IP's he has used before registering. #2 links to a talk page topic where Cyde has posted once and Raphael hasn't posted. #3 shows Raphael1 asking Cyde a question ("If it's OK to be disrespectful against a religious community, is it OK to disrespect a race, nation or gender?"), to which Cyde doesn't answer. Link 4, like #2, is a talk page topic with one remark by Cyde and none by Raphael1. Link 5 is a discussion where Cyde has only posted a warning to joturner (talk · contribs). Raphael1 is active in the discussion that follows, but Cyde isn't. #6 is a poll dating back to way before the conflict, with no proof of attempts at dispute resolution whatsoever. Link 7 shows many admins (myself included) warning Raphael1 not to continue his behaviour. I believe that these links should be stricken out. Raphael1 has provided no evidence of "trying and failing to resolve the dispute". Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link #1 shows that Cyde removed a new idea from Resid. Link #2 shows, that AdrienneJ tried to explain to Cyde, what polite and thoughtful people are supposed to do and that republishing means breaching NPOV. Link #3 shows Cydes lack of interest to answer my question. In Link #4 64.180.243.15 explains to Cyde, that blasphemy is also relevant in secular countries. Link #5 shows, that Cyde is eager to include another (700 year old) Mohammed image to offend even more and warns other editors, that he will consider it's removal vandalism. Link #6 is not a poll but the image-display talk page, where Johntex and myself try to convince Cyde to accept a linkimage compromise. Link #7 shows, that I have explained to Cyde, that he is breaking WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used, if he doesn't remove my block and I summerized Cydes engagement in the dispute. This is enough evidence, that many editors tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Raphael1 22:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link 1 doesn't show anything at all, because it's an entire 90kb talk page archive. Wikipedians shouldn't be lazy, but you can't expect people to search on their own for what part of that page you might be referring to. According to you, the link "shows that Cyde removed a new idea from Resid". I take it you are referring to Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 9#You cannot close a poll someone else started for no reason. If so, supply that link. Don't link to the entire talk page archive. I won't go into the issue of whether Resid's idea was new. What I will say is that the discussion does not show any attempt at dispute resolution. It's simply Cyde telling someone to stop starting a poll, and Resid disagreeing. That is no dispute resolution. Secondly, Cyde was not the only admin who closed these poll attempts. Singling him out for this is ridiculous. Link 2 is simply Adrienne's point of view from a soapbox. That is no dispute resolution either. The same goes for links 3, 4, 5 and 7. Pov rants and repeated assertions are not attempts at dispute resolution. Link 6, showing a discussion where two editors try to convince one editor to change his position, is no dispute resolution either. For comparison, it's just as much dispute resolution as me telling you to stop beating dead horses. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that none of the links I provided shows any dispute resolution, since the dispute is still not resolved. What my links rather show is, that many editors tried and failed to resolve the dispute. And what my links show as well is that Cyde has been intensely engaged in this content dispute, which makes his blockings breaches of WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. Raphael1 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links don't just not show any dispute resolution, they also don't show attempts at dispute resolution. Restating your (plural) opinions are not attempts at dispute resolution. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View by Raichu[edit]

I do think Cyde should be de-admined for the following reasons:

1. He doesn't respond to people. When I asked him why he put so many userboxes up at TfD he never responded to me.

2. Out of WikiBoredom, I sometimes check his talk page and almost half of the comments are about WP:BITE, WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL, etc.

3. I have just seen him generally abuse his admin powers. Raichu 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

It seems to me that:

  • no further evidence or comments on the complaint has been presented for some time;
  • the actions complained about appear to be legitimate blocks of edit warriors working against consensus on a controversial and high-profile article;
  • similar action was taken contemporaneously by other admins with no suggestion of censure;
  • the evidence presented for having tried and failed to resolve the dispute are actually simply evidence that a dispute exists, with (in large part) the complainants being on the wrong side of it, attempting to remove content against a supermajority view that it should be included;
  • much of what is stated is vague discontent without benefit of verifiable evidence in the form of diffs.

I therefore propose that this RfC be closed. Just zis Guy you know? 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Netscott 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What makes you believe, that since Cyde is on the "right" (majority) side of this dispute, he can legitimately block editors for editing against his POV? And if you believe that's the case, why don't you change WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used? I can't do so, because I would violate WP:POINT. Besides, how can an editor with a single edit like User:62.135.119.144 and User:68.173.27.37 be called an edit warrior? Raphael1 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how RFCs even work? Here's a hint - they don't stay open indefinitely. --Cyde↔Weys 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Never was anything to see here, and now there is less than that. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. IMHO could have been closed six weeks ago. No evidence this dispute was ever even mentioned anywhere before this RfC was opened. There is an edit dispute about displaying an image, but this RfC is about blocking some editors. Misuse of RfC. Weregerbil 10:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

The above requests for comment 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 RfC or User talk:Cyde). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2&oldid=1089729870"