Trait TS4 Bookworm
Archived page
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

The February 2015 nomination for administratorship for C.Syde65.


C.Syde65 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log)

I, former administrator Asorailahd, nominate C.Syde65 for adminship. C.Syde65's last request was denied in June 2014. Since then, I've felt he has progressed considerably and his wiki skills have thrived. C.Syde has consistently noted his faults and is quickly able to rebound from these situations. He's incredibly dedicated to wiki and has become engrossed into the technical side of website as well. C.Syde is gregarious, charismatic, and helpful member of the community. C.Syde is, of my opinion, completely qualified for this position. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 16:30, February 1, 2015 (UTC)

This nomination is made by a user in good standing, and the nominee is eligible to be nominated. This nomination is therefore valid and awaits a response from the nominee. - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 16:36, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Auror for nominating me. I’m happy to accept this nomination, because I have worked hard to address the concerns that were raised by users in response to my first RfA. I feel I have significantly improved my editing skills since then, and an examination of my recent editing history will support this.
A key reason for my improved editing is that I now take the time to think my edits through carefully rather than racing to post edits. I now use the 'preview' and 'show changes' buttons before publishing, and also bear in mind the need to keep a level head when editing to avoid editing when hyped up. I use these techniques to try and ensure that I make all the changes needed in the first edit, which avoids having to alter my edits and then republish. This also helps me avoid the creation of edit conflicts, especially in community discussion.
I am learning which areas of the wiki I am best suited to contribute to. After a minor incident that happened in chat, less than a month ago, I feel that the best practise for me is to refrain from trying to answer technical questions raised by inexperienced users in chat. This is because to date I have not been particularly good at answering technical questions in chat as I have trouble ensuring I take the time needed to fully comprehend what has been asked, and therefore do not always give an adequate answer. I managed to settle the minor incident that occurred in chat by apologizing to the inexperienced user via private message, and fortunately the inexperienced user did not seem perturbed by any misunderstanding I may have caused.
I have recently learned from a minor incident where I gave a level 1 warning to a good faith editor. I replaced the warning with a friendly reminder and will be careful not repeat this mistake.
I feel confident with blocking vandals that have already been issued a minimum of three warnings, and have not shown any signs of improvement. In the case where I suspect potential sock-puppetry I will not make accusations without solid evidence to confirm this is the case. As a new administrator I recognise I have limited experience in this area and would discuss my concerns with an experienced administrator rather than taking action on my own.
If I notice a page that has been nominated for deletion I will check for any articles that link to the page before deleting it. I will make room for community consensus before deleting a page if there is content on the page that was made in good faith.
While I have very little experience inside the media-wiki namespace (particularly with respect to JS and CSS), I doubt that I’ll need to make any edits there, at least not significant ones, so I will ensure I don’t mess up how the wiki functions.
I feel that the above are good reasons for accepting my RfA and am happy to respond to any queries or feedback given to my application.
-- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:10, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
No issues with this nomination so I'm opening it up. On that note, let's begin! ђ talk 06:24, February 3, 2015 (UTC)


This discussion has ended

​Support! "I've felt he has progressed considerably and his wiki skills have thrived. C.Syde has consistently noted his faults and is quickly able to rebound from these situations. He's incredibly dedicated to wiki and has become engrossed into the technical side of website as well. C.Syde is gregarious, charismatic, and helpful member of the community. C.Syde is, of my opinion, completely qualified for this position." Same here!  thatKitten come and chat! 07:20, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't really think you're ready for it. Your last RfA was held when I was busy with schoolwork and as such I may have some slight errors in here somewhere in regards to that but while I see you've been working hard to fix the issues raised in the last one I still do see you make some mistakes. For instance I've noticed you've trying to work on distinguishing good faith/bad faith edits but there is occasionally issues such as this, this and recently this which make me question your judgment somewhat, which in turn makes me concerned about what you would do if granted these rights.

Another thing which I've noticed is, for lack of a better term, "desperateness to edit". While there's probably a better way to put this the point is that sometimes it looks to me as if you edit just for the sake of bumping up your edit count. I don't know if this is actually the case but things like this and this concern me since it seems like you're just forgoing common sense out of boredom.

The last thing I wish to add is something that was brought to my attention by someone a while ago, and I do apologize if I sound rude but at some times it seems as if you sometimes ignore the advice you've been given, in that it seems as if you keep repeating the same mistakes. I'd highly recommend re-reading this message as I feel that while it is a couple of months old it is very much still relevant.

I'm not going to post anything else as I do believe that is all that I need to say and I'm not going to dig through the archives as I don't like holding someone's actions in the distant past against them. Furthermore, I don't want to be too negative as I would like for you to take something out of this. I respect your dedication and the hard work you've done but I really think you'd benefit from just backing off, at least a little. If you have doubts about something that isn't obvious vandalism, ask someone, and you'll learn. Your questions to me about mediawiki and the like both here and on IRC show to me that you want to get better or at the very least you're interested in how the wiki works, either way I see this as a good thing. I'm really happy to see that you're working hard, and it is my belief that if you keep working hard you will get there in the end. If you take into consideration what I've posted I would be happy to support next time, but for now, I can't. ђ talk 08:28, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I wholeheartedly but respectfully disagree with most of Wogan's statements. While those are mistake that C.Syde has made, some of those are over 3 months old. I'm sure that is enough time for C.Syde to realize the mistake he has made.
You also recalled incidents where you stated "is that sometimes it looks to me as if you edit just for the sake of bumping up your edit count" (WH, Feb 2015). The examples used to justify this-the userbox case and the red link case-seem to be issues contrived to create justification for your opposition to C.Syde's request. In that scenario, the addition of userboxes should not have been an issue. It has been done by other users; C.Syde should not have been treated any differently. Whether or not C.Syde removed the red links to increase his editcount is a non-issue. You have no evidence to backup your claim of C.Syde doing this to increase his editcount. In fact, the red links should be removed to lessen the number of "wanted pages".
You contradicted yourself by saying "I'm not going to dig through the archives as I don't like holding someone's actions in the distant past against them" (WH, Feb 2015): which is exactly what you did. You brought up scenarios from months beforehand that really shouldn't have affected your stance now. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 22:20, February 6, 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I'll just clarify a little that it only seems to me that he might have done that to increase edit count and I am not entirely sure that is the case myself. When I said that I didn't want to use stuff from the past I probably should have cleared that up a little as well but I meant using really old stuff, I used things that were somewhat recent and were also after his last RfA. I wouldn't use extremely old things but I felt it necessary to put some sort of evidence with my post so it actually has some substance and to back up the concerns I may have. ђ talk 22:44, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't seem you're ready for it yet. WH has voiced his concerns and I don't really have much to add on to what he said, given that I share his opinion on this matter. Maybe after you work on the issues raised by him, it will work out. DanPintalkcontribs 12:08, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Comment: At this point I'm not ready to say whether I support this promotion or not. I think WH raises valid points, but I can say first-hand that C.syde has definitely improved as an editor. You also can't question his dedication to the wiki, and that's something worthy of consideration. My main issue, and the real obstacle in the way of my support here, is C.Syde's difficulty in learning certain things and fully understanding the rules and practices of the wiki. Ultimately, it's a mistake to expect admin applicants to be fully polished before promotion, but I'm unsure whether this nominee makes the cut at the moment. LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 16:34, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Well, as everyone will probably be wondering why, here's my explanation. Firstly, this oppose is not aimed towards editing activity. Rather, it is intended as a courtesy to the nominee to alleviate the tension felt by many members of the community. This oppose is aimed at behavior outside the editor window. An administrator must not only be a great editor, but they must be liked by the community as well. Tensions will flair if a disliked administrator is promoted, even if their editing was prolific and they had the knowledge of the tools and on handling disputes. This does not come from my end, but from the voices of the rest of the community. Many have both publicly and privately expressed concern over C.Syde's repeated behavior in both Wikia chat and IRC. Some issues include making completely random, immature comments and constantly talking about his adminship. Many persons, myself included, admit that they found this behavior very annoying. In my own, very honest, no-nonsense opinion, this is a barrier to adminship, as administrators are not only expected to be mature in the editing field, but in the chilled, relaxed environment of chat. Even though you're relaxed, you must still be mature enough not to act like a 12-year old sometimes, which can leave a poor impression on The Sims Wiki's administrators and community. Remember that Wikia chat has a short scrollback that's public, so any ridiculous comments you make will be noticed by newcomers and chat frequenters alike. This dislike the community expresses is the reason why I am opposing this request for now. As DanPin said on IRC: "a good admin also needs to be liked within the community [...] otherwise they won't be able to exert their authority". I do apologize if this felt like an anvil dropping on you, but alas, as RfA is serious business and I never lie in an RfA solely to please or express favoritism, this is the God-honest truth I can provide. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 17:38, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - There is nothing in this selection that I agree with. While admins are typically popular on the wiki, it's not a rule. Admins that rarely engage the social side of the wiki fare well enough. Admins that were perceived to be disliked also had no trouble in requesting their rights.
"Even though you're relaxed, you must still be mature enough not to act like a 12-year old sometimes, which can leave a poor impression on The Sims Wiki's administrators and community."-- RandomRanaun was below that age when he became an admin.
"Tensions will flair if a disliked administrator is promoted" - Personal afflictions should carry no weight under a decision like this. If users don't like. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 22:20, February 6, 2015 (UTC)
The CookieMonster888 incident you mentioned was over four years ago. Attitudes have changed since then, and we have different people with different levels of experience commenting on something today. Back then, RfAs weren't even that "formal" with nominations and discussions getting their own pages. Requests did not have a timer and for the most part lacked much discussion. I am going to cite Wikipedia as an example (again). Early RfAs were much more lenient than they are today. Simply being a good vandal fighter was enough to earn you the mop. Now, to pass an RfA, you must have participated in deletion discussions, created quality articles or brought a poor article up to higher quality, etc. Citing an RfA from the past no longer works as the general rules and what the community looks for has changed drastically over the years. A user that could've passed RfA ten years ago may not be able to do so today.
Users must be 13 years or older to even have an account on Wikia. Technically that was against the ToU. However, what you are referring to is physical age — I am not referring to physical age. There are very mature children and there are very immature adults. Age is not what I look for, other than to enforce COPPA. A user that wants to be an administrator should demonstrate the mental capacity and thinking of a mature adult, not simply be an adult. If someone who was 40 years old showed up and acted like a 4 year old, they haven't demonstrated the trust needed to gain the mop. Age is not a "Get In Free" card, nor is it a VIP pass. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 23:01, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - Under the circumstances, I find myself in-between support and oppose, almost in perfect balance. You're a strong and compassionate editor, and I do not under-estimate your skills. However, I do have a couple of worries. Number 1 being your reputation within the community. As k6ka has stated above, some users do feel as if you act a little childish, and act rather rationally towards certain conversations. Perhaps if you were to work on your maturity all together, you would gain more respect. Number 2 being your constant small mistakes, however small they are, they are indeed constant. I fully understand that no one is perfect, and even administrators do tend to make a mistake or 2, but I feel you need to learn how to figure out your mistakes, rather than having someone else clean up the mess. If you focus more on assuring that you make as minimal mistakes as you possibly can, you'll find that you will gain more experience from this.

Allow me to give you advice; focus more on your actions, rather than other's. If you are able to follow this advice, I would be more than happy to support you next time around. Beds (talk - blog) 20:31, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - I trust you in the sense of your dedication to this wiki. You are very active, always try to improve articles (mostly focused on TS2 Sims), participate in discussions, organize stuff, help out with the contents... Yes, you've made a lot of constructive contributions. However, I'm still concerned with admin rights. How much do you understand the responsibilities of having the admin rights? Most of the time you seem to be too strict with the rules or policies without seeming to understand what they're for. You view admins as "the greater ones", but in truth it's not like that. I'm sure you keep trying to do your best, but I'm still not quite convinced with your behavior. It's not that your behavior is bad; it's that your behavior cannot reflect a responsible admin. Nikel Talk Vote! 13:47, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - I haven't been much active in the wiki for some time but I've seen several good and not so good things about what you have done in the wiki. As stated by Nikel above I'm also very much concerned about your behavior as I remember sometimes when you first came to this wiki I felt that you were too strict when it goes to something that you're very sure about. If I'm about to be given a chance to see your good actions again in the wiki for a little while longer, I'd give you a support right away. Frostwalker Talk - Read 14:03, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - I must admit that I was like LiR a couple of days ago when the RfA first came around. I have had several thoughts and questions come to mind since that have made me feel that I should take this position. I have seen you make several improvements since your last RfA, but is it enough? While it is true that you aren't expected to never make mistakes as an admin (because I know that I have), they shouldn't be a consistent thing. Then there is the almost obsession you seem to have about adminship. There are several times that you talk about wanting to be an admin, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but then there is your apparent view that being an admin makes one above the rest. I know that I don't feel that way about myself, and I think that egotistic view can actually cause more harm than good.

So while it is obvious that I can't give support, I'm not necessarily opposed because you have made quite a bit of improvements. So if you don't get this RfA, I would suggest that you try not being obsessed with what an admin is as if they are above everyone else. My guess is that if you truly start seeing admins on the same level as other users who just happen to have a few more buttons to take care of occasional things for the wiki, your other behaviors will improve making your a better candidate. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 15:35, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - after being encouraged to come down more firmly on this issue, I've decided to formally oppose this promotion at this time. I want C.syde to understand that I really do appreciate all he does for this wiki and I do want to express that I have noticed the improvements he's made over the past few months. All that being said, I think Nikel's commentary comes close to summing up my stance on this matter. It's not that C.syde makes huge mistakes, but rather that he makes a lot of small mistakes. And when he makes those mistakes, he becomes incredibly defensive and more difficult to reason with because he is so taken aback and ashamed. The single worst thing I can say about C.syde is that he tends to make a small issue into a giant problem, merely because he over-reacts to any criticism he receives. I want to emphasize that taking constructive criticism to heart is a good thing, but becoming defensive about it just goes too far. As well, I think it's true that he focuses too much on the fine print of each rule without considering how each rule works together, and without being flexible. Add on top of this his sometimes questionable interpretation of rules, and you start to see the problem. Now again, this doesn't mean that he's not a good contributor, that he isn't dedicated, or that he may not be able to be a good administrator someday. But at the present time I see all these issues combining into a problem if and when he, as an administrator, is ever involved in a disagreement with a wiki user or with other administrators. So at the present time, I'm afraid I cannot support this nomination. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 01:36, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be long-winded about this but I really am not settled on this issue. I've considered a possible promotion of C.syde for a long time and there is a huge list of positives and negatives in my head regarding it. It's really hard to boil down all my thoughts and feelings into a single comment. I don't want it to appear as though I'm steadfastly opposed to a promotion. I don't appreciate being pressured into taking a more direct stance, when in reality I am still undecided as to where I stand. C.syde is a strong editor with a growing body of experience. He is friendly and has shown a willingness to learn, even when he has shown a lack of knowledge or skill in the past. So much of where I stand on this promotion depends on how you determine what is good administrator material. I feel like C.syde could be a good administrator, even now. I certainly know he would take the position seriously and I have faith that he wouldn't let it go to his head and would act in a respectful way towards the community at large.
So, take my comments for what they're worth. I don't have much more to say on the issue. I apologize that my views here cannot be easily packaged into a "support" or "oppose," but I will not apologize for standing against pressure to "vote" on this matter. These promotions are meant to be discussions. I feel like there needs to be an exchange of ideas, between the community, the nominee, the nominating user, the administrators, everybody. I'd love to discuss the merits and drawbacks of promoting this and any other user considered in an RfA and RfB. I don't want to cast a ballot. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 01:55, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I guess the main issue is that I can’t always tell precisely what will generate a positive response and what not. I remember doing quite a few things which I believed would generate a positive or at least a neutral response, when in-fact they actually seemed to generate a negative response.

From what I’ve seen and/or heard, the best way to get past this barrier would be to try to refrain from doing those actions which I’m not fully certain what kind of response the actions will meet.

My reputation as whole seems to be fairly positive, but very questionable / controversial. I do seem to have a positive reputation among some users, particularly the newer, less experienced ones. But then you don’t often see newer and less experienced users participate in promotion discussions, which could explain why I don’t get much support under these circumstances.

I can truthfully say that while I know I need to keep paying attention to all my actions, I’m not worried about excessively removing red links from user pages again, or misusing the rollback button again, since I have spent a lot of time thinking about those issues and not repeating them, and thus I feel that I’ve overcome those issues.

I understand the responsibilities of having the admin rights, and I don’t see admins as being greater than non admins.

I admit that I sometimes have trouble accepting constructive criticism, and I will work hard at improving in this area. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:53, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

*Announcement:* This discussion has gone on for five days. As of today, there is no consensus either for or against promotion. This discussion, therefore, shall continue until there is a two-day period with nothing added to the discussion, or until 10 days from the beginning of the discussion has elapsed. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 05:42, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I do not wish to take sides in this matter at this time. However, I must say that while C.Syde has made some astonishing improvements to the way he does things, I feel that he could (no offence) work on his skills further before he can be entrusted with the responsibilities of an administrator. ―The Tim Man (Infinite HistoriesGalactic CruciblesThe Sims WikiHallows MaleficentWhy I'm here in the first place) 06:11, February 8, 2015 (UTC)


It has been two and a half days since a comment was added here. At this point, while there is no consensus opposed to promotion, there is also no consensus in favor of it. A consensus in favor of promotion is required for promotion to be granted. Therefore, this nomination is closed and the nominee will not be promoted at this time. - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 20:03, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.