Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paul Cyr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Paul Cyr

Final (10/19/7) Ended 16:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul Cyr (talk • contribs) – Paul registered in August 2005, and has been working in various 'admin-like' areas, showing boldness in acting like an admin, as non-admins are entitled and encouraged to do, beyond any other non-admin I've seen (and I check RfA regularly). The best example is his impressive work on Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, dealing with requests that don't require admin action. He also has experience in AfD - although he hasn't been participating as much there very recently, it gives me confidence that he could participate in any administrative areas he chose to without difficulty.

He has less edits than some users prefer to see in admin candidates, but I believe the high quality of his experience more than makes up for the relative lack of time spent on the rollback treadmill - he's been dealing with users in a difficult area, and has demonstrated, as far as I have been able to determine, exactly the level of good judgement, grasp of policy and coolheadedness we need in admins. He's been doing excellent work and should be given the extra buttons so he can do even more. Sam Blanning(talk) 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Acceptance withdrawn. Clearly consensus is that I need more edits here on Wikipedia before gaining adminship. Thanks to those who supported me, and to those who voted against me, I will try to make sure I have addressed your concerns before my next RfA. Paul Cyr 14:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support Naconkantari 04:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)\
    User has had a history of removing votes, watch out for this user.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.134 (talk • contribs).
    And this user has a history of harassing administrators. Block and revert on sight. Naconkantari 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support This Fire Burns Always 04:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Drboisclair 04:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Experienced enough to be an admin, although you should make sure that you understand policy fully before venturing off into other areas of admin work. DarthVader 05:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Nominator support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel Blanning (talk • contribs).
    Support per nom. Go Yanks! 09:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    This is an anon posing as User:Can't sleep, Yankees will beat Red Sox again. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 09:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. PVeankman 09:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support --Berserko 11:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.134 (talk • contribs).
    Again, another IP vote.  Killfest2  11:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    to do it yet again...and tried to add his third vote, which I simply deleted (rv), rather than striked out.  Killfest2  13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Has a clear use for the admin tools and clearly would not abuse them. My only concern is lack of edit summaries. Consider setting your preferences to prompt on a blank edit summary. That will get you in the habit of using them very quickly. Eluchil404 13:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. I certainly agree with Eluchil404. Reggae Sanderz 13:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Moral Support I would feel happier if you try to work on your weak points and come back in a couple of months. E Asterion u talking to me? 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - errr, without looking to condone editcountitis, you have only 324 mainspace edits and I didn't any mitigating reason for this (eg, large edits of multiple paragraphs, edits to technical articles which require precise writing etc). Also, you only have 54% edit summaries, which is also offputting. Also in total, it appears that you have only traversed around 500 different pages. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    Of course, I am ready to be convinced otherwise, and am ready to take as good as I give (eg, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2). Blnguyen | rant-line 05:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    He has about as many mainspace edits as projectspace edits, as I'm fairly sure I did when I was nominated (I can't be entirely sure because nominations back then just had a link to Interiot's tool rather than pasting the exact numbers). That leaves the overall number, which doesn't personally bother me in light of the strength of his current editing... but I've already gone over that and can only hope that others feel the same. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    See my support vote for what I think are the main issues. How many constructive edits does it take to show that a user won't abuse the admin tools, espically when they demonstrate a comendable conversance with policies like WP:ADMIN? I honestly think that Paul Cyr passes easily (my stated standards are 500 with 100 in project space). Not every Admin needs to be a hyper-active RC patroller after all,though some do of course. Eluchil404 13:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose seems like an asset at WP:PAIN, but I'm not convinced by argument of experience and familiarity given low number of mainspace edits. I figure that he'll be asked to help with more than WP:PAIN as an admin, and I'd like to see more familiarity with the project to ensure that he can help in those areas -- Samir धर्म 05:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mild Oppose. Low overall experience and use of edit summaries is offputting, although this user is definitely an asset to WP:PAIN. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • On that note, edit summaries such as this worry me, from someone as heavily invested in WP:PAIN as Paul. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I really don't think we should take one questionable edit summary as characteristic of his entire Wikipedia history. Nobody is perfect. Alphachimp talk 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose the edit count just isn't high enough for me, but I would likely support in future if contributions are improved on. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose per Blnguyen. Sorry, I really am. Highway Batman! 10:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Doesn't currently meet my standards, due to a low mainspace edit count, and a low use of edit summaries. --Wisden17 10:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Don't take this the wrong way, but main edit count is a little bit low. Come back in a couple months. Alphachimp talk 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    I am changing my vote Alphachimp talk 12:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - doesn't appear to be experienced enough, very marginal - only had to wait about another two months or so for me to consider you "experienced" in relation to this.  Killfest2  13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Mainspace edits are low. Try again in a few months. --Tuspm Talk | Contribs | E-Mail Me 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. per inexperience - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose due to lack of experience. --WillMak050389 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - I'm not quite sure the experience is there yet -- Tawker 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Sorry, but the edit summary usage is a big issue. Adminship requires attention to detail, and your edit summary usage illustrates a lack of it. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose - The candidate has a recent (May 06) history of spurious threats of inapprpriate ArbCom actions ([1] [2]), overreaching accusations of "personal attacks"([3] [4] [5]), removing talk page warnings as "vandalism" ([6]), as well as zealous POV reverts in the main pagespace (e.g. [7] [8]), a section eventually included by concensus). Indeed, I would recommend that all of his edits during the period May 9 - June 8 be examined by any potential voter. I am willing to accept that he may have started to change his ways, but (much) more time is needed, IMHO. -- Gnetwerker 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose It was far too recently that I had to warn this user about incivil comments; this is not the attitude I want to see in an admin. --InShaneee 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose for insufficient usage of edit summaries and edit experience--Jusjih 01:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose for inattention to detail & lack of experience. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 07:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Needs more experience and maturity. Knowing Is Half The Battle 07:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose: --Bhadani 12:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per InShaneee. --Shizane 15:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral, and open to lean in light of new facts. Seeing the contribution history of the Paul, I see that he is mostly involved in WP:PAIN and hardly anything else. Even while editing other project pages like WP:AN, his sole concern in WP:PAIN. I tend to support specialized admins, and hence I am not opposing him. However, I see that Paul has virtually cut off contributing to pages other than what I mentioned above. His article editing is also way below expected. His overall activity is also very low (under 4 edits per day). If Paul were to contribute only to WP:PAIN as an admin, I would have gladly supported him. But he plans to go beyond, and this worries me because his contributions don't gain my confidence regarding his understanding the policies. Furthermore, he has contributed to AfD only twice since April. Use of edit summaries is also way below expectation. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Ambuj.Saxena. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian (T, C, @) 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Even though his edit count is a little bit low, work on WP:PAIN shows a great aptitude for admin functions. Alphachimp talk 12:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I like your answers, but edit summary usage is kind of low. Roy A.A. 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral per above. Keep it up, and in a month or so I'm sure you'll be given the tools. — Deckiller 03:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, can't oppose, but needs to use more edit summaries. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments

All edits.Voice-of-All 05:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Paul Cyr (over the 1353 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 312 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 14, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 6, August, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 33.72% Minor edits: 15.56%
Average edits per day: 9.32 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 196 edits): Major article edits: 48.69% Minor article edits: 40%
Analysis of edits (out of all 1353 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.07% (1)
Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 1.03% (14)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 4.51% (61)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 23.53%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 557 | Average edits per page: 2.43 | Edits on top: 7.39%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 18.63% (252 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 1.4% (19 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 13.67% (185 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 62.45% (845 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 23.95% (324) | Article talk: 4.88% (66)
User: 5.84% (79) | User talk: 38.36% (519)
Wikipedia: 25.06% (339) | Wikipedia talk: 1.11% (15)
Image: 0.3% (4)
Template: 0.3% (4)
Category: 0.22% (3)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

Username        Paul_Cyr
Total edits     1353
Distinct pages edited   557
Average edits/page      2.429
First edit      08:04, 6 August 2005
        
(main)  324
Talk    66
User    79
User talk       519
Image   4
Template        4
Category        3
Wikipedia       339
Wikipedia talk  15
Added at 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC) by Andeh.
Statement by Paul Cyr

It seems that most oppose votes are because of my low edit count. Although I may not have the highest edit count, I would like you to consider quality as much as quantity. I personally don't think that having under a certain amount of edits should disqualify someone from adminship. I feel that one should look at the edits and determine if the user has shown a level of experience through those edits. High edit counts does not equal high levels of experience.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As Sam Blanning already indicated, I have endeavored to maintain and improve WP:PAIN. I've not only maintained the page as much as a non-admin could, but I have also helped maintain the procedure on the page. With the help of other contributors, I rewrote the page so that non-admins have more privileges, while not compromising the usefulness of WP:PAIN. I am also a patroller of new pages and during my slower hours head over to Special:Newpages to check pages to see if they meet AfD or Speedy Deletion criteria, or even if they just need to be tagged as needing references or proof reading. I would summarize my activities on Wikipedia as being more behind the scenes. To be honest, I read Wikipedia articles more than I contribute to them; having only a high school diploma, not to many articles lack information I know about. What I've tried to do is look for areas that need attention, and focus on them - to try to be the oil that keeps the machine from jamming up, while others may be the fuel that keep it powered.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Mostly being able to unflag WP:PAIN as being backlogged. Very few days are there more than a few reports on there, and most times because they require a user to be blocked. I also wrote the guideline WP:EXPLAIN which went from proposed guideline status to a real guideline in just a month. Lastly, although I've been focusing more on WP:PAIN lately, I also try to spend time at AfD, as well as Special:Newpages, marking pages for deletion, cleanup or requiring other attention.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: If someone told me they've never been stressed while in a debate, I would not believe them. When faced with a user who I feel is being stubborn, I try to explain my point to the user and if that fails, I follow through the dispute resolution process. I've been on the short end of the consensus stick on a few issues I felt passionately about (one of which, my nominator Sam Blanning was one of the people I was debating against). What was important is to understand that people are not always going to agree with you, even if you think you are 100% correct, and to either move to an alternative method to resolve the dispute, or move on. I was especially humbled that Sam was wanting to nominate me, especially after I nearly threatened to RfC him in our previous debate. His actions are that of someone who is able to say "hey, everyone has their disagreements, it's just important to not let it get the better of us", that is an attitude that is often hard to find and is definitely one that makes Wikipedia as great as it is. I can't say I won't ever freak out or make a mistake, all I can promise is to try to act with the same polite, decisive and progressive attitude you expect from an administrator, to the best of my abilities.
Optional question from Aguerriero
4. Can you address your relatively low usage of edit summaries?
Honestly, because I never realized it was important for certain things. I always try to remember to include one for edits that are not straight forward (i.e. on WP:PAIN: rm - user not previously warned), but if I was replying to a comment or making an edit that looking at diffs made the reason obvious, I didn't consider it important to include summaries. When I read your question, I popped over to Help:Edit summary and now understand that even if the edit is minor or straight forward, it's still pertinent to include a summary, so that those glancing over page histories, don't have to look at diffs to know what was changed. I will endeavour to include edit summaries for all edits from now on.
I've changed my preferences to prompt on blank summaries. So you shouldn't see any more blank edit summaries.
The above adminship 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 nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Paul_Cyr_1b28.html"