Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CyclePat

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

CyclePat

(0/11/0); Ended 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat (talk · contribs) – Bicycle enthusiast, AMA member resolving various conflicts, University student with access to multi-million dollar databases hence the fact that I may often be arguing (encouraging users) to follow wiki rules, in particular WP:CITE and WP:V. CyclePat 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ```Well since this is a self-nomination I think I'd better accept!```

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: According to Wiki Backlog there is currently 43505 known articles that require sourced statements. I'll be happy to check those out! I will also gladly review a couple WP:AFD's and close them according to procedures. As per WP:Administrators I’d just be me, review AfD, help out at the Administrators Portal, Delete bad pages, obvious copyviolated pages and images, etc. Remember, and advocate usually has to represent the other side, and though we would like to say "Yah! Delete the darn thing" in fact we have to "explain, to users" why this is happening, guide them through the process so they understand and that they don't come back in a rage (like user:Cplot did to Mongo). Finally I "should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else." (I will however remain an AMA member). Careful analysis of user history for blocking, and other issues , etc. And finally, again, use the admin tools for easilly reverting vandalism.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A:

• Paciocco is the first biography I ever made and I consider it to be half decent,
• Probate was an article that only had one POV, Common wealth law and the issue of probating your will. I added information on Canada and the term in general giving the article a better balance.
• user talk:CyclePat#Tenth Doctor shows a friendly dispute resolution where we eventually agreed to add a good source to the article Tenth Doctor. Who would have know that Tenth Doctor is Doctor Who? A similar term, without proper referencing.
• [Disambiguation] of the article.
• WP:CCT is a new time project I recently started.
• Motorized bicycle created much conflict and much discussion between user:JzG and I. I am not so please at how the debate went but I am, somewhat, pleased with how we developed the article from nothing... to what it is today!
• JzG nomination for admin was an interested debate. Though we have our different views, it is obvious that we where capable of comming to a concensus and in this case (even while we where still having our debate concerning electric bicycles) I was able to change my vote to support his candadicy.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:

As I just mentioned. Yes. Conflict is an inherent part of wikipedia. In fact, I was even blocked once for a 3RR revert rule. (I argued it on my user talk page, talked to the administrator that blocked me and waited for the block to finish after 24 hours.) Since then, almost a year ago, I've learnt a lot about wiki rules. I've advocated for many users and taken some law and advocacy clases in college. Coming to a consensus is an important part of building an article. Depending on the case, I will attempt to build consensus by stipulating the rules of wikipedia (As I have done during my AMA advocate cases). If that doesn't work for my Point of view, I obviously can't do much about it! In particular a famous case (for me) for AMA was user:Cplot. I advocated for him tryng to get him to reduce his sockpuppets. Also, when I arrived here at wikipedia almost 1 year and a half ago I was particularly stressed for the electric bicycle article. My interest in electric bicycles is extreme. The content fork, the issues, etc... wherea all a little overwhelming for a new-comer, and I didn't really know how to advocate my views. I dealt with it in a way that was phisiologically not good for my health. Since then, I've learnt to manage stress. You need to be crystal clear about your intentions and the genereal concensus that is elaborated in wiki-rules. Of course you also need to be polite as well. It is imperative that I remain as clear minded to the over-all view of wikipedia and that if a conflict arises on content dispute that I do not use my Administrative Powers to block, to threaten, etc. A fine line must be made here between threatening and giving advice. As the case for user:Mongo, who demonstrated how it is easy to lose your administrative powers by jumping the gun and taking maters into your own hands. No matter the case, if there is something that is obviously blatant vandalism I'm not going to wait to revert it. But if there is a content dispute which I might become part of... as per WP:BLOCK rules I would have to obviously consider myself to be just like a regular user. Another conflict I am experiencing is at the article Water fuel cell, this article lacks notability, verifiability and has some important issues concerning WP:CITE and WP:OR (using a non-peer reviewed, patent, for creating a synthesis to create a larger synthesis and a POV.) My next step after closing the the poll (which probably wasn't a real poll) will be to take the content and discuss it on the talk page... Keeping and AFD as a last resort. And often I just get plain anoyed with certain AfD nominations. In that case I voice my opinion, my sugestions to improve the article and wait (ex.:Unused highway). In the future, again, I plan to take one step at a time and referencing my arguments and reasons to wikipedia's general guidelines and rules (which is a concensus among many users)

General comments

• See CyclePat's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I just wanted to say, as per Jimbo, [1] Becomming a sysop is really a trivial matter. In fact, whatever I'm doing now won't be anymore different than if I was a sysop. So , given the big hipe I'm getting on my spelling mistakes, you may be able to infer, yes, I haven't taken much time to actually go over this self-nonmination. As AMA member I'll still be able to use reverse psychology, WP:Strawman, Sophism, premise contradictions, etc... to have a pshychological influence on articles. A chance to antagonise users with boring explanations (sometimes adding a joke here and there) of what wikipedia is and isn't. Of course administrator tools would helpful. --CyclePat 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Get Firefox 2, it's got a fantastic spell checker built in and will clear up spelling mistakes in a jiffy (that's probably how the spelling mistakes are being picked up in the first place). --Kind Regards - Heligoland 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose - No thank you! [2] thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Matthew. On a side note, you may wish to note some grammar and spelling mistakes in your RFA, which could lead to someone opposing you. Not why, I am though. Carpet9 23:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose: CyclePat - concerns over knowledge of policy, specifically [3] and [4] which relate to copyright and external link policy. Sorry. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Opppose. My only encounter with this editor is documented at Talk:École secondaire catholique Garneau (also [5], [6], [7] and [8]), and was memorably unpleasant. I'm disturbed to learn that they are now invovled in mediating user disputes. That said, I'm puzzled by Matthew Fenton, and Carpet9, above opposing over a reasonable edit. Jkelly 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Every time someone's made reference to this user, it has not been positive, and the above diffs don't engender confidence. Also doesn't seem to understand policy or what being an admin is about - to correct unsourced articles does not require administrative tools. Trebor 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above, and I note the frequency of spelling mistakes in the nomination. Nothing serious, but it could show that you did not spend enough time over your statement. Yuser31415 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
7. I have to oppose due to his recent "test" forging an admin's signature on his talk page. [9] I think it shows incredibly poor judgement. Sarah 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above. Plus you've been pretty inactive as of late.--Wizardman 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Sarah's diff - quite a lack of judgement and foresight on the part of a prospective admin. (aeropagitica) 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose - WAY too controversial for me to approve. Scobell302 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose Per Sarahs diffs, also worth noting that Q1 isn't very inspiring. Yes there are many articles that need citations but you don't have to be an admin to sort those articles out. Arjun 02:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.