Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Paul Cyr

Canvassing
, who has been open on this AfD about having had a dispute with Paul in the past, has contacted two editors about this RfA. I don't believe it violates WP:AGF to say that both editors were almost certainly contacted on the basis that they would oppose the nomination. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The editors were contacted because they were involved in similar disputes with Paul Cyr at approximately the same time as mine. Surely this does not amount to "canvassing", and I would say, yes, your statement about what my intentions might be does constitute a lack of WP:AGF, though not one I plan to act upon. -- Gnetwerker 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am also alarmed at what I believe to be a misrepresentation by Gnetwerker. Firstly, I was surprised to see him vote at all, after he said that if I stopped accusing him of personal attacks, I would never hear of him again. .  Secondly, in his comment:


 * The candidate has a recent (May 06) history of spurious threats of inapprpriate ArbCom actions, overreaching accusations of "personal attacks", removing talk page warnings as "vandalism" , as well as zealous POV reverts in the main pagespace (e.g. ), 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.


 * his third example of me making an accusation of personal attacks, contains no accusations whatsoever. In his example of me removing a warning from my talk page as vandalism, he failed to mention I was reverting the edits of a sockpuppet of a user who has been blocked for two months. He said my "zealous POV reverts" of section was "eventually included by concensus" even though that section has had to be completely rewritten to be NPOV - before: ; after: . I'm not even going to address how his diffs don't even show spurious threats of inapprpriate ArbCom actions. Paul Cyr 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not hearing from me does not extend to not voicing an opinion in important wikipedia matters. I'll let the other edits, etc, speak for themselves. -- Gnetwerker 22:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not hearing from you does extend to votes about my status. Paul Cyr 23:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Keeping / getting the user page and the talk page protected is not a good idea and indicate (?) that the user does not have faith in our process to fight vandalism. Or, is it on account of the fact that any vandalizm to these pages would be emotionally stressful to the user concerned? If so, taking up the adminship is not a good idea. --Bhadani 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I would agree, actually, I hadn't realised they'd been protected for so long. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)