Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scetoaux 3

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

Scetoaux

[edit]

Final (30/26/9); Closed by Rlevse at 02:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Scetoaux (talk · contribs) - Hi, I'm scetoaux and I present myself to the community as a candidate for adminship. I have been heavily involved in administrator related work, most notably vandalism reverts, warning and reporting, and speedy deletion, as well as some participation in deletion discussions and requests for page protection. I have also been involved in some productive article contributions (will detail more in the questions below).

I withdrew my last RFA due to concerns held by several editors that I was not yet quite prepared for adminship. I've made mistakes, before then and since, from which I feel I have learned many valuable lessons. Three months after that RFA, I believe I have acquired the experience necessary in order to accept the additional responsibility of an administrator's service to the community. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly antivandalism work, watching over AIV, reverting, warning, and blocking vandals. I'll also work heavily in speedy deletion, as I've done a lot of work in that area. I'll occasionally work in requests for page protection, and once I feel I've gotten a hang of things I'll start doing more work in AFD (but not right out, I'll still work to gain even more experience in that area).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In addition to the antivandalism work, the article work I have done is nothing particularly spectacular, yet I am proud of my contributions to Civil Air Patrol, which I have worked very hard on and made significant changes, History of the Civil Air Patrol, Maryland High School Assessments (first real article work) and Continuum (instrument) (where my most significant addition are the two images, where I requested permission from the main website for release of their images into GFDL). Articles I have created from scratch are Maryland Wing Civil Air Patrol, Poverty's No Crime, L-Tronics and most notably Missouri University of Science and Technology Nuclear Reactor (which got featured on DYK).
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: I have had occasional conflicts in editing. For example, several months ago and before my previous RFA, I was in a conflict with another editor whose behavior I considered to be uncivil. I confronted that editor and asked them to maintain civility, but it appeared to me that the user would not comply. It escalated to the point where I filed an RFC against this user, which generated a lot of unnecessary drama. I've since learned that drama is to be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary to escalate matters. I caused a lot more damage by inflaming the situation than the editor's (alleged) incivility did. Since then I have mainly been avoiding conflicts where possible, but I always remind myself to keep a cool and level head. It never fails.

Optional questions from NuclearWarfare

4. This is usually Xeno's question, but I like it too: As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ or User:NuclearWarfare/Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: I'd be extremely hesitant to grant the unblock request, but as I'd have been the last administrator to block this user I can't deny the unblock request either. I'd solicit the advice of an uninvolved administrator in this case.
5. Under what circumstances would you volunatarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?
A. If there were sufficient community consensus for me to give up the tools (which I'd let an uninvolved administrator decide), I'd run a reconfirmation RFA, which I'd be required to pass in order to retain the tools.
6. Please define notability in your own words
A. Notability essentially means that the subject of an article must have an established "worthiness" to be included in an encyclopedia; essentially if the subject is worthy of its own article. Such worthiness is often indicated by coverage in secondary sources, such as the news. A subject may also be notable if it has an established importance in its own field (which must be notable in of itself), or if it is, by common sense, a subject that one expects to find in an encyclopedia (for example, a country, or a common household item).

Additional questions from Balloonman

7. Scetoaux, I'll be honest with you, I'm leaning oppose right now, but haven't decided one way or another yet. My concerns are centered around how much you've used Huggle v not used a tool during your limited tenure here. The comment above that I've made mistakes, before then and since, from which I feel I have learned many valuable lessons. And how much time, relative to other activities that you've spent on RfA's and RfA related pages. My questions are thus:
7a Can you point me to some cases where you've worked to establish consensus?
I've participated in various policy discussions where I have worked to establish consensus by presenting a case and providing backup. I feel that participating in these discussions (most recently at the Village Pump, where there was a proposal to allow certain editors to view deleted edits. I'm not sure if participating in such discussions is what you meant by "establish[ing] consensus".
7b Can you point me to some of the other "mistakes" you've made since your last RfA? What were they and how did you learn from them? I'm familiar with the one you address in question 3, were there others? Please include links.
There were none that were nearly at the level of the one addressed in Q3, but occasional minor mishaps and errors which happen every now and then. A more recent incident was one where I came head to head with an admin regarding reverts made to an article. At the time I felt that the administrator was edit warring, given that they were repeatedly reverting an addition made by a user that was sourced and did not violate BLP or vandalism policies. I left a rather harsh message on his talk page here, removed it, and when the administrator expressed concern on my talk page here, I replied rather apologetically here.
Again, I learned that it is important for one to keep their cool, not throw accusations about, and most importantly remember that whatever edits one makes are permanently in their edit history and therefore they are forever held accountable. I feel that the embarrassment from this particular episode was a particularly effective teaching tool for me. I prefer to make mistakes and apologize later, rather than tiptoe around uncomfortable areas. I learn best from my mistakes. Like from Fahrenheit 451 - "You're afraid of making mistakes. Don't be. Mistakes can be profited by. Man, when I was young I shoved my ignorance in people's faces. They beat me with sticks. By the time I was forty my blunt instrument had been honed to a fine cutting point for me. If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you'll never learn."
7c What other areas do you feel that you've made a contribution to wikipedia?
I have contributed to discussions on policy from time to time, and I am rather active at RFA (as you pointed out). I also Wikignome occasionally, fixing spelling and grammer whenever I come across errors when reading an article. I have been striving more recently to gain a perspective on how Wikipedia looks to the reader that has no account and has never edited. I feel in order to make this a better encyclopedia we need to look at it from that angle, which I feel many of us haven't done in a long time.

Optional questions from  Asenine 

8. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A:
9. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A:
10. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A:


General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Scetoaux before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
If there's anything there that might be relevant to this RFA, perhaps an admin would consider temporarily undeleting its history but blanking it. (which I thought was the usual procedure in these cases) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. naerii 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Looking through your contributions, you seem to have a good grasp on policy and a fairly good level of involvement across the various areas of Wikipedia. Your speedy nominations are good, and I didn't see any red flags. --jonny-mt 03:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. He's a member of the Civil Air Patrol. OK, considering that and other work, he will make a fine admin. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 03:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support This issue addressed on this nom's talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please change your comment on your vote. It is highly characteristic of a personal attack. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed rationale, because NW is right, it was a personal attack, not a comment that contributes to the discussion on this forum.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I don't see anything that would make me oppose. Soxπed93(blag) 04:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I opposed last time due to experience concerns, but I feel that sufficient time has passed with a reasonable increase in thoughtful comments at RFA and AFD. Speedy deletion work looks pretty good too. Wants to work at AIV and RFPP - Sure thing. Good luck. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Even if a bit low on edit count this month, from what I saw this user is civil and makes good contributions. If you let me comment on one thing though: On replying to a user complaining to be reverted[1], you should have taken more time to explain to the user what vandalism is and provided a link to WP:VAN maybe. Just to keep in mind. But other than that, nothing struck me particularly oppose-worthy. I have confidence that this user will grow when granted the tools. It's no big deal anyway ;-) SoWhy 07:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support but only because of the whole 'net positive' theory. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 10:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Understands and applies relevant policy in vandal fighting, and in XfD's. PerfectProposal 13:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support. Sometimes you seem a bit too hurried in your communication with others, most of your mainspace work was via Huggle, and you only have ~40 edits this month. However, this is a volunteer project so I can understand taking some time off. The reason I can give you my weak support is because you appear to know what you're doing in a vast majority of cases; you have sufficient experience with AIV, UAA, and RFPP; and your speedy deletion log looks good. I would advise you, though, to take it slowly when/if granted the sysop tools. Useight (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Meh. Why not. —Giggy 14:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Giggy, you need to change your name... I keep seeing it and think it's my wife User:Ginkgo100!!!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Scetoaux has enough experience and knows enough about policy to be trustworthy. However this comment worries me: "I've since learned that drama is to be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary to escalate matters." Look at WP:DRAMA. Axl (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would have worded that differently. If "drama" is to happen, then it should be a side effect of you taking a position that you believe is right. What should be avoided is "drama for drama's sake". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A good editor.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support due to no memorable negative interactions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support - Best, --Cameron* 19:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Good luck. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 22:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per answers to NuclearWarfare's questions. I like my sysops to have common sense. John Sloan (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Baseless opposes = support from me Majorly talk 00:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It may possibly be to the candidate's advantage, given that this isn't a vote, if you didn't justify your support by insulting those who oppose this nomination as having opinions which are "baseless". Just a suggestion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll he's basically said on the RfA talk pages that he has no standards when it comes to RfA's.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel those who claim "this user doesn't build an encyclopedia" are wrong. Firstly, we don't build encyclopedias, they aren't made of bricks. We write them. I also feel other opposes that mention how many times the candidate has run are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don't demand admins write articles, but I expect dedication and cluefulness, which I believe this user has. Majorly talk 13:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, no reason to believe that user would abuse the tools, and is committed to existing civility policy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Support I am switching from Neutral based on this comment from the candidate: "Perhaps I have just demonstrated a tendency for me to speak my mind at consequence to myself." Although the candidate struck out the message out of politeness, these words resonate with me. A true leader is someone who is not afraid to speak his or her mind, even if it is not an expedient thing to do. That's leadership in my book and we could use more leaders like Scetouax. With this candidate, I'm on the right queue! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Has waited enough time since his last RfA, clearly has the project's best interests in mind. Not swayed by the Juliancolton diff, everyone's got bad days. Also extremely unimpressed with Balloonman's shenanigans in the Neutral/Oppose section; Scetoaux was not only within his bounds pointing out the hypocrisy, but completely correct. GlassCobra 16:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, no. There was no hypocrisy. Instead, he made an ad hominem attack in his RfA, clearly not a well thought out move. Admin Coaching is not and I've never claimed it to be a free pass for RfA. In fact, I've been critical of people in the past for going through coaching... and I've actively dissuaded people from it when I don't think they need it. He had a neutral from me, but chose to attack me instead. That garners a vocal oppose. Also, take a look at question seven, where I asked about this AND stated that I was leaning oppose.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Support - power hunger worries aside, I feel that Scetoaux would not go mad with the power that he would receive. Also, is very civil and hardworking. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, at least in part to counter the weak opposes. I don't have a problem with your 'inactivity' (clearly just a summer wikibreak), or your repeated RFAs; and I see nothing wrong with your now-struck comment to Balloonman. I do see the cause for concern with your answer to #3, but think it was just badly worded - I agree with your underlying point there, if it was that sometimes creating 'drama' is a sad-but-necessary by-product of doing the right thing. Apart from that, I see a user with sufficient experience, the ability to work with others, and good judgement. In particular, I like the ability to moderate yourself you showed here: [2]. If you can keep up that attitude as an admin, you'd make a good one. Terraxos (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per user's own reasoning. Or, in my own words, I see supporting RfAs as (largely) an extension of WP:AGF, and (generally) will not oppose unless I see evidence that WP:AGF is moot in a given user's case. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. This nominee is able to think clearly under pressure and will address admin issues effectively (ref. User:Scetoaux#My username "SCE to aux"). — Athaenara ✉ 19:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ALL CAPS SCREAMING Support. He has my support. --creaɯy!Talk 21:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I think Scetoaux is ready for adminship, though I question his running now rather than later. Malinaccier (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. WeakMoral support - I would have prefered you to have waited a little longer since your last one, but to be honest adminship shouldn't be so hard on good editors. When you get the tools, make sure you think before you act and you'll be fine. --MattWT 10:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support- meets my standards, and appears to have learned lessons from past mistakes at WP. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Scetoaux and I once crossed paths over an article being edited by its subject which led to his giving a BLP warning to the subject. When questioned about it, Scetoaux was very civil and thorough in explaining his actions, and I was impressed with his rationale even though I thought the warning was a little hasty at the time. I believe he would make a good admin because he responds to criticism/conflict in a constructive manner. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose for now. You've been effectively active for only 6 months, and during that time your level of activity has been all over the place; with only 40-odd edits this month I don't have anything recent to really judge you by. A quick note, by the way; your last RfA was only 3 months ago, and it's recommended to wait far longer than that between each one. Ironholds 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I have been fairly busy this month, with family trips and vacations. Just FYI, to explain the decreased activity this month (and last month as well, to a degree). —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough :). Regardless of reasoning lack of activity makes this a bad time for an RfA; if you withdrew (not saying you will/should) and tried again in 2 months or so i'd be fine on that count (bad pun, sorry). Ironholds 03:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Being as I've seen users pass RfAs 4 months after registration, I think 3 months after an unsuccessful RfA is sufficient provided the candidate has shown the improvement called for in his last RfA. The point about not going for RfA during a relatively inactive period, though, is a reasonable one. - Revolving Bugbear 03:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Indicated interest in involvement with speedy deletions, but has little participation in the deletion process. Contributions since RfA are mostly Huggle reverts, preferable to see candidate expand on scope on Wikipedia he is working on, as we need more well-rounded admins. Content writing is somewhat substantial, but would like to see more; Hopefully in future would see more DYKs/GAs/FAs in future, I believe that content writing helps improve one's judgment on content-related issues (such as disputes and deletions), having one's own experience with content first hand. - Mailer Diablo 03:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'll oppose on this one, I'm afraid. You do actually meet my criteria for adminship, but only barely on the activity front. Running for adminship during a busy period (not just busy but only-40-edits busy) is not really a good idea. I'd encourage you to reapply again in a few months with some more activity-per-month. Actually, what am I thinking.. net positive! Switch to support. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 10:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per not being a decent encyclopedia builder. What, btw, does I've since learned that drama is to be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary to escalate matters mean? ;)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deacon of Pndapetzim! I think you better do well to remember WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE before making a degrading remark like per not being a decent encyclopedia builder.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, taking "encyclopedia builder" at it's usual meaning (ie someone who builds and develops articles, rather than focusing on other areas) that doesn't sound remotely uncivil to me - scetoaux doesn't appear to do very much of that, it's a fair comment if that's what his criteria for adminship are. I disagree personally with that criterion, but there's nothing actually wrong with it that I can see. ~ mazca t | c 12:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern for my lack of article building. It's simply not one of my strong points, I'm afraid, and I feel that I would be more useful to the project if I were to contribute in the capacity of an administrator, since it is where I do most of my work: vandalism reverts, warning, speedy deletion, that sort of thing. As per your question regarding my statement, yes, I perhaps should have clarified. What I meant by that is that yes, drama for the sake of drama is to be avoided. Each action is to be weighed against its potential for damaging the encyclopedia. If an action is most likely to benefit the encyclopedia, that is the best action to take. Drama often causes a certain amount of damage to the encyclopedia, and it is up to the individual user to determine if the damage is tolerable compared to the damage caused by inaction. I did not apply this to the RFC mentioned in Q3. If I could do it all over again, I'm not sure I would change anything. I've made my mistakes and I feel that I'm stronger for it. I'm not going to be so reckless again. Whether you trust me or not is up to you. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I am not happy with the block button in the hands of someone so keen to rush off to RfC over trivia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific - perhaps you had a particular incident or 2 in mind? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to the incident described in the candidate's reply to Q3. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Not much activity, and seems a bit power hungry.--LAAFan 18:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per candidate's terrible response to Deacon (oppose #3 at the time of this writing) - far too eager to jump on the sanctimonious civility finger-wagging and wiki-linking (just a link to AGF shy of the Holy Trifecta®), does not seem to have actually read the WP:BITE content (or, alternatively, if he has read it and still felt it was appropriate in that situation, is by his own admission too new to be an admin). Badger Drink (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Removed - holy moley, my face is as red as my sig on this one. Strong Apologies to the candidate for this one. Badger Drink (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for voicing your opinion. Just remember to keep WP:NPA in mind. All the best.--LAAFan 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did the candidate actually respond to oppose #3? Tan ǀ 39 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he did not actually.--LAAFan 18:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm completely perplexed by this oppose - am I misreading this, or is the entire oppose based solely on a misreading of who responded to deacon? Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably correct. I've left a note at Badger Drink's talk page asking that he reconsider his position, or least his rationale, based on that. Metros (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose, per Prom3th3an's response to Q3-- jussst kidding. "Sorry about this" doesn't really do justice to just how tremendously I goofed up here. My apologies to the candidate, and gratitude towards Metros for bringing this to my attention (as well as to all of you guys for remaining civil in the face of tremendous idiocy) Badger Drink (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so there's no confusion about whether that was a real !vote, would you mind unbolding your "strong oppose"? Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Oppose Per Deacon, I just can't support due to Q3 and the editor's answer. America69 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Easy decision, too soon since your last attempt for me. — Realist2 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose Some good things, some bad things. This certainly made my decision a tad easier. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that was not one of my more civil edits. I was expressing frustration at the time that the page was being rapidly vandalized but nobody was coming to protect it. Meh... —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps those so quick to call others out for "incivility" might be wise to apply the same standards to themselves? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. And I do try to hold myself to these standards. If I am uncivil, it is usually not by intent. And I am not quite so quick anymore to call anybody out. A short bit of incivility usually does not need to be addressed; rather, the recipient often moves on before anybody replies to the original comment. I witnessed an incident in which an editor quarreled with you over spelling mistakes in an RFA vote just days ago. I made the conscious decision not to comment and remind that editor that it was best not to inflame the situation by retorting. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect Malleus was directing that comment at me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wasn't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, in that case, seems I misread. Sorry for the false accusation. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose not enough experience, come back in 4-6 mos with more seasoning. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose This is difficult, as I would normally go neutral in an instance like this, but my major concern is that there appears to be a lack of application from this candidate; this is best indicated by the decision to go for RfA following a lean spell of editing - it just appears that this was a date on the calender since the last RfA and the candidate is again throwing their hat in (I know this sounds personal, but it is simply how I am reacting to the information provided). I don't think this person regards adminship as a means to contributing to the encyclopedia but a progression in "status" (again, I apologise for the possible appearance of a personal attack). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Was a similar feeling for me. His last one started on the 21st and this one started on the 23rd a few months later. It just feels like an arbitrary date was set to reapply. — Realist2 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't really blame Scetoaux for that, when so many habitually say reapply in 2, 3, 4 months time. The worst that can be laid at Scetoaux's door is a lack independent thought, a highly undesirable characteristic in an administrator anyway, apparently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suppose not, people really shouldn't say "come back in ... months", each person takes a different amount of time to learn. It's best to just to say "come back when you feel it's right". But people really shouldn't be coming back often. Like you should be set a limit of two attempts a year or something :-) — Realist2 23:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose due to the fact that you have nommed yourself for adminship 3 times in six months. Also per answer to Q3: it is never necessary to "escalate matters". Also per perceived lack of understanding of WP:TROPHY. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to clarify that part of my statement as well. For example, a user is in a dispute with another user. As an uninvolved party (or maybe as one of the users in dispute), one has three options: decline to respond, inflame the situation by responding a certain way (maybe what you thought I meant by escalating matters), or (what I really meant, maybe escalate was very poor word choice) attempt to resolve the situation through a dispute resolution process, or a relevant noticeboard. That last option must be weighed against the first, since bringing a situation into a dispute resolution process or to a relevant noticeboard carries with it a certain amount of wikidrama. Again, at times like this it is especially important that a user assesses their options and chooses the one with the least amount of damage to the encyclopedia.
    Also, just to clarify, I was nominated by another user on my previous RFA, so I've nominated myself twice (and the first time I didn't really know what I was doing anyways). —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Malleus Fatuorum. --Kaaveh (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Weak Oppose I had some concerns, but decided to sit this one out, in his answers to my questions he convinced me to go neutral rather than oppose. His response in the section below, while stricken out, pushed me to resume my original position of oppose. Making a personal attack, in an RfA just isn't wise. Yes, I made a mistake... and I've been working to redeem myself since then... most have forgiven me---including the party involved---but you chose to make ad hominem attacks on me as a result. Guess what? That moves my position from neutral to strong oppose. Scetoaux appears to have had one goal in mind ever since joining Wikipedia---to become an admin. 3 RfA's, coaching, and virtually all of his wikipedia/wikipedia talk comments are related to RfA's. He challenges my rationale in opposing him because he appears to want the title of admin so bad because I am an advocate of coaching. Going through coaching is not a free pass in my book. In fact, I use a higher criteria for people who go through coaching---they should be stronger than somebody who hasn't been through coaching. You are not. You rely largely upon huggle for your edits, this makes it hard to tell who you are. I've seen enough temperamental issues on this RfA, that I have oppose. Even before I read your response to me, I was wondering if I could remain neutral here, because of how you respond to people here.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Just making this an oppose. I really was looking for a reason to support, he had convinced me not to oppose.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)EDIT2: I may have been a little overly harsh in my response, but my oppose remains. By comparing current activity, which I can defend with a major f* up on my part, he got the response he should have expected. I would have been happy to explain my reasoning in more detail, because while I am an advocate of coaching, I am also a critic of using it as a pass or polishing off one's resume. (I've declined potential coachees because they didn't need it and I've nominated others who came to me seeking a coach because they didn't need it.) I'm gonna go weak oppose... I am still looking for reason not to oppose.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Going to abstain from this RfA per private communications between me and scetoaux.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose. I've seen Scetoaux doing good work in the past, however, I'm concerned that this user doesn't have the experience necessary to take the job as an admin. The edit count is a bit low for my tastes, I admit. 61 edits this month? Meh. The answer to no.1 puts me off a bit: Once you've 'got more experience' in AfD? If you're applying, then you should already have all the experience you need to get right to work. My main concern here is lack of experience as opposed to bad intentions. I'm leaning towards neutral, but I'm going under oppose. IceUnshattered [ t ] 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - per Ironholds and IceUnshattered.    SIS  23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose: Three adminship requests in a very short period of time. I'm not seeing a whole need for the mop, and the rationale is not very strong. seicer | talk | contribs 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Rather not. Per others and per remaining unimpressed in an exchange with the candidate a while back (working on the diffs; it wasn't anything spectacular either, just left me thinking that Scetoaux wasn't really "getting" that problem IIRC). user:Everyme 16:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: For the reasons Tan and Balloonman man base their neurtral comments on. I don't see this as a question of never supporting you, but when to support you. If anything, it really looks like you want the mop a little too much at the moment, and that makes me nervous given what does not appear to be a strong embrace of neutralizing drama. Take some time away from running for the mop, and you'll have my support. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose — Self-nom, 3rd RFA in 6 months. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose As per Kurt Weber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something X (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose because, for maybe the second time ever, I agree with Kurt. Not on the self-nom bit, but I think that it was probably not the best decision to submit another RfA so soon after the previous one (or two). The candidate has many fine qualities but is not, in my opinion, ready for the mop. —Travistalk 23:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak oppose - There is something wrong with someone saying "fixing spelling and grammer". It suggests being unfit for purpose to me, but I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asenine (talk • contribs) 03:06, 27 August 2008
  22. Weak Oppose: OMG Finally I have to agree with Kurt :)! 3rd RFA in 6 months ! I am sorry .. Please get more experience and come back after 6 months... Just my 2 cents! -- Tinu Cherian - 09:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I must say, I never thought the day would come when I would agree with reasoning given by Kurt in an RfA, but - unfortunately - this is that day. To me, three RfA runs in six months makes me believe that the candidate views adminship as something other than what Jimbo has stated ("...not a big deal..."). Sorry, I must oppose this candidate at this time. --Winger84 (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - Too many RfA's and not enough experience. Tiptoety talk 00:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - How many RfA's is it now? ThrilMANILAla 11:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I don't think multiple RfA's are evidence for not supporting, but so close together and not appearing to take to heart the reasons for failed RfA's in the past is reason enough to oppose. Get mentored by a respected admin or editor, take some time to show us, then come back. NO guarantees however. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
can't decide there are things I like, but others that I don't like.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As Balloonman said, there are things I like about this user, and thinks that worry me. I am just going to have to continue going through his contribs. America69 (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. Essentially a good editor and definitely has the project's best interests in mind, but I don't get a good feeling of "adminly behavior" - or even potential adminly behavior - from the contribs. Things like this pop up here and there. I dunno, Balloonman summed it up. I just don't know. Maybe I'm being hypocritical. Someone push me into the support camp, please. Tan ǀ 39 17:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is too funny, I've been referenced before for my supports/opposes, but never for my neutrals ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning oppose - This user has only been active for six months and is already on RfA number three. While better positioned then in the first to RfAs I still feel that this is "prima facie evidence of power hunger" --T-rex 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those words send a shiver up my spine. — Realist2 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a large part of the reason I can't support. I want to, but between the fact that this is already number 3 AND that he has been through coaching and a regular contributor to RfA's is a lot of warning flags... none by themself is bad... but combined makes me a little worried.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't particularly think it's fair that you use the fact that I was admin coached against me when you are yourself an admin coach. Why would you encourage a practice yet use it as a rationale for oppose? That's like nominating a person for adminship when you don't realistically believe they should pass. Furthermore, I don't see the rationale for using my regular participation in RFA against me either. So I have my own standards with regards to administrators I'd like to see. That should have no bearing on my own RFA.
    Perhaps I have just demonstrated a tendency for me to speak my mind at consequence to myself. If this RFA had any realistic chance of passing before this edit, it probably doesn't now. I'm sorry, it's just that I'm particularly bothered by the fact that I feel that some standards are being applied unfairly here. —  scetoaux (T|C) 04:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that you've stricken the comment, but the fact remains that in six months, you've made 3 RfA's, you've participated in Admin Coaching, AND almost every edit to the wikipedia and wikipedia talk space has been related to RfA's. When you rely upon tools as much as you do, it becomes hard not to see you as having an "eye on the prize." I am a huge supporter of Coaching, I believe it can be beneficial... but going through coaching is not a free pass. In fact, it is a reason to have higher expectations for a candidate than a lower one.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)PS you can believe that somebody shouldn't pass a given RfA, and still thinking that person should be an Admin... I still think both are the case... of course, making attacks in an RfA, is a sure fire way to switch a neutral to an oppose. But maybe by striking the comment nobody would notice?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I'm very uncertain about this one as there are just reasons to oppose and support, but I'll abstain on this one. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 02:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - Don't know if to support or oppose. Some are good answers, some not. Macy 04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Switch to Support (see above) I see no great reason to oppose, but no strong enthusiasm to support. However, this may be subject to change as the discussion progresses. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - even though you were being coached, you still nominated yourself? What happened? (Following a response, I might support.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The coaching was prior to the last failed attempt... he hasn't been coached since then.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would explain a lot, appears I missed the second RfA... or just couldn't remember it (probably the latter!) Right, switching to support. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, as I mentioned on your talk page, I'd rather somebody make an !vote based upon correct information, than a misconception.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - can't get off the fence - Tan39 summed it up well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I was neutral last time, but "last time" wasn't long enough ago, making this feel very much like you are seeing "adminship" as some sort of end-all success point. It isn't. Trust me. I won't oppose, you are a fine editor, perhaps a bit too quick to cast a judgement, here and there, but overall, very good. Keep editing, come back in 6 months to a year. Keeper ǀ 76 23:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral per T-Rex. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - I see enthusiasm, but I can't bring myself to support this candidate just yet. I'd like to see this user on Wikipedia for another few months before he is run for adminship again. Lradrama 16:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - I have talked to this user on IRC to clarify some of my questions, but I'm not yet convinced this is the right time to self-nom in six months. I don't think he's power-hungry, just very enthusiastic with a sense of initiative. I remember him saying that he doesn't want it for the glory, just so that he could revert vandalism and block when necessary on the fly without waiting 20 minutes for an admin or something like that. I think he will make a good admin in about four to six months of consistent contributions as well as some more involvement in AfDs. I would also suggest some good admin coaching. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Scetoaux_3&oldid=1260112561"