Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Perspicacite


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

This nomination will be closed early due to SNOW; candidate not likely to succeed. ( [ →]O - RLY?) 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite
[ Voice your opinion] (talk page) Final (0/11/0); 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

- Hello Wikipedians. I am Perspicacite. I tend to edit articles relating to Angola and Rhodesia and their liberation wars. Although I plan on using all the tools that come with the mop, this nomination is primarily motivated by dissatisfaction with the the 3RR noticeboard. I hope users will express support based on my editing rather than opposition to my admittedly ugly userpage :). Perspicacite 04:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accept (obviously). Perspicacite 05:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: The 3RR noticeboard has a perpetual backlog. No current administrator regularly responds to the 3RR reports, hence we have reports that are four days old and have no response. By the time an administrator responds to the report it is too late for a block - a block would be punitive. For the past few weeks I have been notifying users when a report is filed against them for 3RR violations. No one else does this. I have repeatedly seen instances in which users are blocked for 24 hours without being notified of the 3RR report. This makes no sense to me. So my main administrative activity will be dealing with the backlog. At the moment I feel as though I'm the only one who is seriously responding to it.

As for my general philosophy on blocking users I have found that 9 times out of 10 what appears to one user as vandalism is really just inexperience. Incivility has to be pretty bad to merit a block. I have tried to work with designated "problem-users," such as socialdemocrats and I have had mixed-success, but I would say my interaction with such users demonstrate patience. In short: do not expect a trigger-happy administrator.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I would say my best contributions are Alvor Accord and the Angolan Civil War. Both are pretty well-sourced and well-written. The AA was featured on the Did you know? section and I believe Foreign policy of Mobutu Sese Seko was also featured. All my articles should probably be considered works in progress though - one day... FA status!


 * 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: The only serious conflict I think I've been involved in was over the 3RR backlog. An administrator completely misunderstood a disagreement between myself and Mr. Neutron. I was blocked for 3 hours for replying to a 3RR report on the grounds that non-administrators cannot reply to reports. When I complained the block was extended to 24 hours. Mr. Neutron was then blocked for 24 hours on equally baseless grounds. Because my response was reverted, there is now an unanswered report that was originally filed on July 20. Yep, it's July 24 and the response has not been answered.

General comments

 * See Perspicacite's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Perspicacite:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Perspicacite before commenting.''

Discussion


Support

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose due to very recent block for disruption and edit warring. Candidate's actions leading to the block and his response to the block suggest to me that he is not ready to be an administrator.  Neil916 (Talk) 05:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Block was not due to edit warring but based on the principle that only administrators can respond to the 3RR page. Perspicacite 05:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose you were blocked two days ago for uncivil comments.   New   England  (C) (H) 05:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No I wasnt. What are you talking about? Perspicacite 05:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 23:20, July 22, 2007 Deskana (Talk | contribs) blocked "Perspicacite (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (continued uncivil remarks on talk page after being blocked)  New   England  (C) (H) 05:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why deny it? The diff is right here - . -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deskana extended the three hour block because I criticized him for rejecting my unblock request when he was directly involved in the dispute. He then protected my talkpage so I would not be able to communicate with Daniel. Other than yesterday I have never been blocked. Deskana's comments were far more uncivil than anyone else's. Perspicacite 05:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deskana is a Bureaucrat; I would be extremely surprised to hear incivility from that user. You will need to show me a diff of the incivility. Also, based on what one might call the "unofficial laws of RFA", one does not submit a request for the tools a single day after a block. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I enjoy unwritten rules I'm more interested in actual policy. Since there is no rule prohibiting me from requesting adminship you will simply have to bear it. This, protecting my talkpage when I am in the middle of a conversation with another user is pretty uncivil. Perspicacite 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Since there is no rule prohibiting me from requesting adminship you will simply have to bear it" - just ... wow! Somehow, after comments like that, I don't think we'll have to wait too long - A l is o n  ☺ 06:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesnt have to be policy; violation of this unofficial law of which I spoke (not submitting an RFA after being blocked the previous day) can (and seems to be, in your case case) be just as damning in an RFA as the violation of a real policy. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then things will take their course, no? Perspicacite 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Theoretically. Perspicacite 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - unfortunately, you've shown a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia processes (the 3RR block thing) as well as incurring a subsequent block for incvility. And that was only two days ago. You're also being argumentative on your own RfA ("What are you talking about?") This is not the behaviour I expect from an administrator -  A l is o n  ☺ 05:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "I suggest you do your job so I don't have to do it for you", at WP:AN/3RR - why are you even posting on my talkpage?", is a COI? Extending a block for a reversion? That would seem punitive.... Surely we would not want to be engaging in punitive blocks Daniel, no? Feel like answering my question below?", etc, etc - A l is o n  ☺ 05:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose user was blocked, and block extended, yesterday. --  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for the blocks and the comments made afterwards. As I've heard somewhere recently, incivility isn't the first comment, but what happens afterwards.--Chaser - T 06:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose per recent behavior described above. It seems to me that you're applying to be an admin because you are currently embroiled in something of a dispute, and the diffs provided above, and block log, do not reassure me.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose (edit conflict) Obviously not...just freshly blocked? No. Jmlk  1  7  06:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) According to Alison's diffs above, the user seems to be unnecessarily confrontational. Administrators have to regularly deal with upset and angry people, trolls, vandals and other editors of a less-than-polite manner. These diffs above makes me question the judgement and temperament when dealing with such people, as well as resolving and de-escalating disputes. The knowledge of policy and guidelines of Wikipedia is also a valid concern, given the recent block that has been given for incivility. In short, the ability to remain calm when dealing with high pressure situations, as well as knowledge of the policies and guidelines dealing with incivility and edit warring is crucial for an admin, and I am not confident of the ability to deal with these adversities associated with adminship. Furthermore, accusing respected editors of being incivil, especially when they are not, is questionable. -- Dark Falls   talk 06:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Sorry to pile on but I cannot even offer my usual Moral Support at this time. I can however offer some un-asked for advice. Take heed of the comments by others here. They are respected editors and have made valuable points. Spend time reviewing the policies. Do not give up on Wikipedia. Best wishes, and happy (non-confrontational) editing! Pedro | Chat  07:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your civility, but I dont see any valuable or valid points, 1 through 7. Perspicacite 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I too am sorry to pile on here, but there are too many valid concerns being raised up here. I suggest you withdraw this nomination and be more familiar with Wikipedia policies. In the meantime, do not be disheartened over this nomination. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 07:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish to see it through to the end. Perspicacite 08:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per valid and valuable concerns expressed above. Also hasn't been around very long.  Keep editing, take the above concerns on board, work in the Wikipedia space, join a project or two, avoid blockable behavior and come back after a couple of months, and you'll get a much better response. --  But | seriously | folks   07:59, 24 July 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.
 * 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.