Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sceptre 3


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

I'm withdrawing this nomination because I would need another sixty supports to even reach the discretionary zones for RfA. I know miracles happen, but I think holding out for one such as this would disappoint me and stress me out for another six days, which I don't really need. Thank you all anyway for your comments, and I'll work on my civility. Sceptre (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre
Withdrawn at (12/24/5) at 11:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC); Scheduled to end 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

- I would like to nominate Sceptre for adminship. After gaining adminship in Requests for adminship/Sceptre, Sceptre was desysopped. He then requested adminship at Requests for adminship/Sceptre 2, but was unsuccessful, due to some unacceptable behaviour, which has not been repeated.

That was a year and a half ago. Since then, Sceptre has done a stack of work in improving the encyclopedia, with several featured articles to his name. He has also done great work in protecting the project from harm, and this would only be benefited from regaining the tools.

There had been enough water under the bridge since Sceptre had the tools removed. Now, for the good of the project, it's time for him to take them back. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Chetblong
I too would like to nominate Sceptre for Adminship. I second all that was said before me by DHMO as If I had written it myself. I have seen Sceptre at work on Wikipedia, and his contributions (which are now at nearly 40,000) have substantially helped the project as a whole, from vandalism fighting and CSD tagging, to his featured article writing and all out improvement of the encyclopedia. I feel that Sceptre is ready to have the tools now and has a need for the tools as he did before he was desysoped. He has a passion for the project as can be seen by his 8905 edits in just this month alone, all of which show his need for adminship.

I feel Sceptre has learned from his mistakes, and that it has been long enough for him to have the tools back, it is for this reason that I have co-nominated him for re-adminship. -- Chetblong TalkSign 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Springeragh
I will try not to copy too much of what Chetblong and H2O have said, but it will be hard, since it's all so true. :)

I'm not going to be all hip and try to pretend that Sceptre is perfect and has never made any mistakes. Quite frankly and honestly, that would make me a liar and unsuitable for writing future noms. In reality, he has made mistakes. A lot of them. But notice you'll never (and have never, as long as I've known him) see him moping through city centre whining to people that his pride has been hurt because he's made a mistake. On the contrary. He looks at every aspect of the mistake he's made, and if by now he can't squeeze at least two or three things out of it to learn, I'd be surprised. :)

If edits alone decided the fate of an admin bid (which sometimes it seems like it does), Sceptre would have this one made without a single Oppose vote. Making more edits every month than I have since I first registered can't be looked down upon. Even if you don't believe me, look at his edits. He's been on nearly every page that ends with "…for deletion" that we have, and many that begin with "Requests for…"

In my last co-nomination I mentioned a personal crisis that erupted in early autumn of 2006; I will not go into as much detail (though I was vague there) here. All I will say is that if you can get through what he went through with as little trouble as he went through it with, you're an exceptional person.

Please vote for Sceptre; it's for the common good, to use an abused cliché. There is no aspect of the project which will not benefit from his tools. From range-blocking abusive IPs to deleting pages full of "JOEY IS THE BEST hehe", I'm sure you will not regret supporting him. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:28 22 March, 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * Sure, why the hell not, I'll accept. I haven't self-nommed myself because people would see that as a possible reconfirmation RFA (which it isn't), giving people more reason to hate me. I might not answer all of the questions now, though; it's 2:05am and I'm a bit sleepy, so forgive me :D Sceptre (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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: I'd probably end up doing the same things I did when I was an administrator a couple of years ago; I was very active at WP:SPLICE and was quite proficient at history merging. As well as that, you'll probably see me issue a large number of blocks. I'm a vandal fighter at heart, and my contributions show that; I've made nearly 11,000 edits in three weeks, due to WP:HUGGLE. All that has made WP:AIV my most edited project page, with somewhere in the region of 500 reports. Finally, I'll be working on closing AFDs, but due to my strong deletionist views on BLPs and news events, to avoid a possible conflict of interest.
 * I'd just want to say, as there's no better place to say this, if I was an admin, you'd see the backlogs decrease somewhat. I make quite a lot of requests on AIV, RFPP, and I do usually use the "!admin" stalkword on #wikipedia-en a lot, as some of the respective regulars will agree.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I've written, as of 02:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC), 3 FAs, 1 FL, and 9 GAs. The reason I say "as of" is because I have, IIRC, three articles on GAC and one article on FAC. As to which I think is/are my best, I would have to say the article . It was the first article I ever edited, three years ago, and since then, the article has gone to a mere stub to a featured article that on the main page. Whenever I talk about it, I often refer to it as my pride and joy, and to be honest, I actually look at the article and think, "Wow, did I write that?". As a general group, I'm proud of my contributions to Doctor Who articles. Since September, I've written 6 GAs, rewritten 1 FL, and written a FA for the project. In particular, I am very fond of and [[Image:Cscr-candidate.svg|15px]], which I've written nearly from scratch to the quality they are today.


 * 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: Forthcoming, I'll answer it in the morning as this will be a long-winded spiel more than a simple two sentence answer.

Questions from ArcAngel


 * 4. Will you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why or why not?
 * A. I won't add myself to recall, because community consensus towards recall and reconfirmation RFAs is rather negative. However, if enough people have objections to my actions in a short period of time, I will open up a quasi-RFC, but not at WP:RFC/U - my opinions against that process are strong and well-known.
 * 5. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR? And when are you willing to use it?
 * A. Exactly what it says on the tin. As for application:

With regards to my actions, I do what I think is best for the encyclopedia. That means that I will, on occasion, do something unorthodox, such as remove nearly the entire content of a page that's very badly written. I am not a big fan of the civility and AGF policies when they hinder actual work, and you may sometimes see me use the words fuck or shit, or see me explicitly label and close troll threads on the administrators' noticeboard.
 * Taken from my user page.
 * 6. Why are edit summaries important?
 * A. So you get the idea of why someone's edited. I feel a lot better knowing what edits people make when they come up on my watchlist, rather than just blank or /&rarr;Section/ summaries.
 * 7. What is your opinion on WP:3RR, do you believe that an attempt at communication should be made after the 2nd revert or the third?
 * A. I think 3RR is a good rule. I hate edit wars, I try to stay out of them, and I think 3RR is a good idea. As for communication, I tend to talk on the first or second revert, normally on talk or on user talk. However, I think 3RR is sometimes applied incorrectly. For instance, I don't think it should apply to heavily edited articles that are prone to speculation and crystal balling. I actually got a friendly warning for (unintentionally) going over 3RR on List of Doctor Who serials, but anyone who edits around that area know it's a landmine for speculation. God knows how it got to FL.
 * 8. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A. In practice, nothing. In writing, a ban is a decision to disallow editing, and a block is a means of enforcing it.
 * 9. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
 * A. Sparingly. Try to talk, and if the offender is still spouting their mouths, give them a short block, possibly for civility or personal attacks.
 * To those quoting this question as a reason for opposing: I do know cool-down blocks are bad, yes. Hence why I said sparingly. I've said "try to talk" first. If after trying reasonably over, say, six hours, and the editor is still raging about being very uncivil and attacking, they should be blocked - they would've been anyway for personal attacks.

Questions from Astral
 * 10. In your opinion, what is more important for an admin; to strictly adhere to policy or to [[WP:IAR|ignore allhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sceptre_3&action=edit&section=4

Editing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sceptre 3 (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia rules]]?
 * A. See Question 5. Process for process' sake is silly. Process is good, but if it's good for the encyclopedia in the long run, I'd IAR.
 * 11. What is your opinion on humour in edit summaries and in regards to one's attitude to Wikipedia? (If this doesn't make sense, I can expand a bit. I'm not the most cohesive person in the world).
 * I like humour. I tend to use it in certain circumstances, just to lighten the mood. e.g. this, which making light humour of gag names and people registering. I think it shows that sometimes editing Wikipedia is not always serious, but I don't think humour should be used where it gets too serious because it makes you look bad.
 * 11(a). Given your response, can you expand on why you think using humour in serious situations "makes you look bad"?
 * I'm talking from personal experience here. I once was in a discussion about Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and his "paying to edit" back when I was an admin. I didn't grasp the seriousness of the situation, and I did make fun of it. I ended up feeling like an idiot after that.

Question From Cube lurker
 * 12 Should Shii have been blocked or banned? ?

Question From User:WarthogDemon
 * 13. How would you handle an admin who suddenly makes a legal threat at another admin? What about a death threat?

General comments

 * Links for Sceptre:
 * See Sceptre's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

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

Discussion

 * Because I could not fully justify my decision due to the sensitive nature of my concerns, I will not submitting a formal opinion in this discussion. However, I do submit this diff for consideration by those who will. I would also be interested in hearing Sceptre's response. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, only a few weeks ago too. A posting like that would have left any other admin candidate dead in the water. Still, we're all mates eh? Let's just forget about any past unpleasantness. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest reading the discussion before that diff, and the other user's contribs. Everything in context. Orderinchaos 04:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To those quoting the candidate's userpage, the full quote is "I am not a big fan of the civility and AGF policies when they hinder actual work." Striking resemblance to ignore all rules (core policy and all...), don't you think? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't actually. More like ignoring some rules, but expecting others to follow them regardless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What he states on his userpage is exactly what WP:IAR is for, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." from WP:IAR, the AGF guideline and civility policy both fall under IAR. -- Chetblong TalkSign 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, with as much respect as I can muster for that POV, which I do accept is very little indeed, the rules either have to be agreed on both sides or ignored on both sides. If Sceptre was to become an admin again, would (s)he be equally magnamimous in ingnoring abusive language from regular editors? I doubt it somehow. IAR is not a synonym for hypocrisy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have never had an occasion where civility stopped me from improving the encyclopedia. I doubt anybody else has either. - auburn pilot   talk  03:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had one just in the past month - was dealing with a person who later turned out to be a sockpuppet, but required considerable investigation to unearth. Depends on what areas you edit in - religion, nationalism and politics are three really bad ones for that. Orderinchaos 04:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see the connection. How did civility stand in your way of improving the encyclopedia in relation to a sockpuppet? If you mean the assumption of good faith stood in your way, that's one thing, as I don't accept Sceptre to assume an endless amount of good faith. I do, however, expect him to remain civil (even in the presence of clear bad faith). - auburn pilot   talk  04:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - per my nom. -- Chetblong TalkSign 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Your answer to the IAR question swayed me - we need more experienced editors with that sort of attitude to be honest. Adding later - agree with Cometstyles's comments below. Also he is pretty young and people do mature fast at that age. Orderinchaos 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - yes.   jj137   (talk)  03:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jmlk  1  7  03:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support sorry I haven't written the nom yet…it was almost done when I accidentally turned my computer off without saving it. :( I wrote one from the hip just now. :) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:14 22 March, 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support - Sceptre is very 'controversial' and many will oppose him due to his previous abuse of sysops, but that was in wiki term, ages ago, and since then, I haven't seen anything that will make me think twice about opposing him because he has very much improved since then and as far as I'm concerned, he will make an excellent admin yet again and if people don't make mistakes,they will never learn anything, and Will has learnt his lesson, after all, he is only human..-- Cometstyles 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support Cometstyles says it all.  Soxred93 | talk bot 03:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Net positive Dloh  cierekim'''  04:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Eusebeus (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Eighteen months is an awfully long time here to hold something against anyone; we don't do that except for the most recalcitrant vandals! I've studied Will's contributions, and they are enviable, he knows policy, and I feel justified in supporting a second chance here. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 04:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - and 18 months is even longer for a young person. I've coached users on here in the 16-18 age range and work with people that age offline, and it's amazing how quickly they change/mature/improve over as little as 4-6 months, so imagine 18. Orderinchaos 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Replies to this section have moved to the talk page.)
 * 1) Clusterfuck support. Dorftrottel (talk) 06:50, March 22, 2008

Oppose

 * 1) No. That behaviour was more than unacceptable, no matter how long ago it was. Wikifun is one thing, but when it boils over into physical intimidation that's quite another thing and can never be excused. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I urge you to reconsider this when Q3 is answered. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it that only opposers get heckled? I didn't urge you to reconsider your support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to "heckle" me. I've discussed what happened 1.5 years ago with Will, and I support his RfA. I don't think you've discussed it to the same extent, and so I ask you to do so. But it's up to you. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of heckling you, or anyone else. I have given my opinion, and based on the evidence I see little prospect of it changing no matter how much heckling goes on. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose Within the past few weeks, I have seen Sceptre tell editors to "shut the fuck up" at WP:AN/I and accuse them of having a "hard on" for other editors. This egregious incivility is absolutely unacceptable for an admin. In addition, Sceptre has abused the rollback function on numerous occasions, even after warnings. If Sceptre cannot be trusted to use one admin tool correctly, I certainly cannot trust him to use the other two. - auburn pilot   talk  02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Two different editors, and you're misinterpreting it. The first was one where I said "shut the hell up" (not "the fuck", "the hell"), to someone who was trying to get an editor banned and the evidence didn't look compelling enough. Was a bit OTT, true. The second was to David Shankbone's secret admirer. He was getting very annoying and he got banned for stalking him. I really don't like civility for civility's sake, and neither do several members of the community, of which one, in one of those cases, said "a two-by-four is sometimes the best way to deal with a troll". Sceptre (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And the fact that you were uncivil to two editors instead of one makes it better? I'm sorry for the memory lapse on the exact wording, but you are right. It was "shut the hell up" on WP:AN/I and "just fuck off" on the IP talk page. We don't reserve civility for just the "good editors". - auburn pilot   talk  02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that. But being forced to be nice to someone to someone who got banned for being a nasty piece of work isn't on. Sceptre (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your judgement is a real worry. People don't get banned for being "a nasty piece of work", they get banned for something that they did. As you were desysoped for something that you did, not because you were "a nasty piece of work". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He was desysopped in uncontroversial circumstances. Kelly Martin, who (from what I understand) suggested it, called it "protectively desysoped". And no, she wasn't the kind who tanks RfBs back then, before someone inevitably says we shouldn't listen to her. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't mistake me for a fool. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on the precise details (and I gather we should not even be discussing them) but I think it's a stretch to say that he was "desysopped in uncontroversial circumstances." Reading through the last RfA linked above it seems that Sceptre behaved in a highly, highly unacceptable fashion which in full or in part led him to resign his bit (and which had apparently escalated to the point that Jimbo was somehow involved). Residual concern about that is largely why he failed his last RfA, so I think "uncontroversial" is the wrong word here. Note that this is not even why I am opposing, I'm just pointing this out in the interests of accuracy since DM is suggesting losing his bit was no big thing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I see, the last RfA failed due to some nasty email business. See the 02:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC) comment, which formed the basis for most opposition. The 12:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC) comment and its response also try and outline some of the stuff that went on in that RfA. But I don't think any of it had to do with his deysopping. That said, I wasn't around at the time and could be missing something. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But you are around now, and you are turning a blind eye to recent incidents of abuse which would have been enough to sink any other candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To DM above, I think you are right about that. I still don't know exactly what happened, but I remember reading about this incident at some point and had in my head that all of the controversy was centered around the time of the desysopping. Looking at the last AfD again it seems the "nasty email business" was actually some time after that. In any case, assuming that is accurate, it's worth pointing out that in-between the "uncontroversial" desysop and now there was apparently quite a lot of controversy.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I do not think an admin should have "I am not a big fan of the civility and AGF policies" on their user page for any reason. Plus his answer to #9 is just wrong and when it comes to blocking you can not be wrong.  Gtstricky Talk or C 02:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry, but your answer to Q9 concerns me. Also, "doing what's best for WP", to me, means being civil, and your statement regarding that is another concern that I don't believe you can overcome.  ArcAngel (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as Gtstricky states on user page states that not a fan of AGF or Civility. A non starter for me.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And further I've read the full quote and H2O's explanation and still don't buy that it's an acceptable attitude for an admin to set up as a mission statement.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Firm oppose My concerns about the candidate's temperament and judgment are broad and significant, and I do not imagine that the net effect on the project of his being (re)sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 03:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per above.  N i m i  T i  z e  03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. This user has made many contributions to the encyclopedia, but to be perfectly honest I don't have a great deal of confidence in his judgment and thus certainly cannot support him for adminship. Unlike Sceptre, I happen to think civility is extremely important and thus am quite disturbed by the comments referenced by AuburnPilot. Sceptre's user page comment "I am not a big fan of the civility and AGF policies when they hinder actual work" is also a bit of a deal breaker for me. Even if the emphasis is on "when they hinder actual work" I find that formulation unacceptable because whether or not being civil or assuming good faith is "hindering work" will always be a judgment call. We don't have WP:CIVIL because we want "civility for civility's sake" as Sceptre suggests above. We have it because it helps us write a better encyclopedia. The nonchalant attitude toward civility combined with Sceptre's (refreshingly honest) admission that "you'll probably see me issue a large number of blocks" gives me the image of a would-be Wiki-cop blocking folks left and right and dropping uncivil comments along the way. That is something I cannot abide. There is obviously a policing aspect to being an administrator (the "janitor" euphemism is inadequate in that regard), but I am quite suspicious of users who seem particularly anxious to have access to the block button. Such suspicion is only compounded by a stated antipathy for our core civility policy. I'm sure Sceptre could clear a lot of backlogs as an admin, but I'm too worried about the damage he might do.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Massive civility issues here - which is a big red flag for me. WP:IAR is beneficial for enforcing the spirit of the wiki, but not at the expense of civility and good faith. Not at all.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Per this quote from candidates page: "I am not a big fan of the civility and AGF policies when they hinder actual work". Sorry, whatever WP's problems may be, an excess of civility and AGF is most decidedly not among them. Ronnotel (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this may be a case of poor expression - it's a position I personally sympathise with. For example if you're dealing with a persistent POV troll who is persistently staying this side of the boundary line in policy terms so can't easily be blocked, what does one do? Conceding ground to them sets bad precedent (especially where BLP or very strong NPOV issues are involved), and one cannot assume good faith forever. Orderinchaos 04:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Sorry Sceppy, even as a fellow cabal member I cannot support your RfA. A few things about it have made me unhappy, not least of which is Chet's constant harrassment of people in IRC. Astral (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * People have said I shouldn't bring up nominators in my oppose reason. I'm leaving my point about Chet harrasing people in IRC to canvas votes but I'll add my main reasons for oppose; a) Like others, I'm not too happy about the civility thing. b) I'm also not happy about the answer to Q9. c) I'm unsure about his temprament and believe that under pressure, he could make a bad decision too easily. Sorry Will, Astral (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was one of the people 'canvassed' by Chet and I wish to make it very clear that this was in a private channel among a few wikifriends, and absolutely meant as a joke. I do not wish for Chet to suffer in future due to a harmless bit of fun among mates. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Other candidates have been pilloried for "canvassing" publicly, by making onwiki postings. Yet your mate is immune from that criticism? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, MF. If Chet had been canvassing seriously I would not support him in this. However, it was a joke, even in the narrowest definition of what a joke is. Not a funny one, perhaps, but it was not meant seriously. And, for the record, none of those Chet 'canvassed' have appeared at this RfA so far, apart from Astral. And myself, but I am not voting in this RfA. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can certainly understand that "constant harrassment" isn't much of a joke. As for the rest, well ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Constant harassment" is a gross overreaction on Astral's part, tbh. This is detracting from the main purpose of this discussion, but all I can say is that bringing up what a nominator did as a joke offwiki is entirely frivolous. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not frivolous when it involves canvassing, as it appears to have done in this case. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We seem to be misunderstanding each other. There was no canvassing, as I see no one from that channel on this RfA at all. And it was quite obviously a joke. I don't see why you should pick on this particular point so keenly, when it is really the least of anyone's problems, and Astral has retracted his comments as below. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what dictionary you're using, but the fact that few of those canvassed have (yet) turned up doesn't mean that there was no canvassing, or that they won't turn up later. I'm not "picking on" this point, except insofar as I don't like to see the facts distorted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't've mentioned it. I let personal off-wiki stuff get in the way of my decision. Chet made a joke in a private channel which I took the wrong way. It shouldn't affect anyone's decision about this RfA and I was wrong to bring it up. 86.141.39.178 (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Malleus, why don't you calm down. The RFA is already snowballing, so there's no need for you to be throwing crap at Riana and basically calling her a liar. It wasn't canvassing. It was misinterpreted as canvassing, however he was in a private channel among friends who already knew he was going for RFA. I would show you logs, which evidence that he's merely joking, but it's a private channel and I'm not logging it for you. You should have enough faith in those editors who are widely-respected, such as Riana, that their word is true. It is no secret within our group that Chet gets on Astral's nerves. Chet can be over-the-top with his antics at times. But it was antics, not canvassing. It's pointless to "canvass" to people who already know. And it didn't gain votes. So chill out. How many edits do you have to this snowballing RFA?  Lara  ❤  Love  06:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you try picking on someone else, because I'm just not interested in your opinion. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even with smiley faces, you're still a dick. :)  Lara  ❤  Love  06:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, your opinion is of no interest to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What, do you have to have the last word? -- Chetblong TalkSign 06:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Malleus I'll be blunt, I was simply joking about me nominating Sceptre on an off-wiki channel, I then started joking about canvassing for my own co-nom RFA, it was a joke not meant to be serious at all. Astral proceeded to mention it here (wrongly, and he has admitted that) and then Riana backed me up, which caused you to start some bullshit about how I should be criticized for "canvassing". And then you go so far as to call Riana basically a lair? I was joking not canvassing (and everyone on the channel knows that), you should find something else to talk about instead of jumping all over this one small issue. It was a joke, get over it. -- Chetblong TalkSign 06:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall add, here, then, that I don't wish any fallout on Chet due to my comments. I didn't see it as a joke and it certainly gave me the wrong impression about this RfA but clearly I was wrong to take it seriously or bring it up here. I retract my opposition based on Chet's actions but leave it standing with trgards to the other three reasons I supplied. Astral (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose Too immature to properly represent WikiPedia in a professional manner, as evidenced by a few recent ANI postings referenced above. Lack of patience could potentially lead to hasty blocks or intimidation of novice users. Seems to be self-serving, doing things the way he wants to until capitulating will benefit him in some manner, such as correcting his signature all of a sudden. We can do without inevitable drama that would follow if this were to succeed. -- 12 N oo n 2¢ 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Civilty issues is a huge no for me. I recommend withdrawing at this time. Tiptoety  talk 04:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose there is ignoring rules on a case by case basis, which IMHO should be rare. Then there is the blatant disregard for the rules or basic etiquette. I cannot in good conscious support a candidate who is obtuse to this distinction.  If we approve a candidate who openly decries these two core principles, then we are undermining them entirely and setting the stage for all to break them in the future.  Sorry, can't do it.Balloonman (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per the above comments. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 05:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Admins should solve problems, not cause them. Nick mallory (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose. Has absolutely nowhere near the temperament to be a proper admin. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Honestly Sceptre seems like a good guy from my experience with him and I was about to support. However, looking at the debate during his prior RfA, I'm personally very troubled by this incident (admins only), where it seems he threatened to "blackmail" - his words - a female administrator, to the point that Jimbo was a hair away from banning him personally. I have grave concerns about giving admin tools to people with a history of behavior like this. :(  krimpet ✽  06:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Regretful Oppose It is with great sadness that I write this. I've known Sceptre for quite a while; since 2006, I think. He's a very mature person for his age, with great powers of judgment, quite a good taste in music (anyone who listens to The Wall is good in my books), and is overall a tremendous user. However, even though he's regularly virtuous, I've seen more than one instance where he's done very questionable things. Now, while I acknowledge that having an ED page and losing a lot of your privacy is quite devastating, it seems that Will has reacted to this in a very irrational manner. Just two months ago, he made this edit, which I found quite rash; however, he proceeded to go to the user's talk page and redirect it to Virgin (admins-only link), then when the user reverted this, he reverted back. That incident stuck with me, as I don't think an admin should ever, ever act that way. It's inexcusable. Aside from that, he's a great editor, but civility and good communication skills are the most important things to have. Sorry, dude. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  06:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Insufficiently collegiate and takes on too many unwinnable battles. I'm struggling for diffs here because I just remember a couple of incidents where we rubbed shoulders but I wasn't very imnpressed with his attempt to get RFC/U shut down. It may have issues but a better way for handling this would have been to have a discussion before marking historical. To my mind this was just stirring up drama for the sake of it. No thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 09:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Tends to have issues with just rollback alone and almost got it removed. Needs to correct these issues first before moving forward. William Ortiz (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Concerned by attitude to civility. Dean B (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose -- sorry but reading the opposes has left me deeply concerned also some of the answers are rather doubtful in my mind... --Camaeron (t/c) 10:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose I do not think that he shows sufficient maturity yet. On the plus side he has made many many reverts of vandalism. On the minus side, many of those reversions were in hindsight wrong. I have seen him to be quick to agree to his mistakes (a big plus) but there are just too many in recent times. My advice (for what it is worth); go for quality rather than quantity. An admin role needs a more boring person. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral I'm not one for process either, but Sceptre going out of his way to tell people to go away, and impolitely to boot, is wrong. He violates core policies and guidelines (I'll add WP:NPA) for (what I can see) little to no reason. However, he obviously knows what he's doing, which is the only reason I stayed my hand from an oppose. RFA is as much about ability of the user in question as it is about trust in the user, tbh. --Izno (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Having looked through the discussion and the evidence provided, I am staying neutral. Sceptre clearly knows what (s)he is doing in regards to policy, and makes excellent contributions, but to be honest, I am concerned about the civility issue here. Leaving the message "just fuck off" on a talk page, even if there is a evident frustration behind it, is, in my opinion, quite frankly, unacceptable. If Sceptre was that frustrated, he should have a taken a time-out, spent a few hours doing something else, and come back with a cooler head. For me, I am left with neutral after reviewing this. Sceptre, good luck to you, but please try to rationalise before leaving such abusive comments in the future. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 06:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I am very happy with the FA contributions and would like to support based on that, but the civility remarks noted above worry me. Sorry. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral He made an egregious mistake quite a long time ago; I'm all for second chances, and would have no problem giving one here (especially as he could have simply requested his tools back, but chose a reconfirmation RfA instead). However, as was pointed out above, his answer to Q9 is just flat-out wrong. I appreciate Sceptre's refreshing honesty in most matters, but this is either a blatant disregard or a complete ignorance of an extremely pertinent policy. If Sceptre revisits the question and addresses this concern, or can satisfactorily defend his answer, I am very willing to switch to support. faithless   (speak)  07:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Extremely competent, coherent understanding of policy, acquainted with what the project is and my interactions have always been postive and the time since the last RFA is lengthy so I should really be supporting, however civility issues, in particular the one MoP provided is concerning and the other civility issues are worrying, so based on that, I'll go netural. Rudget . 11:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.