Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scetoaux 2


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

Scetoaux
Final: (8/6/3); Ended 21 May 2008 - withdrawn by candidate

- I am happy to present Scetoaux as a candidate for adminship. As an editor, he tends to edit articles related to the Civil Air Patrol, and has been working toward making the main article (Civil Air Patrol) featured. Scetoaux is most highly valued for his anti-vandalism efforts and Wiki-gnoming—he has made many high quality edits to AIV (68 edits) and to UAA (40 edits). This coupled with his knowledge and experience in the CSD area (he has 414 deleted edits) will help him to be a great administrator.

I also acted as Scetoaux’s admin-coach (the process may be viewed here). I was impressed by his knowledge of policy and the maturity he displayed when his faults were analyzed. Overall, I believe that Scetoaux is a great editor and will be an even better administrator. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry about this, but I withdraw. I really should have known better than to run this early. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  03:44, 21 May 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 intend to work in most areas of adminship that deal with antivandalism - blocking vandals, page protection, speedy deletion, and articles for deletion, as well as patrolling the various other noticeboards to see where help is needed, particularly incidents.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I believe that my best contributions to Wikipedia (outside of wikignoming) have been articles related to the Civil Air Patrol. I have significantly expanded and altered the Civil Air Patrol article itself, which is now being considered for Featured Article status.  I have also made significant edits to History of the Civil Air Patrol, Maryland High School Assessments (my first real article building work), and Continuum (instrument) (including images that I requested permission for release into GFDL from the product's website).  I have also created the start articles Maryland Wing Civil Air Patrol, L-Tronics and Poverty's No Crime.


 * 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 definitely had conflicts over editing in the past. My main issue is if another user has been uncivil towards me.  The first time this happened, I overreacted and filed a Request for Comment on that user, which resulted in a lot of unnecessary Wikidrama.  Now that I have learned from this experience, I tend to let incivility roll off, unless it's blatant and serious.
 * I generally hold myself to a one revert rule for anything that isn't vandalism, and even after the revert I still try to discuss with the user why they made the change/revert that they did, and discuss the change in order to reach an agreement. I believe it is because of this that I have kept edit warring to an absolute minimum (at least, I have never been accused of such).

Optional question by Zginder
 * 4. What do you consider the most important English Wikipedia Policy? Zginder 2008-05-20T23:07Z (UTC)
 * A. Verifiability, simply because one cannot take something written on a website that anyone can edit for granted. The verifiability policy goes far, because properly verified material ensures that Wikipedia has its facts straight, and it also gives material less leeway to present a non-neutral point of view.  The more material on Wikipedia is verifiable by reliable sources, the more that a person can place confidence in that information, in the encyclopedia, and in the Wikimedia Foundation, and adds greatly to Wikipedia's credibility.

Optional question from Keepscases
 * 5. Do you have any plans to edit Wikipedia whilst flying an airplane?
 * A: Certainly not. That would detract from my situational awareness.

Optional questions from CycloneNimrod
 * 6. Over your time here at Wikipedia, what is the most important lesson you've learned?
 * A: I believe that the most important thing that I've learned is to avoid drama where it is unnecessary. Unnecessary drama with no foreseeable goal is damaging to all parties involved, and should be avoided.  I can definitely point to the RfC I mentioned in Q3 as a case where I incited Wikidrama, and got burned.  I learned tremendously from that experience.


 * 7. Can you tell me what procedures you would follow if user Jirgrfdsfg9764 requested that you:
 * 7a. Need to block a certain user?
 * A: I would first try to understand why the user that Jirgrfdsfg9764 wants blocked needs to be blocked. Once I have that reasoning, I would look into that user's contributions to see if that user does indeed warrant a block, and the user's talk page to see if that user has been properly warned.  I would check to make sure that there isn't any current discussion regarding that user's behavior.  If I deem it necessary, I will block the user.


 * 7b. Requested you to protect an article that is linked to the main page?
 * A: It is my understanding that articles linked from the main page are not protected unless in cases of extreme vandalism, and are never fully protected while they are on the main page. I will look at the page history, but unless there's serious, rapid vandalism from a large number of anonymous users, I will turn down the protection request and notify the user that made the request.

Questions from The Transhumanist 00:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC):


 * Q: Why do you believe you will make a good admin?
 * I do a lot of antivandalism work. Being an administrator would allow me to do that antivandalism work a lot more effectively, because in addition to responding to reports at AIV I would also be able to deal with issues of vandalism that I see without having to wait for a report at AIV to be answered in the first place.  Not to say that I would block a user lightly, but in noncontroversial cases of constant vandalism, it can be dealt with much quicker if the administrator was involved to begin with.


 * Q: What are your WikiPhilosophies?
 * Bearing in mind that I don't specifically restrict myself to this or that philosophy, I do find myself leaning towards moderate eventualism, communalism and WikiPacifism.


 * Q: What's Wikipedia's biggest problem, and what do you intend to do about it?
 * Wikipedia's biggest problem is vandalism, and my work as an administrator towards fighting vandalism would merely be an extension to what I do now.


 * Q: Let's say you are an admin, and a user starts treating you specifically in a very incivil manner, regularly. What would you do about it?
 * If I feel it is serious enough, I will let that user know (of course maintaining civility myself). If the behavior continues, I would probably make a topic on Administrator's Noticeboard in order to discuss appropriate action with other administrators.

General comments

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


 * Links for Scetoaux:

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

Support

 * 1) Support. As the nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support has definitely improved, and has proven that he now meets the before given criteria in the previous RfA. Dreamafter (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Conditional support upon good answers to optional questions. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, mostly appropriate taggings for deletion and AIV reports. Tagged as an attack page a stub about a fictional character. Google search for "For Gedda" would have prevented that, so I would suggest checking more carefully before deleting. Perhaps a bit too hasty in taking offense, per Malleus below. I would definitely like you to work on stress management strategies. The likelihood of having to remain calm in the face of incility or heated discussion definitely goes up when you have the mop. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh  cierekim'''  23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to Shoesss, yes, 3 months is usually enough, given sufficient number edits, for me to decide whether or not to support. See my eval above. The candidate is doing well, I don't see a problem with the nom statement, and why should the project be denied the benefit of his using the tools for an arbitrary time? Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim'''  00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. 00:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Already-thought-you-were-an-admin-support -- This user has done many great things for the project and wield the mop efficiently and without malice. -- Sharkface T/C 00:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per my question. Zginder 2008-05-21T00:24Z (UTC)
 * 3) Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Should have been an admin a while ago. Soxred93 (u t) 00:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - I’m sorry to be the first one to oppose, but let’s look at some of the facts. First, let me get on my soapbox.  I currently believe there is a rush to nominate candidates to administrative positions that does not take into account the candidates disposition to the process.  In fact this rfa is a prime example.  Here we have an individual who is doing great work.  However, when you look at the contributions over half their edit contributions have been in the last 20 days!  In addition, you have a person that has, realistically, only been involved in the project for 3-1/2 months.  Is that time enough to have the extra buttons?  Again, sorry to say in my opinion no!  To the candidate, give it an other 3-6 months, with the same record of accomplishment, and I will nominate you myself.  To the nominators, you are playing with people’s emotions, shame on you. ShoesssS Talk 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * His first oppose reason is bound to generate conversation... let's due so on WT:RFABalloonman (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I just want to say that I don't feel that I'm "Playing with people's emotions."  I understand the oppose, but not the DRAHMAZ part of it. Malinaccier (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) No way. Far too inexperienced, has seriously edited no more than one article, which is now an FAC running concurrently with this RfA. He had launched an RfC in his first serious month, only btw two months ago. Suffice it to say I can't give my support here. Perhaps in another 6 months when the account has proven its goodwill, its experience and also its commitment to wikipedia and its encyclopedic content I will heartedly give my support. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose - I know the how the whole "offering up one's apology thing at RfA" is starting to become frowned upon, but, I do oppose here with some regret, and I really didn't think I would be when I opened up this page. Unfortunately, Balloonman's comments nagged at my cerebral cortex for a while, so of course, I did my own special contribution investigation. I can't help but feel like there is glaring experience problems here. The user upped the mouse button activity only like 2 and half months ago. I usually don't go with active tenure, but, again it's something that is a real concern.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Given that the bulk of your edits are very recent, then for me, you have too short a track record to tell if you can really be trusted with the buttons. You really should have held off running for at least a couple of months. Polly (Parrot) 01:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose &mdash; RFA-politician coachee. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose. not nearly enough experience. Candidate has only really done any actual editing for the last 2.5 months, despite having an account since 2006. Very little activity in policy areas, except for the for a rush to participate in RfAs. Despite saying he wishes to work in deletion areas, no active participation there either to show he has an understanding of the guidelines and policies active there. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I am the user that Scetoaux raised the RfC against. I believe that he acted hastily, that he was wrong, and that the deletion of the RfC proves that. I do believe that Scetoaux has learned from that experience, but it happened too recently for me to be able to support this RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of interest, I deliberately did not mention your name, because I felt it would not have been appropriate, or that it would have been fair to you. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but I've always been one for getting things out in the open. Well, some things anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, because I'm not really sure I'd trust his judgement in any difficult or contentious issue, but can't really oppose because being an admin isn't usually rocket science. He'd probably do a good job pushing buttons in the obvious cases as would most everyone else, but I don't know him well enough, so I won't know if he'd be satisfied with that. He doesn't seem to do much on his own initiative, and I couldn't find many examples of his contributions being crucial to any discussions. The answer to q7 shows the same, since he seemingly didn't even think to look at what else User:Jirgrfdsfg9764 ' 's been up to. He'd probably benefit from less admin coaching and more of finding things out by himself. - Bobet 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In my own defense, I thought that the decision to use Jirgrfdsfg9764 was irrelevant to the question. In any case I did check the user's talk page, and noted that they had been blocked for being a vandalism only account.  I figure that although the user's account had been used only for vandalism, that doesn't automatically mean that there is no possibility of the block/protect requests being legitimate. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  01:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per Malleus. I realize that you (and I) and he had our differences at RfC (and on his talkpage).  I also said I would support your RfA after conversations with you where we were able to reconcile our difference of opinion(s).  I was impressed with your willingness to move past a dispute, and still am.  For that reason, I won't oppose this, but it is not only too soon since the RfC that you initiated prematurely (showing judgment issues), but it is all around siimply too soon since you've begun editing. I'll be happy to support at a later date.  I firmly believe you have the right ideas in mind for Wikipedia and I also believe you wouldn't abuse the tools.  Just need more time under your belt.  Cheers,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  01:47, 21 May 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.