Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sceptre 2

Add links
Source: 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.

Sceptre

Final (48/19/4) ended 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I was an admin for seven months, and temporarily gave up those powers after an incident after the blocking of nathanrdotcom. I now feel that the crisis is over and I should run for adminship again (although I was offered the option to have the powers quietly restored, something that I don't believe in). Will (message me!) 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this self-nomination.
in the dead of night) 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Closing AFDs, admin rollback, in short, general admin tasks that people take out, and those what I did pre-desysopping.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm not really that much of an article writer on the scale of FAs, but I'm pleased with how some articles, after I created them, and contributed information to them, grew into satisfactory articles, e.g.
motorway
articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: A few times. For example, the nathan "incident" had caused stress where there shouldn't've been, and the details of it should've been kept quiet. I did, however, keep a cool head over it given the circumstances.
4. (Question from Thatcher131, entirely optional) You indicated at the time some concern that your account might have been compromised. I assume you have taken steps to make sure this is not the case?
It was my email account that was assumed to be compromised. It wasn't, but it's password was changed (it has a different password)
5. (Question from Blnguyen, entirely optional) You have a very high number of userspace edits - about 15% and a very high amount of user talk messages (about 32%) - how do you explain the possible perception stemming from this that you may be too focussed on social networking rather than improving the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia? For example, the dozen or so articles you cited here and on your userpage were mostly less than 1kb (excluding subsequent expansions made by other users, the articles were 4-5 lines or less) - this may give the concern for example that your judgment may be biased towards your friends rather than the encyclopedia, should such a situation arise.
A: I think about 90% of these user talk edits are vandalism/block warnings. About 5% are replying to other editors/weighing in something in a discussion, and 5% are actually contacting people where I have no other contact. (For example, once Sergeant Snopake had emailed me, I used that instead most of the time.)
6. (Question from
iablo
, optional) I am stumped by the evidence offered by Benon in his opposition. Would you mind provide a bit of context, and perhaps provide some clarification on this matter?
For the best interests of those involved, it's best if it wasn't really discussed. In a nutshell, I started having friendly contact with an admin, then she ignored me, so I harassed someone, and went too far. I did realise my mistakes (before Jimbo asked me to stop it, I had already done so).
General comments

Sceptre's edit summary details as of 21:22, September 18 2006

Sceptre's original RFA

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

I'm fairly certain that this RfA is unnecessary and the candidate can simply request his sysop bit back hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he wishes to have an official reconfirmation, I'll simply view that as a sign of further integrity and support him in it. --
tjstrf 18:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Support

  1. First support, he's a medium! :O Highway Daytrippers 17:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. A very good editor. -- Szvest 17:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eww, you have a transclusion in your sig.
    WP:SIG please. --Rory096 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Support I believe you should have a second chance. Good luck! --Alex (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Procedural renomination to start with, he was a good admin previously, and nothing has significantly changed in his qualifications. --
    tjstrf 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Support as this candidate was a highly satisfactory administrator for several months and I am quite pleased that he is ready to pick up where he left off. However, I urge the candidate to reconsider accepting an automatic resysopping as alluded to above, in accordance with recent precedent that an admin who steps down voluntarily is given the tools back on request, rather than proceeding with this full-fledged RfA. Will, I greatly respect your view that you don't believe you should accept a behind-the-scenes resysopping and ordinarily would have no problem with that choice. However, I fear that as editors come to this page and seek to understand what happened in August that caused you to temporarily lock up your mop-and-broom closet, discussion of sensitive issues relating to those events will be unnecessarily reopened. This would not be in the best interests of the community or, and I hope this doesn't sound overly paternalistic, of the candidate and the other affected parties. Newyorkbrad 18:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Welcome back. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support.
    Doctor BrunoTalk 18:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Support. -- DS1953 talk 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too few projectspace contributions. He just wanted to re-live RfA again. -
    talk/email 19:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Support. Great user! --Nishkid64 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - IMHO no Rfa was needed so an auto support is placed here -- Tawker 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Terrific user, very true Tawker :) Hello32020 20:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. support, no idea he was even deadminned ~
    t-e 20:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. Support Welcome back! --Siva1979Talk to me 20:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I see no reason to object to resyopping this editor. (aeropagitica) 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support' Editor resigned adminship over a "wrongdoing" that was more like a "technicality"; such dedication to fairness and impartiality is mark of wisdom and character. He held himself to the highest standard, and he surpasses even this. Xoloz 21:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. There shouldn't even be an RfA for this. AnnH ♫ 21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I concur with comments made above that restoring adminship in this case should be a given. Rje 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support No trust, judgement, or editing issues. Will, take that mop back! Thε Halo Θ 22:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Anyone who made it through what he did deserves to be re-granted adminship. He was an excellent admin, and he'll be an excellent one again. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support excellent user. Rama's arrow 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support with respect for the candidate's choice of the open process despite the circumstances of his desysopping. Have run across this admin a few times on different pages, has always been considerate and a good worker, from what I've seen. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I agree wit Ann H, not much need of an RFA
    wat's sup 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  25. Support. Rebecca 00:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Hate to display my ignorance, but I've no idea why you desysopped, but I'm glad you want the mop back.Dlohcierekim 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Yanksox 01:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support —Jared Hunt September 19, 2006, 01:17 (UTC)
  29. Support - per above abakharev 01:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Sugarpinet/c 01:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, just close this early and promote him! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. – Chacor 01:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. He was admin before. In last month He was desysoped adminship in last month. But He should become admin again. My opinion on adminship of sceptre is Similar to Musical Linguist. Daniel's page ☎ 01:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. User never struck me as particularly unsuitable for sysop. Bastiq▼e demandez 02:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per nom. Michael 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support He certainly deserves an additional chance.-- danntm T C 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Passes my criteria †he Bread 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Suppport --
    T | C) 05:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  39. Merovingian - Talk 06:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, great user, has experience as a former admin and should be given another chance. --
    talk! 06:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  41. Support. Rather than try to restate exactly what Tony Fox and Xoloz have already said well enough, I concur with both of them. Agent 86 07:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support --Ixfd64 07:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Your actions in choosing to hand in the mop shows your judgement. Your decision to ask for an unnecessary Rfa shows probity and humility. I find the so-called "proof" of bad behaviour in Benon's userspace unintelligible and far from convincing. Currently, therefore, you've given me every reason to AGF. I can't ask for much more in a clearly experienced Wikipedian. --Dweller 11:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Wow I missed this for a long time. Support per extremely level-headed action during "the ordeal", although it wasn't completely smooth. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. While I have issue with his handling of the situation in question, his handling of it since then has shown that he's open to owning up to mistakes, and doing things the right way, even if he slips up occasionally. We need more admins like that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, great admin, and excellent admission of approach about quiet restore. Shows honour. —
    Xyrael / 16:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  48. Support accusations from the opposing cannot be verified. I've gone over his work from the past thoroughly and we should incourage the return of good admins. Stubbleboy 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose Oh boy this is going to open a whole can of worms i never ever wanted to have to do but here goes. Sceptre a while back engaged on a childish imature behind the scenes stalking and harrasment campgain of a nameless but respected admin (they have asked not to be named here and i will respect that) to avoid making a hudge threaded mess i have posted an e-mail from jimbo in my userspace
    Benon 02:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Whatever happened to
    in the dead of night) 09:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment Hmmm, as the Office has not hesitated to intervene when appropriate, I'm sure that Danny or Mr. Wales will let us know if this RfA is a problem to them. I would realy like more insight into the whole affair, though. If anyone can show me that my support vote is a mistake (or not), I would appreciate it. If Sceptre has engaged in unbecoming behavior, let us see and weigh the evidence now. I'm a great believer in the transparncy of our procedures and need more to go on.Dlohcierekim 13:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is with some considerable regret that I find myself speaking out. My dealings with Sceptre have been entirely acceptable. But the material presented by Benon, above, is highly unacceptable. We cannot have users harassing other users in this manner. I have every confidence in the veracity of the material presented and, in fact, have personal knowledge of some of the matters presented there and am appalled. I also have to say that Sceptre's handling of the nathanrdotcom affair was not perfect but that in itself is not that big a deal. I think my theme lately here has been that admins need to stick together and here I find another example of an admin not using his powers wisely, not acting in a manner that is collegial. It is with considerable regret, again, that I add my voice in opposition. This is not pleasant because there are many supporters that I value highly, and I really mean Sceptre no ill will. But I think there is a good chance that some further opposes may be coming from ArbCom members who are aware of the facts of this matter. At least I hope they find their way clear to comment, within the limits of discretion, on it. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Benon.
    Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Oppose per Lar and Benon. — Moe Epsilon 04:13 September 19 '06
  5. Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. I'm not convinced that recent events have demonstrated a sufficiently high degree of maturity to deal with the inevitable conflict resolution activities of an Admin. Also similarly concerned about the apparent social networking approach to the project.ALR 08:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reluctant oppose I am not happy about opposing, as I see this user has contributed well to Wikipedia and obviously has the experience. But I have yet to see Sceptre's justifications per the mentioned events even if in vague terms, I don't think it is appropriate behaviour for an admin to harrass other users no matter for what reason.--
    Konstable 09:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Tony Sidaway 10:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC) I can't reconcile this request for adminship with behavior that leads Jimbo to say If he does ONE MORE LITTLE THING, he is gone from wikipedia *poof* just then, no arbcom, no nothing, just me banning him myself." This fellow is so clearly and obviously unfit for adminship that it seems pointless to permit this charade of an application to continue.[reply]
    Agreed. El_C 10:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Actually, I see that he blocked Nathandotcom, so I am provisionally withdrawing my opposition. El_C 11:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - per Lar, Tony, Benon. Unfortunate, but there it is. --Storkk 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Lar.
    Talk) 13:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Oppose. I know the thing of which Benon speaks of independantly and his reason is valid. To protect the privacy of the harassed, I will not reveal any more details, but I'm sorry, I cannot support knowing the circumstances. pschemp | talk 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Not only is the incident which Benon refers to disturbing and problematic, but I do not believe Sceptre handled himself appropriately in the Nathanrdotcom incident. While I do not disagree with the ultimate decision to block Nathan, Sceptre was far too involved emotionally in that situation to properly be exercising administrative rights in it. He should not have used administrative rights there, and yet he did. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Seems to get himself into arguments involving females on Wikipedia and crosses the line in such situations. Coumarin 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's 18th edit, first in two months, editor in pages I've been involved in adminstratively. And, can you highlight which arguments?
    in the dead of night) 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. I cannot make heads-nor-tails of the evidence that Benon has posted, and nobody is telling me anything either, so I cannot oppose on that basis. However, I have another matter that has shaken my confidence in Sceptre. During the whole Nathanrdotcom incident I was being exceedingly helpful to Sceptre and Snopake and ultimately got rid of Nathan. However, Sceptre made the terrible misjudgement of forwarding my private conversations with him to other users, one of whom ended up forwarding that to Nathan, which added a whole new dimension of ugly to the situation. I cannot support for adminship a user who violates the confidence of an admin who is going out of his way, and potentially putting his neck on the line, to be helpful. --Cyde Weys 16:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I object, per the situations mentioned above. >Radiant< 17:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per lar --Ageo020 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Per Cyde, Tony, and Lar. You harass someone; you are unfit to be an admin. Ever. That is the cardinal offence. Moreschi 17:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Cyde. I don't know all of the details of the nathanrdotcom case, nor do I want to, but it sounds like Sceptre overreacted and made an ugly situation even worse. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per above, epecially Tony and Cyde. -- Kicking222 18:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral What Benon links to is incoherent, and I can't imagine those seconding him made heads or tails of his accusation. I suspect all the opposes are sockpuppetry. --Apantomimehorse 04:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't go around throwing out accusations you can't provide any evidence for. Myself, Lar and Benon are all established editors of Wikipedia and I personally find it offensive someone has called me a sockpuppet just to vote on an RFA. (Note I didn't throw in Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh's name because I have never heard of him but it still doesn't mean you should assume bad faith). — Moe Epsilon 05:01 September 19 '06
    Awyong is an admin who previously posted as User:kimchi.sg. Completely beyond doubt. ~ trialsanderrors 05:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I didn't realize Kimchi.sg changed his username. But still accusing two admins and myself of being sockpuppets of Benon was way over the line. — Moe Epsilon 05:11 September 19 '06
    Please spare a thought for editors with spelling problems (I know Benon previously mentioned he had a problem in this aspect). And to label all the opposes as sockpuppetry... whoa.
    Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Neutral. Unfortunately i'm far too confused about what happened with the nathanrdotcom ordeal to come to any decision. I've always seen sceptre as a "highly satisfactory admin", as it was put above, but the link from benon and a brief investigation of all of that have left me unsure as to whether or not sceptre should get the buttons back. (not to say that i've seen evidence he shouldn't; again, i just don't know what went down there, so . . .) Might change my vote in either direction, depending on what unfolds . . . Or, as it seems that we don't want to get in to a conversation over what happened with all that, i might just stay neutral and hope for people who know more than me to make good decisions regarding a possible re-sysopping. --heah 07:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. The link provided by Benon gives me cold feet. If a member of the Arbitration Committee could provide minimal and discrete insight into this matter it would be greatly appreciated. Yamaguchi先生 10:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, leaning towards oppose. Quite simply I don't understand this. User voluntarily desysops, then comes back to the community asking for resysopping (which, apparently, he doesn't need to do). But - does he provide any information at all on why he gave up the bit? What's changed? On top of this we get an unintelligible (to me) contribution from Benon, with Jimbo Wales apparently threatening to block this user. We're being asked to read between the lines here and it's not fair. Please either go to the bureaucrats and ask for your flag back, or tell us why you quit, what has changed, and what the Benon business is all about. --kingboyk 12:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (from NOT a sockpuppet, to address Apantomimehorse :) I'm a real person!!! :) ) Kingboyk, I agree it's a bit incoherent when you look at what is presented, as it is a chunk out of the middle. There was stuff that went on before that is not being disclosed for privacy reasons. The important thing to note is that while sceptre is saying he did not create vandal accounts or attack, he IS admitting that he said the things alleged (and regrets them) about trying to force actions on the part of [nameless admin]. The dots that you need to connect point to prior harassment of [nameless admin]. This is one of those situations where if everything comes out, additional hurt is coming down on innocent people. So I'm hoping that there will be corroboration forthcoming. Is this thing that happened in the past, which has been partly apologised for, enough to stop a candidacy? I think it is (with considerable regret, as I said) but everyone needs to make their own decisions. I hope that helped. To those asking me for more information beyond what I have made available, I must decline, without the permission of [nameless admin] no such info will be forthcoming for privacy reasons. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 19 September 2006 (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/Sceptre_2&oldid=1136071557"