Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pascal.Tesson 2

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: On the short term, I plan to use admin tools for my day-to-day activities. I often submit reports to WP:AIV or tag articles for speedy deletion and I'd be able to do this on my own. I also think that access to the history of deleted pages will help in making decisions about what to do with a particular user or article. As for the long term, I can't say really: the reason I've stuck around here is that I found new things to do as I went along and I believe the admin tools will just open other ways of contributing that I'm not entirely aware of.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm happy with my work on the notability guideline for books. It was started by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs) and the two of us continued to work on it and slowly built consensus. It finally became a guideline in February and has had a very quiet existence since. I've also been recently involved in the newly-formed categorization taskforce which has been successful beyond anybody's wildest expectations. Since Alaibot (talk · contribs) started tagging uncategorized articles from the database dump late last year, tens of thousands of articles have been categorized and often cleaned up in the process.

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 last time I experienced wiki-stress was my first RfA (of course, you don't run into so much conflict when doing categorization). I don't find that dealing with vandals in a civil fashion is too hard. It's harder to deal with other experienced editors who often have views so completely opposed to mind on matters of policy for instance but no AfD, policy or RfA reform discussion is worth a full-blown attack of wiki-stress. I'm more aware of this now than I used to be and my recent interaction with Durin on WT:RFA shows this I think.

Optional question from falsedef

4. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by reliable sources. The talk page consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, and therefore those editors replace the contentious edit with their own, without reliable sources. What sort of actions and compromises should be taken to resolve the issue?

A That's a bit too vague to answer properly. If the edit is backed up by reliable sources, why is it such a contentious edit in the first place? Is it because that bit of information is agreed upon to be correct yet irrelevant? Perhaps you've got a specific situation in mind. Pascal.Tesson 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's up to the nominee to think of reasons in which it would be appropriate to support (by policy) either side, and what would be an appropriate response to the situation. There's many valid answers, but make sure you're consistent with your reasoning. falsedef 03:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these are questions of policy. They're questions of common sense and discussion and in any case, an admin's role is not that of an arbitrator of editorial conflicts. Like I said, I'd be happy to tell you what I'd do given a specific scenario but I'm not going to dream up a problem then solve it. Pascal.Tesson 04:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins need to understand policy regardless of whether they'd used the tools to enforce it. The last two questions did not pertain to admin powers directly, if you didn't notice. If there's a dispute, then "common sense" would need to be backed up by policy, which may be discussed. It's not suppose to be an easy straight forward question, as harder disputes never are, but other nominees have been able to answer it quite admirably up until now. It seems like you're on the edge of answering the question, but refusing to answer it afterall. If the edit is backed up by reliable sources, why is it such a contentious edit in the first place? Is it because that bit of information is agreed upon to be correct yet irrelevant? Is it hard for you to elaborate? Because you've already stepped into your own scenarios. falsedef 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a grave misconception that common sense should be backed up by policy. That's the idea behind WP:IAR: the sort of dispute you have in mind will not be solved by bludgeoning someone with quotes from a particular policy. It will be resolved by simple courteous discussion during which it might become apparent that someone is unfamiliar with some basic principles: they can be reminded then. Pascal.Tesson 21:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)

5. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A Actually, I have no position on the issue because I've never given it any serious thought. There are too many ongoing complex debates to get deeply involved in more than a handful and this is not one I know much about. I do trust however that enough smart editors are involved and ultimately I trust their collective judgment. I am aware of that debate however, because I noticed the dispute came up in Gracenotes RfA (OT: I do have a position on that RfA: I think it's pretty counterproductive to oppose a candidate on grounds that he disagrees with the majority on a particular complex issue.) Pascal.Tesson 21:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Blackjack48 (talk · contribs)

6. After a recent MfD, many Wikipedians are debating the use of spoiler warnings in articles about books, movies, and stories. Where do you stand on this issue and do you use spoiler templates when reading these types of articles? Thank you. Blackjack48  ♠ ♣ 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A That is also a debate which I haven't followed closely so this is a fairly uniformed opinion. As a reader of the encyclopedia, I see the spoiler warning templates as an annoying and unnecessary distraction. I've always thought that this essay made very interesting points (at least about the spoiler tags) and the few arguments I read in favor of the tag always felt weaker than those in favor of removing them. Still, there might be room for some intermediate solution where the tag remains in exceptional cases where editors feel that the movie/novel/play might really be spoiled (and there are very very few of these). Pascal.Tesson 13:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Pascal.Tesson's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Pascal.Tesson: Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Support

1. Yes, yes, a thousand times. I couldn't support the last RfA because I was on a rare break, but this guy should've been an admin a long time ago. Exemplary user. – Riana ⁂ 07:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong support - I nominated him last time! Thoughtful user, will certainly help with the backlogs and not abuse admin tools. Kusma (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Support - Have seen this editor doing a great Job on Wikipedia and I believe he should have been an admin a long time ago..Anyways..Good Luck :)..----Cometstyles 07:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support He's a natural one now. Jmlk17 07:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Although I find this editor sometimes aggressive, I don't think that it's over the top or likely to be a problem (there are plenty of good admins more aggressive than Pascal). He appears to have made an effort since his last RFA, and is ready for the mop. AKAF 07:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support and good luck! The Rambling Man 07:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Of course. Incredible user. PeaceNT 07:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
8. support seems like a good conadate for admin. looking over his edits seems he have vasly improve sence then no reason to oppseOo7565 07:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. A hardworking and dedicated user. Has made a great improvement in understanding policies and guidelines since his previous RfA; he's ready for the tools. Krimpet (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - great things come from Pascal. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Can't think why I didn't support last time, but giving this user the tools is a Good Thing. —Xezbeth 07:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Ought to have passed on the first go. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Of course. Great contributions. the_undertow ^talk 08:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Support. I already asked Pascal if I could nominate him, and I'm still mystified as to why he prefers a self-nom to a third-party nom. Still, he should have been an admin a long, long time ago. Walton ^{(alternate account)} 08:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Of course. I don't need to read the whole nomination essay. I know a good editor when I see one. Good luck. :) YechielMan 08:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Supermassive Support based on what I've seen from this guy. G1ggy! 08:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong support. I've been very impressed by this user for some time and I am sure he will make an excellent admin. Will (aka Wimt) 09:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Sensible, level-headed, knows what to do.--Simul8 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support--MONGO 09:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Yep--Jersey Devil 11:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Prime candidate for demotion if that is what they wish. Pedro |  Chat  11:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Absolute support. I haven't yet had to use this cliché, but I thought you already were an admin. Best of luck. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 11:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support I have seen Pascal around and think he represents himself well. I have read through the previous RfA and note the issues raised there, however I believe that the intervening months have probably done much to correct his thinking on a few issues. I know of no reason to oppose this editor. Give him the tools. JodyB _talk 11:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Sean William 12:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. One of our best gnomes. -- Visviva 12:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Hell yes. Even has a dot in his name :) Daniel 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Bandwagon. >Radiant< 12:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Pascal should've been admin a long time ago. Excellent user, experienced, civil and level-headed. I've seen him gnoming around countless times. —Anas ^talk? 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. Great user, will use the tools well. --Mschel 13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - has already demonstrated a willingness to put time and hard work into improving the infrastructure around here, the tools will be of further benefit to him. AKRadecki 13:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Absolutely. I have seen this editor's excellent contributions wherever I go, including difficult areas like Wikipedia:Copyright problems. No doubt he will make a fine administrator. --Spike Wilbury 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Strong support per everyone else. Great user, should've passed last time around.--Wizardman 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Strong Support I urged him to apply again a few weeks ago, and am delighted that he has. A most valuable project member, with excellent skills and knowledge of policy.--Anthony.bradbury 14:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Support A fine candidate for the mop, I'm sure I have saw you at AfD when I edited as Tellyaddict. Good luck! — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support I supported back in January and my opinion hasn't changed in the interim - a strong candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support, definitely. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Strong support, should already be an admin. —AldeBaer 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Should have been made one last time imo. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Strong support an excellent self-nomination. From what I've seen of Pascal.Tesson, he is civil, assumes good faith all the time, and when it comes down to other users' RfA's he always gives a good opinion. Acalamari 16:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Support So that he can, for a change, remove articles from Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead of just listing them there and creating backlogs for admins. Garion96 (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
42. <Insert-cliche-here> Support A great editor who has made many improvements since his previous RfA. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Support - Solid user who does a lot of good work. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Support review of Pascal's contributions is impressive. -- Samir 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    and also for fairness as it really looks like his last RfA was adversely affected by sockpuppetry discovered after the fact -- Samir 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

45. Support - reliable and balanced contributor. Great knowledge of policy. No problems here :) - Alison ☺ 18:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support, good contributor. · jersyko talk 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
47. Old cliché support, honestly never knew you weren't one already. But that being the case, let's fix that! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Solid contributions and good improvements since last RfA. — Scientizzle 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Excellent candidate; great addition to the admincorps. Xoloz 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Great asset to Wikipedia. —METS501 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Support Excellent editor. Boricuaeddie ^{Spread the love!} 19:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
52. Strong support He deserved it before--hate that it was denied as a result of a sock. Better late than never ... Blueboy96 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Support alphachimp 20:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
55. Support It is all been said already--St.daniel ^Talk 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Rettetast 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    Support- I don't see why not, reguardless of what happened last time. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    Sockpuppet of banned user Molag Bal. Riana ⁂ 13:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

57. Support: Plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Seems like a great asset to the project, should make a fine administrator.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Strong Support Had I known about your intentions to go up for adminship again, I would have surely nominated you. PT is an excellent editor, and has made many amendments to the problems discussed in his previous RfA. I think he's qualified and ready for the tools now. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
59. Support. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
60. Support. A hard worker who can benefit by having more tools. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
61. Support - Outstanding candidate... JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
62. Support - ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
63. Support; everything's good here. Exceptional candidate. Antandrus (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
64. Support – He isn't one? Well, he certainly should be. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
65. Support. I enjoy reading what this user has to say; no concerns that he will abuse the tools.--Kubigula (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
66. Support --Húsönd 03:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
67. Per Kubigula and also because my interactions with him have always been positive. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. I have no doubt that you will use the tabs well. bibliomaniac15 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
69. Support, certainly. Sandstein 05:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
70. Support. Good and responsible contributor, should do well with admin tools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
71. Support. Tho I haven't been gifted the pleasure of interacting with Pascal yet, his editing skills and thoughtful comments even in the most heated situations have impressed me. Utterly qualified for the tools. Phaedriel - 07:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
72. Strong Support.--BozMo talk 10:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
73. Strong Support -- I thought Pascal already was an admin. great spam-fighter. Diplomatic yet firm. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
74. Strong support Ideal candidate, wikipedia has really been missing out by not having him as a sysop. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
75. Piley on without a doubt Support ^Khukri 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
76. Strong Support. Not sure I can add anything, but doesn't this qualify as "no brainer."? Orangemarlin 17:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
77. Support - My interaction with the user was pleasant, and he was caught in the act of tirelessly gnoming. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
78. Support Why wouldn't I? · AndonicO ^Talk 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
79. Another overdue Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
80. Support. I couldn't resist. Michaelas¹⁰ 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
81. Support My experiences with Pascal have been positive. Looking forward to working with him as an administrator. NawlinWiki 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
82. Support Great editor. M&NCenarius 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
83. Support Has made a tremendous contribution and will be a great admin. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
84. Support A remarkable contribution to the less glamorous but necessary task of making everthing work, especially in categorizing. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
85. Support vast improvements since last run - was it really that long ago? An interesting aside: I was informed of that first nomination by a Molag Bal sock ;) Martinp23 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
86. Support-Like last time. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Red Sux!) 00:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
87. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
88. Strong support. Not on the devil's number (87) anymore. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
89. Support I think Pascal will make a fantastic addition to the admin team and I have no hesitation in supporting him. Sarah 05:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
90. Support Would be a good admin. --Aude (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
91. Support Appears to be a high-quality candidate. JavaTenor 17:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
92. Support --Whsitchy 22:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
93. Support—Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
94. Support Somehow, I forgot to support. --Random ^{Say it here!} 03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
95. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
96. SupportJoshuaZ 14:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
97. Support, why not? AW 16:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
98. Support. I don't see any issues with this candidate. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
99. Support No doubt will do a good job. – B.hotep ^u/_t• 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
100. Support -- Gogo Dodo 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
101. Support per previous support. Αργυριου (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
102. Support per other supporters. Captain panda 22:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
103. Support Solid contributor. --Xdamr^talk 22:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
104. Support good contributor, solid records. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
105. Support has been a good contributor and demonstrates a common sense a approach to editing and collaborating; should have been approved last time around. Good at dealing with spam. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
106. Strong Support - I think falsedef is forgetting that WP:IAR is an official policy of Wikipedia ;) I support users who blend common sense with a respect for policy. --Edwin Herdman 01:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
107. Support, good editor. Terence 13:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
108. Aye. WjBscribe 15:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
109. Strong SupportI like your edits, everybody likes your edits. Good contributions. Besides I'd look dumb if I Opposed (1**-1-0), but really, good job and I hope you do well. •Felix• ^T 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
110. Support Eh, why not pile on? I supported firmly last time, and I imagine the project would have benefited from Pascal's being an admin the past four months; at least we'll not have to wait any longer. Joe 19:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
111. Support - congratualtions. I look forward to seeing you around the wiki. The Transhumanist    20:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
112. Support - name triggered my recognition response when I looked down the list of those currently at RfA. I've seen the candidate around the place, and I would trust them with admin tools. Carcharoth 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
113. No reason to oppose, and all issues have been addressed since last Rfa. --DarkFalls ^talk 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
114. Support - Agathoclea 06:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
115. Nothing more to say. Just support. MaxSem 14:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
116. Support Real96 11:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
117. Support in such an obviously contentious RfA, I have to say that he is a very strong candidate who can definitely be trusted. Experienced and willing to learn from his missteps. WilyD 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
118. Support good candidate.-- danntm ^T _C 14:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
119. Support just as I did in the last RfA. Good candidate, hardworking editor, and should make a good admin. Crystallina 16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
120. Strong Support great editor. —dima/talk/ 16:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
121. Support, but may want to bring up edits in Portal talk namespace. :-) Abeg92contribs 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
122. Strong and serious support Per all of the above. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
123. Support. Definitely. the wub "?!" 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
124. Support, I have seen nothing but fine work from this editor and am sure he will do the same as an admin.--Slp1 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
125. Support.--Tone 22:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
126. Support I don't see the need to give my reasons! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
127. just kidding - it's support actually. <<-armon->> 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

     took the liberty of moving to the right section. Pascal.Tesson

128. Support as very insightful at AfD.DGG 03:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
129. Support Despite my aversion to cannabilism and polygamy, I support this RfA.  :) --Tbeatty 05:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
130. Support --Ahonc (Talk) 10:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)