Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pascal.Tesson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would like to thank all of those who weighed in during my request for adminship. Although the RfA was unsuccessful (73/26/6), I'll continue working on Wikipedia and helping the project, whichever way I feel I can contribute. I am very grateful for all the support that various editors gave me and will thus avoid spamming their talk page with thank you notices.

User:Pascal.Tesson

      run at Sun Jan 7 16:45:32 2007 GMT

Category talk:  57
Category:       212
Image:  12
Mainspace       4947
Portal: 1
Talk:   316
Template talk:  7
Template:       24
User talk:      1471
User:   73
Wikipedia talk: 307
Wikipedia:      1599
avg edits per article   1.49
earliest        18:22, 19 April 2006
number of unique articles       6040
total   9026

[edit] Moved from main page

It's not a good idea to say that editors are wasting everyone's time and apparently driving competent people away from Wikipedia when superficially delving into a content dispute. That is problematic -- Samir धर्म 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness this is a message I left to an individual editor (in response to her own [1]), giving my own take on things and reminding her that I have no competence to judge the matter in full. The very same message also explains why page protection is a good thing and suggests filing an RfC to obtain better input from the rest of the community. And I do believe that a number of disruptive editors are "wasting everyone's time and apparently driving competent people away from Wikipedia". Perhaps I was wrong in my evaluation that Droliver is one such editor but I firmly believe that many competent people don't have the patience to deal with systematic point-of-view pushing and that this is a real problem affecting Wikipedia as a whole. Pascal.Tesson 17:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I got curious on how the breast implant conflict was finally resolved. It seems that the user I criticized for POV-pushing is, not so surprisingly, refusing to accept consensus. [2] Pascal.Tesson 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My take on the Breast implant dispute

I answered TheronJ's question but the story got a bit longish so I'm moving it here to avoid an unnecessarily long RFA page.

A: I wasn't quite sure how I managed to get involved in this in the first place so I went back through my archives to try and figure it out. This all started when a Drzuckerman incorrectly reported user:Droliver on WP:AIV. [3] As I was doing RC duties, I happened to see it and got curious as to what that was all about. So I checked out Droliver's contributions and found very questionable POV-pushing diffs like this unexplained deletion of a full block of well-referenced text, this one on the breast implant controversy and this one about his mentor (I actually stated somewhere else that this was an autobio which I now remember is incorrect). Droliver had also moved his talk page to an archive which showed that he had not particularly listened to other editors' advice. I reverted all three diffs and commented on my finds at ANI and on the talk page of breast implant [4]. Jance contacted me [5] to thank me for what she saw as support. I replied to her [6] with a message that Samir feels was inflammatory. Indeed I might have been a bit careless but then again I really did feel that Droliver's behavior had generally been non-constructive and I followed up with some detailed advice which if anything must have helped jance cool down [7]. My only other contribution to the dispute was [8] in response to what I felt was a sad shunning of responsibilities by Samir [9] who invited people on the talk page to "duke it out". All in all, I think my behavior was basically correct, although I should have been more careful in my representation of Droliver's behavior. Mostly, I thought it would be helpful to the debate if someone actually having no interest in the dispute commented.

Update: sorry, I only pasted here the first half of my response which addressed the specific questions of TheronJ.

a) I don't think Samir should have taken sides against Droliver and I don't think I ever suggested that he should have, especially when coming in as a mediator. I can't comment much on how Samir eventually handled the issue since I did not follow the dispute after my first two comments.

b) As the protecting admin, I would have tried to cool things down by talking to the involved parties. I would also have contacted the relevant projects in order to get third-party competent editors to give their opinion on the matter and build consensus in that way (note that Samir may have done this eventually, I simply don't know how he finally handled it).

c) I don't think my first comment on Droliver's behavior was particularly productive but I don't think that refusing to call it as I see it would have made much sense either. POV-pushing is undeniably a problem which does not get resolved by simply ignoring it. However it would probably have been wiser to contact Droliver instead.

d) see c) above. I think my advice to Jance was overall positive, especially asking her to remain cool.

Pascal.Tesson 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I wish you no ill will on your RfA, but I really feel that by commenting in such disparaging terms regarding User:Droliver, you served more to inflame than to help settle things on the article. That's it. Best of luck to you. (Aside to Malber: I don't do IRC, and your comments on India were less than tasteful) -- Samir धर्म 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Image controversy.

I'll very concerned over people voting no because he is deciding not to help with images. Images are something admins should watch closely if they're very good abotu following policies on them. Plus, the admins that are handling them as it is are doign great. I feel that by him saying he won't take part in that actually made my support stronger, as it's pointless to bash someone who will avoid one part of wikipedia that's not all that troublesome other than tagging them to be deleted. Maybe it's just me, but I can't consider that a proper reason for opposition, mainly if that's the sole reason.--Wizardman 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)