Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pascal.Tesson: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 18:45, 19 May 2022

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

Pascal.Tesson[edit]

Final (73/26/6); Ended Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:25:03 (UTC)

Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) – Pascal Tesson is a mathematician and computer scientist from Quebec City. He has been with us since April 2006 and has made more than 8,000 edits since then (or more than 9,000 - the edit counters seem to disagree on the actual number). He has been active in a wide range of tasks - categorization, new page patrol including warning the creators [1] [2], AfD, CfD, fighting vandalism (80 edits to WP:AIV, all that I checked were blocked), and commenting at WP:FAC. Very often, he doesn't just complain, but helps to fix the article, see Germany (FA nom, ongoing) or Leonhard Euler (FA nom, promoted). He has experience with our WP:DR process, as evidenced by this RfC he filed, and has been highly active in various notability guideline discussions. Did I mention that he's a spam fighter as well? In conclusion, this is a very well-rounded and highly experienced editor, and Wikipedia would clearly benefit from giving him the mop. Kusma (討論) 12:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I (gratefully) accept the nomination Pascal.Tesson 15:58, 7 January 2007 (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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As a start, I expect to use the administrative tools when doing Newpage or Recentchanges patrol. In many cases, I've found myself reporting a vandal on WP:AIV and refreshing that user's contributions to systematically undo his edits while waiting for an admin to impose a block. I've also placed a large number of speedy deletion tags on Newpages (which, by the way, might explain the discrepancy on the different edit counts) and this has always struck me as somewhat of a waste of time since some admin then has to make the same judgment call later on. Furthermore, I expect that admin tools, particularly the ability to see deleted pages, will help me make better decisions especially when doing vandal fighting. Whenever I find new ways to contribute to Wikipedia, I tend to be careful and I start with simple stuff I'm confident I can handle. I don't expect to behave differently with the admin tools. Along the way, I suppose that I will find other, more complex ways in which these can help me contribute.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've stuck around as an editor mostly because I've contributed in different ways at different times which, I find, keeps things interesting. I was indeed involved in spam-fighting, used to be quite active at the village pump and on AfD, did some good article assessment at one point, worked on structuring Category:French writers, etc. Recently, I've worked quite a bit on the backlog of uncategorized articles. Since August, the backlog has exploded because of new bots but an army of experienced gnomes has helped to keep it under control. In particular, the 13000+ articles uncategorized articles in October were categorized in about 50 days. Obviously, I only deserve a small part of the credit for this feat but I think it was also made possible because the most active participants discussed their progress and challenged one another (see the talk pages of October and September) and I was part of that cheerleading team. I'm also proud of my work with Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs) related to the development of the (proposed) notability criteria for books (Incidentally, if I may, comments are still very welcome on that talk page since I hope that this can soon become a guideline) and of the help I provided Borisblue (talk · contribs) in getting Leonhard Euler FA-status.
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: Sure. I don't think it's possible to completely avoid those. Because I've been working mostly as a gnome recently I can't recall any recent incidents. I got into a fairly serious conflict with Rrfayette (talk · contribs) a few months ago, resulting in this RfC. The user has disappeared since. I did let it get to me a bit [3] [4] [5] but I tried to find help to cool things down [6]. I also remember an ugly dispute around a handful of users spamming the Logo article. The dispute involved pretty much everybody involved in the spam-fighting project. In that case, I was probably not as civil as I should have been [7] but eventually calm prevailed. I opened and documented a sockpuppetry case as well as a case for the blacklisting of the involved url. Overall, I think I'm able to keep my cool and patiently iron out differences with other users. This is also easier to do now that I know my way around here and can point new users to the relevant resources.

Optional question from badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

4. What does WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you, and how would you apply them?
A: I'm not sure I use IAR per se but I see it as an important reminder that common sense should prevail above rules. By nature, policies and guidelines are written so that their spirit is clear, not so that they hold up in a court of law and I see IAR as mostly saying "follow the spirit of the rules, not their word" rather than "if the spirit of the rule is inconvenient, disregard it".
As for WP:SNOW, I don't use it much except in comments to poor WP:FAC nominations. Because the FA process tends to be harsh and because people commenting usually spend a lot of time evaluating articles, I think such nominations should be withdrawn rapidly.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
A: Of course, a lot depends on the actual content of the biographical article. Certainly, if the editor is also the creator and sole editor of the article, the most natural move is to simply userfy the content (which, by the way, I've done a few times as a non-admin). Otherwise, and assuming that the biography is notable enough, I would most likely begin by leaving a message on the editor's talk page to remind him of our guidelines on conflicts of interest. It's a bit tricky to answer the question in absolute terms however. Sometimes, the best idea is to tag it as an autobiography (especially if I feel incompetent to edit the page myself), sometimes reverting the article to a more neutral version is also possible and the rationale for doing so can be explained on the talk page.
6. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A: When doing RC patrol, I've often stumbled onto articles which, for some short period of time, are targets of a group of vandals (or more precisely harmless but annoying pranksters) who, typically, are anonymous users or single-purpose accounts. I've seen that happen quite often with school articles. Semi-protection in this case would be a convenient alternative to IP-blocks especially when the IPs are shared school IPs.
A: (second try) Malber (talk · contribs) has suggested I review this answer so here goes. Actually, my most honest answer would probably "no I can't name such a circumstance". Not because I think semi-protection is useless but simply because I don't know that policy well enough and have not bothered to understand its finer points. But as I mentioned before, it's not my style to actually do work around here without first understanding what it implies, looking for examples of how to do things right and asking questions if need be. (see also [8]) Pascal.Tesson 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: (third try, duh...) Actually, reading the RfA just above mine, it suddenly hit me right in the face that I had misread the question as "one circumstance where it would be appropriate to semi-protect". I suppose most of the readers had figured this out from my otherwise completely absurd answers. But as far as Malber's real question is concerned, sure, there are tons of circumstances for which semi-protection is inappropriate: when you start doing RC patrol, it's tempting at first to think that it would be oh so much easier to do if anons couldn't edit. But Wikipedia is also what it is thanks to anons and new editors. Semi-protecting as a preemptive measure should only be used for the most serious targets of continuous vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 05:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: When G11 was put into effect I got involved in the debate surrounding cookie-gate (I'm sure a few remember what I'm talking about) and I voiced my opinion back then. (see e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive14#Learning_lessons_from_the_cookie_debacle). For the record, I think that G11 was a very much needed addition to WP:CSD but it should be primarily used in the context of newpage patrols where the more blatantly promotional articles can be identified. Once the article has a bit of history and has been edited by a few editors or has been linked to in different contexts, even apparent G11 candidates should go the AfD route. Not only does it make more sense but it also avoids frustration in the community. I'm not sure whether the recommendation is being followed but someone suggested on the CSD talk page that in fringe cases, it's probably best, even as an admin, to tag the article first and let at least another admin do the actual deletion so that the judgement call is not made by a single person. Pascal.Tesson 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)

8. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high?
A: That's one tough question. As I said I used to be fairly active on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam but have taken the talk page off of my watchlist for some time now because, well, there's only so much I can do with my time. At one point I thought the right answer was to have nofollow on all our links until this nice discussion with BozMo put some doubt in my mind. By having external links, as BozMo put it, we are helping the web not to suck. If you don't mind me asking a question back: why are we so frustrated with spam on Wikipedia? That's a trickier question than it seems.
I don't think we should allow any myspace, youtube and so on links on Wikipedia but I don't think it makes sense to outlaw them either. These occasionally provide useful content and more often then not (certainly from youtube) these links are added in good-faith by well-meaning editors. Youtube also presents a special problem because of the copyright issues.
How bad is the spam situation? That's not an easy question either. It's very bad in the sense that we are being targeted extensively. It's not that bad in the sense that we are taking care of it fairly efficiently thanks in part to a group of devoted spam-fighters. I don't think that strengthening WP:EL would make much of a difference (unless it became wildly restrictive), I don't think the spam-problem will ever disappear, I don't even think that getting rid of spam should be an objective because that would create more problems than it would solve. Pascal.Tesson 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from 121.6.97.235

9. You went to your relative house and you notice that he is vandalizing alot of pages and he is still not blocked. What will you do and why?
A: Report him to AIV. Accidentally spill my coffee on his modem. Pascal.Tesson 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from TheronJ

10. I'm curious to hear your opinion of what you were trying to accomplish in your interaction on the breast implant debate Samir discusses below. (The debate is generally archived here). (a) Do you still think that, as the protecting admin, Samir should have taken sides against user:Droliver and in favor of the other editors? (b) How would you have resolved the issue if you had been the protecting admin? (c) Given that Samir did choose to take a neutral approach, do you think that your intervention assisted the page's editors in reaching concensus and why? Lastly, (d) if you came across a similar situation today as an editor, would you resolve it in the same way or differently, and, if differently, how? Thanks, TheronJ 20:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I started answering the question but my answer became a bit too large and I've moved it Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Pascal.Tesson#My take on the Breast implant dispute to avoid clogging this page. Please let me know if you have any extra questions on that summary. Pascal.Tesson 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Gandoman (talk · contribs)

11. On your user page, you have a userbox stating that you are a deletionist. Also, judging by your contributions, you are very active in placing WP:PROD tags and listing articles on WP:AFD. What is your take on when an article should be deleted instead of being improved? How do you think this would affect your judgment when closing AfDs?
A: Let me answer both your question and your oppose opinion below. Yes, I do believe that I tend to be a deletionist. As that page explains, "Deletionism is a philosophy held by some Wikipedians that favors clear and relatively rigorous standards for accepting articles, templates or other pages to the encyclopedia." By contrast, quoting from the inclusionism description on Meta, "Inclusionism is a philosophy held by Wikipedians who favor keeping and amending problematic articles over deleting them. Inclusionists are also generally less concerned with the question of notability, and instead focus on whether or not an article is factual." I respect both points of view but I do lean strongly towards the former. Indeed, a large majority of my AfD votes argue for deletion. This, of course, is partly due to the fact that a large number of articles that come up on AfD are in flagrant contradiction with our various policies and I think inclusionists also agree with that statement of fact. For the more controversial AfDs I am often on the side of deletion. Note that I don't tend to argue for deletion because I'm a deletionist. I'm a deletionist because I tend to argue often for deletion. Although I am sure one can easily find exceptions, I try to offer precise opinions on AfD, not "nn-cruft" opinions. This is made easier by my fairly good knowledge of the various notability guidelines (I was quite active on the talk page of WP:NN and still am on WP:BK).
When doing categorization, new page patrol and cleanup of Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance (all hobbies of mine) you end up finding a lot of pages which are either candidates for speedy deletion and pages which don't fit those precise criteria but are uncontroversial deletion candidates for which a prod tag is more appropriate than an unnecessary AfD process. When in doubt I take the AfD route.
I don't think that my own opinions on deletionism should or will affect my judgement when closing AfD. The role of the closing admin is not to hear the evidence and make a judgement on whether the article should be kept or not. It is to read the discussion and determine whether a rough consensus on the matter has emerged. The inherent judgement call has nothing to do with the admin's personal preference. Pascal.Tesson 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support Ever since the events of that RfC which I think he handled very well I kept noticing Pascal on WP:AIV and the surounding edits showed to me that we have a editor here that is prepared to follow guidelines and is prepared to listen to advice. Agathoclea 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support I have first interacted with Pascal while working on the article Germany. Since then, I have seen him around in other venues as well. He also has a very good distribution of edits, so I am sure that he has not neglected a single aspect of Wikipedia. I have full confidence in his ability as an editor, and I am certain that he will make a great administrator. TSO1D 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong nominator support. Kusma (討論) 16:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support Pascal Teason is one of the finest editors here on Wikipedia, he is a genius at fighting spam, catching sockpuppets, and he has made good quality contributions to wikipedia, he's a helping aware user who knows what he's doing. I think he certainly deserves adminship.Rasillon 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't think I've done a Strong support ever (this may be my first), but he's deserving of it. As soemone 've actually worked with (by worked with I mean occasionally adding in a category or two to the uncategorizxed backlog while he worked his butt off to clear it). Plus his answers are great and his edits are spread out very well. --Wizardman 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support A strong candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Wizardman. --tennisman sign here! 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support Having worked closely with Pascal, as he notes in response to question 2, I have been impressed with his edits from the first day we crossed keyboards. Reviewing his last 1,000 edits, I see nothing but more to recommend him: he warns users for spam, notifies editors when tagging for speedy deletion, welcomes users, always uses edit summaries, categorizes pages, adds citations to articles, prods articles before taking to afd, writes his own talk page warnings/advice notes where no template is suitable, and generally edits across a wide variety of pages and topics, showing his experience. He will make a fine admin.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. A great catch, I was going to nominate him a while ago. Now, I forgot why I never did lol. Nishkid64 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support good user, not likely to abuse the tools. ← ANAS Talk? 19:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Supports. Could use the tools, will use them well. Agent 86 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes Jaranda wat's sup 19:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: Highly qualified candidate, good contributions in several different areas. I have reviewed the issue raised by Samir's Oppose !vote find it to be a long way from outweighing the candidate's positives. Newyorkbrad 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I've always been a fan of P.T's contributions, and I don't doubt that he will use the tools in a positive fashion. -- Kicking222 19:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support John254 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - does a great job and no reason not to trust with the tools --BigDT 21:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. SupportUser has tons of experiance and is clearly capable of the work expected from a good admin.Ganfon 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Well respected editor, who will not abuse the tools. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Pascal is a excellent, hardworking editor who has plenty of experience in varying areas as seen in the responses for the questions. Crystallina 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Good all-round contributor with excellent broad-base knowledge of wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 22:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support "Thought you were one..." --Groggy Dice T | C 23:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Strong now that opposers have made their case, and their arguments have struck me as really weak. !Voting keep in an AfD where many other people are !voting keep? Saying he will recuse himself from an area where he is inexperienced? If this is the worst that can be said about Pascal, I feel safe trusting him with the mop. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support -Solid answers to questions. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Our paths have crosssed many times and I have always appreciated this editor's approach and good sense. ✤ JonHarder talk 00:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Seen you around before. I can't remember where or when, but I think it was good. The JPStalk to me 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I've noticed that Pascal is a pretty active; good contributions overall and thoughtful answers to nomination questions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Seems like a great choice.UberCryxic 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Yuser31415 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Clearly a thoughtful and diligent contributor. --Kukini 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Seems like a good risk/benefit wager. Alai 05:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thankful for the support but... "wager"? "risk"? :-) Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concerned, that's the essential question in any RFA. Any given sysop will hopefully do some amount of useful admin; giving someone the bit carries some finite danger of them doing something counterproductive or controversial with the tools. (The generic nature of the comment betokens more that I have nothing very original to say in support, rather than being any particular to this case.) Alai 05:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Helpful, patient, and committed. --Vsion 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. JorcogaYell! 06:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I've had good experiences with this user. >Radiant< 09:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support. Many of the 'opposes' are based on shaky reasoning (to say the least).Proto::► 09:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, this is good, no problems with him. Terence Ong 10:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to oppose, after evidence provided by Samir and Nearly Headless Nick. Terence Ong 13:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support - almost no problems with strong experience on Wikipedia. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support: hard working, level-headed contributor looking for consensus and looking for ways to improve the encyclopedia, by writing, maintaining (e.g. the categorization), and if necessary deleting, and also by discussing and proposing things (e.g. WP:HOTELS, where I think I first met him). Fram 10:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I've seen Pascal contributing w/ good edits around. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Seen him around, and seems a great all-round contributor, so yes. Can't imagine the opposes are anything but trivial, although I would be concerned if similar actions in the past were uncovered. – Chacor 12:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support contra Samir and Mimsy. Fine candidate. crz crztalk 13:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Well, thinking of what his description is, he seems like an Admin already. Go for it Pascal. Tesson! RyGuy Happy New Year! 13:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Good answers to most of the questions. Seems to display understanding and use of mop. Suggest nominee review and reanswer question 6. Also vote to counter negative votes by #wikipeidia-in bloc. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I completely agree with question #1. Great answers. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 14:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support -- I've worked closely with Pascal as part of WikiProject Spam. That sort of work is an acid test for a potential admin. More than the average vandal, a persistent spammer gets very aroused; the same sense of entitlement that lets them spam even after multiple warnings makes them indignant and belligerent when caught. Furthermore, seeing their potential income cut by losing their Wikipedia links also makes them aggressive in defending "their" turf. Pascal has always dealt with these situations very firmly and calmly. I was impressed enough to give him a barnstar a while back (not something I do every week). --A. B. (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, good candidate. Mangojuicetalk 14:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support sensible and thoughtful kind of guy --BozMo talk 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Has put in great effort with vandalism in math articles. CMummert 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Level-headed and a joy to work with, even when on opposite sides of a given issue. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. --Tone 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support plenty of good reasons to do so stated above. Argyriou (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - (hope I'm not repeating anyone above too much) - has plenty of user talk and WP space as well as general mainspace edits; fights spam, but not to the exclusion of all else. A good catch (where do you guys go trawling for these guys?) Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per above comments. м info 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak Support Samir's and Nick's arguments bother me, but I still find his contributions to be quite impressive and concerns to be minor ones. Alex Bakharev 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support as above Bwithh 04:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Good candidate. In the future, concerns about a mediation of the sort below should be brought directly to the mediator's talk page, as questioning the mediator or evaluating parties in a dispute can diminish the authority of the mediator in the eyes of the disputing parties and inflame hostilities. His comments in the specific AfDs mentioned below are casual but they do contain a bulk of serious argument, and comments on other AfDs have hardly been frivolous. —Centrx→talk • 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support smart, thoughtful editor GabrielF 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Able editor and guardian of the project. The tendency of editors and admins from a certain country to gang upon certain users with A+ lame arguments is very disturbing. Skobelief 16:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Banned user Kuntan as confirmed by checkuser Dmcdevit. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We Canadians often have A+ lame arguments. -- Samir धर्म 23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Skobelief, with all due respect, your lack of policy and guideline knowledge becomes apparent here. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What becomes apparent here once again is that both the above commentors are regular trolls on pages where exchange of opinion occurs, and regular riggers of RfAs. Skobelief 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing bureaucrat: This appears to be a single purpose account. This traitor is from my country too. :] — Nearly Headless Nick 06:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, strong candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Joe I 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Encountered user before, positive experience. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support solid record of contributions. I disgree with his AfD positions, but don't find them as poorly stated as some of the opposers claim. Opposing because he chooses not get involved with images - an area that relatively few admins actively seek out - strikes me as particularly strange. Opabinia regalis 02:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support would be an excellent addition--Hu12 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support excellent editor. Give him the mop. --Tbeatty 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support this editor's being given the mop. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Lectonar 08:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, good answers to questions, good contribution history, and none of the opposing reasons are very convinving. - Bobet 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Support No problems with this user.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 03:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong Strong Support A great Wikipedian that really does deserve the tools. --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support --Mardavich 09:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Firm support, bien sûr, consistent with my RfA guidelines and per, inter al., Opabinia regalis. Joe 06:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support will make good use of the mop --rogerd 18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I'm not sure I trust him whatsoever. I was asked to help sort out the mess at Breast implant and I felt that Pascal's involvement served more to harm than to help the situation there. -- Samir धर्म 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For those interested in the context, here are Pascal's contributions to the talk page in question: [9], [10], where he criticizes Samir's actions. Kusma (討論) 16:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't the criticism of my actions that bothered me. That's sort of par for the course when dealing with difficult issues. It was his blanket statements about one of the major contributors to that page without having looked into the situation thoroughly: [11] -- Samir धर्म 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I got involved in this by accident. But I gave my opinion and I think I did so in an objective way. I checked the contributions of Droliver (talk · contribs) and did find a number of very questionable POV-pushing diffs [12] and the suspected autobiography G. Patrick Maxwell. From the get-go I stated that I had no competence whatsoever in plastic surgery but simply felt as an editor that the actions of this user were disruptive and I still believe this to be the case. In any case, my involvement in this dispute was quite superficial so I'm not quite sure why one would feel that my stated opinion was so problematic. Pascal.Tesson 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    discussion moved to talk page Samir धर्म 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Samir. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not, user does not understand WP:NPOV as it is apparent from his participation on this AfD – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hookers with hearts of gold. I am sure, more will turn up upon extensive reviewing of edits. You will find arguments like "high entertainment value" (which does not look like a joke after a follow-up on his arguments) and "the list is useful" (see WP:ILIKEIT) and and asking Doc_glasgow to apply common sense. All I see is a defence of a WP:OR, subjective list that violates one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia (read WP:NPOV). Needs to understand policies better, not admin material. Also could you explain what "listo-phobia" and "wiki-bribery" means? — Nearly Headless Nick 12:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See also – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous short men (2nd nomination). — Nearly Headless Nick 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To defend Pascal a little on this one, there wasn't really much to go on in either direction with the "Heart of gold" AfD, and his arguments were quite strong. I can't exactly say the same for the one below, but I don't think this AfD shows a lack of understanding of the policies you cite. Just my two cents. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no authoritative definition of "hookers with hearts of gold", absolutely unencyclopedic. Also, his arguments were more on the likes of WP:ILIKEIT. I see no understanding of WP:RS, WP:V either. Also, I am not impressed by the overly-confrontational zeal on display by candidate. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me try to address these concerns. I don't want to fork the debate on Hooker with a heart of gold but my position, as I tried to explain, is that this is a well-documented archetype and that there are more than enough reliable sources to build a very decent article on the subject. There is no authoritative definition of Blaxploitation, Film noir, Mindfuck, Bildungsroman, yet we are able to construct decent and valuable articles on those subjects and list classical examples. Of course, I do like that particular list and I do find it entertaining but I believe that I presented solid arguments in favor of keeping that list that go beyond my own personal preference. Now you may very well disagree with these and there really would not be a need for AfD debates if we all agreed on everything. I've participated in many XfDs and I believe I've shown good understanding of the core policies. In that particular instance, I felt (and still do) that editors who argue for deletion over-interpret the policy on original research. Is there an authoritative book on hookers with hearts of gold in fiction? Probably not but there certainly exist a vast amount of scholarly work on archetypes in fiction, many of which list this one as a classical cliché. The article in question does not introduce new ideas, does not define new terms, does not introduce a new theory (WP:OR), it talks about an archetype which has been discussed in a number of reliable sources (film theory books, reputable film critics, see also Mangojuice's note in the debate). I did make a call for common sense in the debate because I believe that Doc (among others) was treating the question of sources as if the debate was actually about a list of (non-fictional) prostitutes with great human qualities. This of course would be clearly an unacceptable topic (for so many more reasons than NPOV) but the debate in question should be treated in the same way that we would treat any list of the form "list of fictional characters fitting archetype X".
    As for my use of "listophobia" and "wikibribery" the first refers to the fact that this list was originally nominated for deletion as part of a large group of list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors and while I'm not a big fan of lists, I do think that there are a number of arguments used in AfD that come too close to "I don't like lists". The "wikibribery" part was a harmless joke to explain my willingness to address the concerns of trialsanderrors (talk · contribs) about keeping those articles while pledging for a cleanup and a work of referencing that never does get done. Pascal.Tesson 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not all too happy with PT's postion in the AfD (which seems to boil down to "If it's being kept I'll help sourcing"), but I don't see the lack of knowledge of policies Nick accuses him of. On the other hand, Bildungsroman not having authorative definitions strikes me as complete bunk. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Doc's arguments (or anybody else's for that matter) verge on I don't like lists (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), his singular argument makes it very clear that such lists are subjective and are against one of the five pillars of Wikipedia (WP:NPOV). As for the Blaxploitation, Film noir, Mindfuck and Bildungsroman articles you cite, there is reliable information present for the first two articles (see the sources section). Also, an argument that there are other such articles so this should be kept, doesn't work wonders with me. I'm simply saying that most entries in this list can be backed up by finding authoritative and scholarly film commentary that support the claim that the said entry fits the archetype. – I don't see any authoritative or scholarly film commentary cited by you as a source for the list. As for T&E's comment above, I appreciate that you do not agree with me on one count, however I am not accusing him of anything. This is fair criticism, and that is why he is up for an RfA. Please choose appropriate words when commenting again. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose, great editor with lots of experience, but several concerns make me consider this candidate for adminship again, as per Samir and Nearly Headless Nick. Terence Ong 13:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Good user, but concerns raised by Samir and Nick bother me.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose (at this time) his participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hookers with hearts of gold convinces me that he does not really understand what we mean by objectivity, and hasn't really grasped reliable sources [13] either (i.e. not blogs). Whilst I'm sure he's a great guy, I'd be mightly uncomfortable with him closing AfDs or making deletion calls at this time. Get some more experience.--Docg 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that you are misrepresenting my position on sources. I'm not saying that blogs are reliable sources. I'm simply saying that most entries in this list can be backed up by finding authoritative and scholarly film commentary that support the claim that the said entry fits the archetype. Pascal.Tesson 15:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, only one of those sources was a blog. I'm still concerned that you think that the fact one or two critics think something is the case is sufficient for Wikipedia to list it as an objective fact. It should be obvious that NPOV demands that subjective lists are removed. Articles can record various views and thus comply with NPOV, but lists have to make a choice to include or not. We can't allow lists with subjective criteria.--Docg 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree with this. A list is capable of exploring both sides of an issue -- there is room for annotation. And in many cases the alternative to subjective criteria is arbitrary objective criteria (see e.g. list of countries), and while many of these lists are among the most important on the site, it's not clear that this situation is a lot better. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per all of the above commentators. My major conserns stem from the user's labelling of others as mentioned by Samir, and the very distrubing fact that his inappropriate comments and actons in some AfDs have been pointed out as occuring during the last few days - who knows how many othe comments like those mentioned this user has made on AfDs which are now closed? I feel that these actions together indicate that extra experience with policy can only improve this candidate, and I suspect that he will pass with RfA despite my oppose. There's a lot of good from this candidate, which he should be proud of, but the issues brought up here are compelling enough for me to oppose. Martinp23 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Samir and Nearly Headless Nick bring up some startling points. I do not feel you are ready for closing AFDs and other duties carried out by administrators. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    weak oppose - lack of experience with images --T-rex 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Touché. I have no experience whatsoever with images. On the other hand, I don't plan to get involved with images as an admin. Pascal.Tesson 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Samir and NHN. Whenever I see terms like "listophobia" and "wikibribery" I see someone I wouldn't even support in an AfD, much less trust to administrate. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per his comment above "I have no experience whatsoever with images. On the other hand, I don't plan to get involved with images as an admin." I'd support if he were willing to take on new areas, but a candidate who has no experience with images and doesn't plan to get involved with them I wouldn't. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. I do not have any interest in dealing with images. In my 8000 + edits, I have uploaded a grand total of 4 images, none since mid-October when I figured I was happy just finding whatever I could on Commons or uploading images there. As a user and as an eventual admin, I do get to choose what tasks, chores and editing projects I get involved with and images are simply not an area of Wikipedia that I'm interested in. Why should that be held against me? Pascal.Tesson 08:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (extra clarification per request of T-rex on my talk page.)
    I am not claiming extensive experience on Commons. My user account there is also Pascal.Tesson. My limited contributions consist of a handful of uploads and a couple of questions to the reference desk which, I suppose, indicates that I try and figure out how to do things properly before proceeding. What I meant in the previous paragraphs is that I'm not really interested in the hunt for GFDL images and I'd rather search Commons for relevant images when I need them. I've added a few to Leonhard Euler and Germany while I was helping out the FA process, most recently in Blaise Pascal. This is also a by-product of my own natural (and gnome-ish) interests on Wikipedia. I've done a lot of cleanup work on categorization and articles of unclear importance, neither of which requires mastery of the finer points of fair use. Same goes for my involvement in guideline development and for my contributions to math or theoretical computer science articles where images are quite often irrelevant since no illustration will help understand the definition of an aperiodic monoid. While I haven't worked much on images, I did report a number of copyright problems while doing categorization and used db-copyvio fairly often on Newpage patrol. I believe it shows that I am genuinely concerned with copyright questions. Pascal.Tesson 18:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - this is a very unfair reason to oppose, and I would hope the closing bureaucrat takes that into account. Michael, would you have preferred it if Pascal had said 'I don't have any experience or interest in dealing with images, so will become very involved in dealing with them as an admin'? Proto::► 11:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are expected to be knowledgeable of our policies and guidelines (in this case WP:FU). At least, I, for one, cannot accept an admin, who acts clueless when it comes to an important issue like dealing with images. I don't understand how you can term that as a shaky ground. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears he does not currently intend to act at all with regard to images, and so therefore could not act cluelessly. If and when he decides to deal with images, do you not think he will become familiar with the issues before acting? —Centrx→talk • 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FU is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Admins need to have a minimum understanding of applying policies and guidelines. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have a basic understanding of the fair-use policy. It's actually impossible to work as an editor without seeing images come and go because of fair-use issues and I'm curious by nature so I have read WP:FU a number of times. I also gave my opinion on the (relatively) recent discussion at the Village Pump on fair use and publicity photos. Nevertheless I'm perfectly aware that this is not something I understand well enough or have enough experience with to get too involved with. Pascal.Tesson 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thought I'd say that the user who commented below this seems to be reading my mind, he sums up my views precisely. There's not much point in me boring you all with a rant of my own, so see below for Heligoland's take on it. :) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose: I'm still concerned over the listcruft issue, but this compounded with the candidate not wanting to have any part in patrolling images and rectifying image problems forces me to Oppose. Admins are likely to come across a variety of image related problems, problems often find admins as well as admins finding problems. I understand where Proto is coming from on this, but to a certain extent, administrators cannot realistically pick and choose their workload for much of the time. Users will visit your talk page when they spot you are an administrator and they expect you to be able to help them, so someone might appear on your talk page and let you know that someone has been uploading images in violation of WP:FU on an article they (and perhaps you) have been involved in editing. It wouldn't be such a problem but there are colossal image backlogs much of the time, a huge amount of copyright violations and that's only what we know about, a random sampling of pages frequently reveals images without copyright tags, incorrect tags, images which could be moved over to Commons and there's frequently fair use rationale is missing from a images. I know deleting incorrectly used fair use images is unpopular, asking for fair use rationale and sources is very unpopular but it's a job that needs to be done as there are so few admins who are seem to be interested in patrolling images I'm very reluctant to Support a new administrator who wants to have no part in patrolling images in any way, shape or form. Sorry. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a programmer and can't write or maintain bots, tho I know what they are. Can I never become an admin?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose for now - the combination of factors above troubles me even though he seems a good guy. Be back after some more investigation — Lost(talk) 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Heligoland. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Samir and Doc. More experience is, in this case, a very simple solution to every concern regarding the candidate. Xoloz 16:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose: User is very active when it comes to article deletion, either by listing articles as WP:PROD or on WP:AFD, as well as advertising his deletionist stance on his user page. Also, he has had an aggressive/WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance in several AfDs, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orion globe where he calls an editor who removed his WP:PROD tag a "deprod specialist", and in this and several others he calls articles he doesn't like "cruft". I therefore fear that he cannot be trusted with deletion powers, and that the fact that he has to take articles to AfD is a necessary "check" on this user's impulses to delete pages. Gandoman 17:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has made precisely one edit (his userpage) before voting on this RfA. Kusma (討論) 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per above, especially Samir. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 06:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak oppose The alternative to deletionism is not necessarily inclusionism and you give me cause to worry about how you will act closing delete !votes. Sorry. I loved the last 3 sentences of your answer to Q1 - they almost persuaded me to a Neutral. --Dweller 10:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, the "deletionist" tag is a relatively good description of my general approach to the deletion process but it does not dictate my behavior. Pascal.Tesson 14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: Should I give any more reasons! Several ones already pointed out are highly disturbing. However, I know Pascal is a fast learner and a nice person indeed. --Bhadani 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Samir, NHN and listcruft - pushing for that unencyclopedic list means he is not aware of the difference between original research and verifiability per reliable sources. I personally consider these (along with WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL) to be our cornerstones. Crum375 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose instead. Still per Eagle 101 though. Just H 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per concerns raised in above discussions/comments. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - I definitely have a hard time trusting on AfD.Bakaman 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - we cannot have admins going around closing XfDs on the basis of ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT. That way lies lots of ill-feeling and a thousand DRVs. More generally, recourse to ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT shows a lack of working knowledge of policy. Moreschi Deletion! 17:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I couldn't agree more. We can't have admins closing XfDs on the basis of ILIKEIT or IDONT but I don't understand why you would assume that I would behave in that way. My participation in the debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hookers with hearts of gold hardly boils down to me arguing that "I like it". I have participated in probably hundreds of XfDs thus far and, I humbly suggest, have been careful in detailing my rationale for keeping or deleting. In any case, as I've explained in my answers to Gandoman (above) and Heligoland (below), I firmly believe that an admin's own opinion on the value of an article should not be factor when closing XfDs. The admin's task is simply to determine whether a rough consensus on the issue exist and to close the XfD accordingly. Pascal.Tesson 00:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per above. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 16:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Oppose per Terence Ong. The questions lingering make me worry. Yankee Rajput 19:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Was leaning to support because I agree with his stance in those list AfDs (we need as many lists as possible here). However, I could never support someone who starts an AfD nom with the non-word "cruft" or its various trite permutations: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orion globe. To me, that is a serious slur against all users who contribute material to wikipedia articles. It unnecessarily adds an additional degree of confrontation and belittlement to a process that needs no stoking in that regard. I would hope this user would more carefuly weigh the impact of his words in future AfD nominations or elsewhere at wikipedia.--JJay 20:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Samir and NHN's - I'm not sure that his sometimes aggressive attitude is always utilised in a positive manner at this point, and I'd like to see if he could work on that before entrusting him with the mop. TewfikTalk 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Need to consider vote after a cafeful review of user's history. RiseRobotRise 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Oppose as detailed above.Neutral I'm somewhat concerned about this user and how they would close XfDs whilst they persist with an WP:ILIKEIT mentality. I'm willing to change my vote if the candidate would tell me how they would close the this AfD if they were just finding the AfD for the first time. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tricky question to answer since I don't have much distance to make a judgment. To tell you the truth, I would probably choose not to close it because I feel too strongly about it and most likely I would just add my detailed opinion rather than close it myself. Where I forced to close it with a gun to my head, I would close it as a no-consensus as detailed valuable arguments have been made and supported in both cases. Pascal.Tesson 16:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    updated comment: in the time since I answered the above question, the debate had progressed quite a bit. The debate is still quite active and should probably be left alone for now. But again, assuming I happened to be seeing the current state of the debate for the first time, I would probably interpret the discussion as a no consensus to delete. Pascal.Tesson 05:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: Pascal's answers to the questions are very good, and he seems to have done some great work. I suspect that he'll be an admin in a few months even if this RFA is unsuccessful, but my biggest concern is his contribution to the Breast implant flamewar that Samir discusses above. I'll try to come up with a way to phrase my concerns in a question. TheronJ 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. neutral - (changed from oppose) lack of experience with images lessened after showing commons activity[14] --T-rex 21:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I'm unsure where to !vote with this candidate so neutral. There are some good points but there are also the issues raised. James086Talk | Contribs 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral weighing towards Oppose. I have great disdain for anyone who promotes so heavily a "Wiki-political" persuasion as a deletionist or an inclusionist. I think there is no benefit in sitting in either camps when you are working on a project that cherishes the "middle ground" in our dealings. Above all, I would expect an admin to be non-partisan in this regard and above reproach. What perception do we give to new editors when an article of theirs prodded or deleted through AfD and the see that the admin involved is a proud card carrying deletionist rather then appearing as an objective party with no pre-disposed leaning towards deleting their "hard work". Now the deletion could very well be valid and reasonable but the appearence of that partisanship is very damaging. 205.157.110.11 10:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad IP! Login and edit!! — Nearly Headless Nick 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - Great replies to the questions, unfortunately with the concerns listed in the oppose section I cannot support. Sorry :( —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 11:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral More or less per Eagle. Just H 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)(changed to opposed). Just H 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per Eagle 101. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 02:15, 12 January 2007 (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/Pascal.Tesson&oldid=1088715666"