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


Deacon of Pndapetzim[edit]

Ended at (73/23/1); ended 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC) by Kingturtle

Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) - Deacon is a top class editor who has one of the best records you will find upon wikipedia. He is responsible for multiple Featured Articles, numerous Good and other articles not to mention countless DYKs and has maintained absolute consistency in the excellence of his contributions. I've been a fairly steady contributor on the English language wikipedia since 2004 and an admin/bureaucrat upon the Gaelic wikipedia for a number of years and am well acquainted with the competences required by an admin and dont doubt that Deacon is in posession of the necessary attributes. siarach (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that nomination. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept with pleasure. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm fundamentally a content contributor, and cannot ever foresee myself acting solely or even mostly as a "mandarin". What I enjoy about wikipedia is writing stuff and co-operating with other users interested in writing similar stuff. That's why I'm here, and what brings me here continually. Over my years on wikipedia I've had little spurts of recent changes patrolling (only yesterday indeed was my last), and for what it's worth I would do more of this if granted the "mop and bucket" ... though I'll say it's quite competitive these days. Much harder to beat the bots and other patrollers to the vandalism and the playful anonymous editing! As I thoroughly understand Wikipedia:Requested moves, I would patrol that for lagging closures, patrol Wikipedia:Deletion_today#List_of_candidates_.28updates_frequently.29, WP:AN/I and WP:AN, as well as making myself available for ad hoc requests from users requiring admin assistance or advice. I have the same opinion about editing as about admin work however: do not perform actions for which you lack the competence. This is a fundamental precept of any kind of public responsibility. Administratorship is, or perhaps rather ought to be, little more than ability to use a rather limited "mop and bucket" when and if required. That said, among new-comers, an admin is often perceived as having authority, and so I'd be keen to use that to prevent new-comers being alienated. Blocking is over-used and misused by some admins, and I'm not sure the extent to which they realise blocking can send users (who could be good) into the badlands, into the outskirts of ordered wikipedia life with nothing to lose. When this happens more work is created for regular users (including administrators), and now and then a potentially good content contributor is lost. It's of course about using one's judgment in the particular case, but in general ... to understate a little ... I'd be leaning towards "the last opinion" camp, certainly when it comes to users with a clear interest in creating content.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:Good question. Whenever I finish something, I'm often unsatisfied with the end product, esp. when I learn more about whatever topic it is later or after I've processed the material more thoroughly in my head. I do have 4 FAs, and I dunno, about half a dozen GAs (haven't been counting). My article creations have focused for the past wee while on creating articles on the bishops of medieval Scotland. I started doing this because, quite honestly, I knew no-one else would ever do it. I started off doing stubs and starts using only one or two sources for the main Scottish bishoprics, St Andrews and Glasgow. As I've progressed I've put more work in, becoming more substantial through Dunkeld, Moray, Aberdeen, and Ross, and even more substantial in Galloway and (most recently) Dunblane. It may be rather odd and unfair that there's an inverse relationship between importance and coverage, but I plan to fix that after I've finished with the other bishoprics. I'm most proud of the fact that coverage of medieval Scotland in wikipedia is now approaching satisfactory standards, though I myself am just a part of that. I've created several hundred articles ... this page page says 747 ... which sounds about correct, probably more than half of which have been medieval Scottish articles. My article creation rate may have shrunk in the last year because these days (as said above) I focus on coverage in the individual article rather than general subject coverage. E.g. for what has been done so far on this article, this article and this this article on my user space, I could have done likewise a few hundred stub or start articles. Like I said above, I edit based on my perception of my relative competence, rather than my interest, though the two fortunately very often coincide! I've also created a handful of wikiproject type things, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington and the Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I don't get stressed too much these days, as I've given myself the opportunity to learn the relevant lessons. Violations of WP:NPOV and WP:SYN annoy me the most, but I've learned that these are inevitable in certain areas, so I console myself with a paraphrase of a Yes Prime Minister quote: "Practically nobody reads those articles and half those that do don't understand them, and half those that understand them don't agree with them and the few who are left are the editors". I have certainly been stressed on one or two occasions in the past however. The most unpleasant experiences for me were the moves of Scottish kings and the Jogaila affair, which occurred a year and a half and two years ago respectively, of which details can be seen on Talk:Kenneth MacAlpin, and the Talk:Jogaila page. Note that I was User:Calgacus until I had my username changed a year ago. The Scottish kings thing came about by my own mistakes, moving those pages without knowledge of the substantial opposition which existed or could be brought into existence. I suffered to an extent from WP:OWN in the discussion, and increased my own stress by continually responding to posts ... thus increasing the intensity of the discussion ... and not giving myself opportunity to chill. I also didn't appreciate the role that guideline pages have in practice for gathering people on topics of oversight, and at that point in time regarded this as well-meaning but misguided "interference". The experience I learned from that has sunk in. I have sometimes revealed my Scottish distaste for beating round the bush. I've curbed this significantly as it is often interpreted as a violation of WP:AGF, though I think this is cultural and is as often seen as a virtue as a vice. Nowadays I may still now and then be slightly abrasive, but only in advancing wikipedia's interests. I can wear two hats easily enough. It's certainly not something I'd hang over the exercise of admin responsibilities, where good diplomacy and perceived respect is much more vital, as encounters with User:Kafziel and User:Stemonitis have taught me. I don't like to edit war, and unless the article is being edited with serious factual flaws, I keep in principle to 1rr and hurt my hands and wrists on talk. I do believe in the importance of community consensus and trust, although that will never stop me speaking my mind when I see problems.

Optional Questions from User:Tiptoety

4.What are your thoughts on WP:AOR? Will you add yourself to it, why or why not?
A:Well, firstly, let me say I don't think it's good for some admins to be more accountable than others. All admins should be open to recall, otherwise we'll have a sort of wikipedian aristocracy. I'd be more in favour of making de-sysoping easier [when necessary] than an individual opt-in opt-out system. An individual who goes around misusing or abusing his admin powers should be de-sysoped whether or not they've opted into such a system. With those sentiments in mind, adding myself while it remains non-superfluous is a likelihood. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


5.What is the difference between a block and a ban?
A.: The simple technical distinction as defined on WP:BAN is that "ban" is a theoretical restriction on editing, whereas a block is the means of preventing a user from editing. As far as wikipedian usage goes, a "block" is an action performed by one administrator on a certain user, whereas "ban" is usually used to refer to the imposition of restrictions and/or a block by the consensus of the wider wikipedian community. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6.What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
A:: This may be a rather lame answer, but I don't think I'd want to rank policies by relevance to administrative function. All administrative functions have to be exercised in a way that don't damage the trust, respect and standing of the encyclopedia, its normal content contributors, and the Foundation. That aside, if I had to pick one specifically for admin functions, then it'd be Wikipedia:Consensus. The encyclopedia can't function without that when non-admins ignore it ... much worse if admins do. It overhangs of course collective administrative decision-making about the enforcement of other policies so far as mere admins can specially or specifically enforce them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from User:TravisTX

7. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included - what would you do?
A: This isn't very likely to be an issue for me as I rarely edit the biographies of living persons, plus I'd regard it as a little irresponsible to insist on content controversial enough to be objected to by a reasonable user. If it happened, I can safely generalize that I'd err on the side of caution and would not insist on my versions, or in the most extreme cases, would not do so without seeking a wider base of opinion. Presumably the other admin would have good reasons, so again it'd probably never be an issue. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from ChetblongT C

8. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A: Well, everything is situationally dependent. I don't like to generalize on anything, but I'll say a few things. Blocking is a last resort. Working in a situation where two users are reverting on an article and getting rather nasty on a talk page, I'd leave a nuanced message describing what's happening in neutral terms and a "cool down" recommendation, on the article talk page and/or their user pages with a message about edit warring. The next step would be protecting the page, which if it's confined to one article is the same as a cool down block without the perceived slight. If that didn't help, I either leave a description of what's happening to other administrators or issue a polite but firm warning. There are enough admins these days to seek input about something like a block. If the situation was so extreme that even after that continued intervention was necessary, I'd consider a cool down block. Again, I'm not a fan of blocking for many reasons, including some I stated above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC) In the formal terms described by WP:CDB, never. See here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. What is your opinion on WP:IAR?
A: It's a difficult one, isn't it? WP:IAR combined with WP:BOLD could be a torrential mixture. Seen loads of interpretations of it. All I'd say is that you can cite WP:IAR all you like, but wikipedia works on consensus and the individuals and culture behind it. You work against that then WP:IAR might as well be a magical incantation. Useful to have and to remind users of when conversations get stiff or when there's too much wiki-lawyering. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Jza84

10. What work or actions on Wikipedia are you least proud of and why?
A: Fergus of Galloway is an article I'm very unproud of, as with many of the earliest articles I did but haven't subsequently revisited. The Fergus one was done in my early days very lazily after I'd just read the Oram chapter for the first time. That's work. Actions, I refer to the above Kenneth MacAlpin and Jogaila affairs. I can add to that a deletion thread some time ago about infoboxes where the heat carried me a little. That affair actually and my encounters with Kafziel and Stemonitis made me adopt a more relaxed approach to responding on talk pages [which causes avoidable stress], and these days I tend to take a more relaxed approach and manner. It really does work I've found. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11 Your user page uses the phrase "My articles" for several entries. Are you comfortable with that wording and how do you think it fits in with WP:OWN?
A:: All I meant was articles I created. Didn't mean to assert ownership. As Bill Reid will tell you I'm always wanting them to be expanded by others. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More optional questions from Tiptoety talk

12. What is your opinion on WP:3RR, do you believe that an attempt at communication should be made after the 2nd revert or the third?
A:: WP:3RR is there to reduce the impact of wikipedia's inevitable content disputes, not to furnish an excuse to block users. Obvious enough, but worth stating for the purposes of a spiritual overview. Nextly, the earlier useful intervention can occur, the better. If you suspect the user doesn't know WP:3RR, and (in the particular circumstances) suspect it'll go to the limit or beyond, then anytime after the 2nd revert may be good. You may start typing after the second and find by saving stage that the third has occurred already, and if you wait until the third it may be too late. If on the other hand you remind an experienced user of WP:3RR at the second revert, it may be taken as a little annoying and patronising. Thus circumstances are all important. You tend to find on WP:AN/3RR a block for violation is often not carried out if there's no clear evidence that the editor knew the rule. Speaking as a non-admin just now, I'd be more comfortable with 3RR enforcement in the hands of experienced admins than new ones, so I won't be patrolling WP:AN/3RR, not for a big while at least. What I will add is that while this template (((subst:uw-3rr))) is less provocative than this template ((3RR)) (which assumes a lot of bad faith), a polite but informative and firm personalized message is what I'd prefer to see used, esp. if you yourself intend to enforce 3RR proactively. It's obviously of course a judgment thing. A user with 2 reverts on one obscure page is different than one whose contribs show little more than lots of little groups of 3 successive reverts and few talk contribs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


13.What is your opinion on snowing RFA's and AFD's?
A:It can be good to prevent the wasting of time and perhaps when it is very clear that extending someone's ordeal is the only thing someone will get from not invoking it (using projected introspection here!). However, Wikipedia:Process is important and WP:Snowball clause#What the snowball clause is not are also important to bear in mind. As the latter says, if somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


More optional questions from Jza84

14.What is your opinion on WP:NOSPADE?
A: Though it's not policy, lots of those essay pages contain some very well thought out advice. I'd also cite Wikipedia:Don't be a dick, where, just as love songs are more meaningful with a broken heart, it may seem a little more relevant to me given some of what this review has produced, esp. the 2nd section. Certainly, it cannot be overstated that in the unfortunate circumstances of the exercise of powers over peers, diplomacy is a bigger priority than in normal editing. This was something I stressed above, and have always thought to be important. I'd also add that an admin (or anyone) is more likely to succeed at diffusing conflict if both sides are approached with respect. So it's important to any kind of intervention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Septentionalis
15 Would you be subject to recall, and under what conditions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Excellent candidate. One Night In Hackney303 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Great encyclopedia builder and a good member of the community. Majoreditor (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Looks like an excellent candidate. Ronnotel (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, somewhat disappointing answer to #8, which could be improved upon by reviewing WP:CDB. revising the answer was spot on, nice touch.Ronnotel (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Tons of experience; fixed his edit summary usage. A fellow mainspace contributor. What more could I want? Nothing. In fact, my support even comes with a free subscription to The Signpost. Useight (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deserves and has earned it, and for the right reasons. ~ Dreamy § 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support without reservation. A great encyclopedia builder. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. The green color is just to mix things up a bit! =) Good editor, deserves the mop. Malinaccier (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Great editor. PS- why are you guys writing support in your votes? We're under the support section. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes we write "oppose", but it's too confusing and we are only joking. Dlohcierekim 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's tradition. Useight (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe it or not, I never realized that putting Support was completely pointless. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Well, I would do, wouldn't I? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - The user definitely has the experience and would make a great admin, or at least it is extremely likely that he will. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SUPPORT: After looking through his history (20,777 edits, with 13,323 in the mainspace), several archived userpages (mild disagreements at worst), 4 featured articles, and apparent trust of the community, I would say that the admin mop has been overdue. Good luck!--Sallicio 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Since there's some opposition, I bothered to profile this editor for 10 minutes. I see nothing wrong with him. His credentials are far in excess of what's needed to become an administrator. He changed his answer to the question about cool-down blocks, so I think he knows what the policy is. Let's give him a chance to make mistakes, and if he makes mistakes, we'll worry about it then. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Trust not to abuse tools. - Shudde talk 06:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Have had good experiences with this editor. Feel he has a good grasp of the relevant policies in the areas where I've seen him work, and understands the culture of WP. I think he'll be a good addition to the team (I already consider him a valuable member of the team, actually). - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Seems like a good candidate. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. AGF, has learned lesson on cool down blocks and will never issue one. 4FAs move me from neutral (strongly...) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support siarach (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per nom. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - incredibly knowledgeable editor in a number of areas and would put this to good use as a sysop. I've found him always willing to explain issues and be helpful. He does spend far too much time in WP than is good for him, but that's WP's gain. Bill Reid | Talk 09:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I like the answers to the questions, and I like the fact that he admits his mistakes. I also think it important that an admin should have article-writing experience, and am impressed by his FAs, GAs and DYKs. Regarding the objections raised in the oppose section, well we all make mistakes, these don't seem particularly significant to me, and I'm confident he'll learn from them. NSH001 (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking my support, as Deb's comments have made me think again. NSH001 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. The Deacon is very knowledgeable and adding the admin tools will make him able to contribute to Wikipedia. I am slightly concerned that he'll be diverted into admin tasks when he might be more valuable as an article editor, but that's his choice. I have thought about the civility concerns, and looked at some recent interactions of his, and I think he is blunt and sometimes not particularly tactful. I'd urge him to err on the side of tact in the future. Mike Christie 14:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your urging is well taken. I was aware that I could be a little abrasive from time to time, but seeing the disapproval in 3 votes below is a bit of a shock. It's very different seeing it there than hearing it a few times a year from people on the other side of a discussion, where it can potentially come across as a device for side-tracking the dialogue. I've become aware at least that the relationship between my perception of my tone and the perception of it by others needs to converge in the latter direction. Some of the things that may look bad were honestly written in a melo and pleasant state of mind! In consolation, clumsiness is usually quite easy to fix once you're aware of it. I'll only try my best. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Excellent editor would make a fine admin --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per answer to 7 and revised answer to 8. —Travistalk 16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Ditto (not putting "support" down for reasons above. :) ). The Deacon has written many intelligent and worthwhile entries, well referenced, and highly informative and I also think that he will apply some common sense to some of the more stupid aspects of wikipedia too! --MacRusgail (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. He is quite clearly a great content editor. There are very slight civility concerns but I think here Talk:Kiev#Requested_move, he conducted himself very well under the circumstances despite being baited; and I support despite here some pro-soccer bias perhaps ;). No, seriously, I give my strong support. EJF (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support – 20,760 edits – 3.28 average edits per page, which means to me article building – 1 very minimal civility concern, from what I can see or gather, equals strong support. Good Luck. Shoessss |  Chat  19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per above. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Perfect edit summary usage, and a nice editor overall. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. per water Dlohcierekim 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I've noticed the positive contributions of this user before. Should have been an admin long ago. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per answers to questions. Even the one he got wrong, which wasn't terribly wrong, and he corrected it anyway. Avruch T 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support great nomination. Strong editor with a proven track record. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Shows good judgement. Proven experience. Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support More article building admins are always welcome. Employing AGF, I don't really see enough in the opposes not to support. Black Kite 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Goodness Gracious Me Support - A prolific content contributor, will be a strong asset to our project. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support for me, the amount of 'pedia building outweighs the civility. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - I don't think I have ever voted in one of these Rfa thingies before (when Deacon mentioned on my Talk yesterday that he was in an "Rfa" I misread it and thought that it meant "Request for Comment" and that he had been brought before the Rector to receive the tawse). Anyway, I will probably not be voting again in these daft popularity contests, because I don't have much time for Admins as a species, a few of whom are downright scoundrels in my opinion. Like Calgacus/Deacon I myself have the very Scottish cultural trait of saying exactly what I think. I don't know about other people, but we Scots tend to trust a straight-talker, and be very wary indeed of sweet-talkers, who can turn out to be the worst type of venemous serpent. Deacon is not a "sweet-talker". But what he is is incredibly intelligent and hard-working. He is a total brainbox, and I know it sounds snobbish, but encyclopaedias ought to be written by, and run by, total Tefal-heads. I hope Deacon gets this, and I hope that he may even become a classic Rouge Admin in time - they are about the best type of Admin (I just read Doc Glasgow's User page a few days ago - made me laugh). Lord preserve us from the thickies!--Mais oui! (talk) 05:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: one of the best RfA entries I have ever seen (the edit summary, too)!--Sallicio 05:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And another Comment - I've already done a less-articulate "support" above, but I would like to concur with Mais Oui's comments here. As someone who was also raised to be a straight talker, I agree that much of what is being called "civility issues" is a matter of cultural difference. Deacon does important work in areas that are sometimes prone to ethnic and political conflict (for instance Gaelic vs English, Scottish History, naming conventions and other designations that can have a lot of political history and baggage). The fact that he has not run away from these areas of WP, and has instead shown leadership in these difficult areas, means he has faced some opposition and pissed some people off. While those raised to be less direct in their style of communication may not always appreciate how he has handled some of these conflicts, I have to say that the ability to demonstrate leadership in stressful situations is a necessary quality for an admin. Deacon has shown that he has that qualification. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is easier to say this as someone with a simillar or matching cultural perspective, than as someone with an alternative one though, of course. One "team's" straight-talk can be another's intrusion upon dignity. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Seems trustworthy. -- Iterator12n Talk 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Considering the qualifications in the answer, I think the statement he made in his original answer about cool-down blocks comes very close to the actual use of the policy: officially, never, in practice, under exceptional circumstances. (when we do, as I see it, we generally call it a block to prevent further disruption--the difference can be just a choice of words). I think he'd do as I--almost never consider it necessary to block except for blatant & continuing problems. DGG (talk) 09:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. support There are civility concerns but overall I don't think that Deacon would either abuse the tools or misuse them. Some more familiarity with the blocking policy wouldn't hurt either but overall these issues don't seem too serious in this case. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support I've carefully looked at the links in the various opposes (12 at the moment) and honestly can't really see the problems they are suppose to exemplify. Deacon appears to have an excellent grasp of policy as well as a long and exceptionally productive history on the project. And this is bad how? I guess one might take some of his edit summaries as sniping but I personally find that description a stretch. I know that I often communicate to other editors in edit summaries. Sometimes the limited space can result in rather too brief and terse phrasing, particularly when outlining a contrary position to previous editors. Deacon appears willing and able to engage in discussion, often in contentious areas. I see only positives here. Pigman☿ 02:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, seems level-headed enough, and I'm confident that the tools will not be abused. Just don't give any cool-down blocks! Awesome username, too. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  45. Support Cold Phoenix T/C\M 19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Very Weak Support Good candidate probably will not abuse the tools but the old answer to Q#8 worries me Alexfusco5 20:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Good content editor, so he doesn't always haud his wheesht, all the better. Cool down blocks do occasionally have their place.--Docg 00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I don't forsee any abuse here. All questions bar 8 answered well enough. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support We're all human. We all make mistakes. We all fall from grace from time to time - Do I think you can effectively use the tools? Yes. Do I think you will abuse the tools? No. After reading through some of the comments brought up in the oppose section and doing my own checks into your contribution history and talk pages, I feel you will be fine as an admin. --Ozgod (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Will make a bloody good admin. Opposes are laughable. Bruising the egos of the raving lunatics around here is not a good reason to oppose adminship. Nick (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bruising the egos of the raving lunatics around here is not a good reason to oppose adminship." - Well said that man. siarach (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Will make good use of the admin tools Dreamspy (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Is this why Deacon is being comparatively nice this week? :-> But I support anyway; I usually agree with Deb, and disagree with Deacon, on the substantive issues; but I don't regard him as uncivil. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I would like Deacon to be a bit more constantly polite, but, all considered (in particular his incredible dedication and also his quality) I strongly feel that we need more admins like him.--Aldux (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per the user above. Ostap 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support a stellar candidate who managed to keep neutrality in hot edit warrings Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Per all of the above. Everything seems fine to me, don't see any real reason to oppose. Khoikhoi 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support has been around since Feb 2005 with over 13000 mainspace edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - sound answers to questions! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. SupportGood content contributor. RMHED (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Seems like a good user, but I kindly suggest you do pay attention to the concerns listed in the oppose section. Acalamari 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support while occasionally blunt, he's focused on the goal of improving the encyclopedia, and I do not believe he would missue the tools. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. None of the civility concerns really move me to think that this user would misuse the tools and besides that I think it is clear that he is a great contributor. Going forward, I encourage the user to review the civility issues and attempt to resolve them. SorryGuy  Talk  03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Lukewarm Support While I can see the civility concerns raised by the opponents of this RfA, I don't see anything that would indicate a propensity to misuse the tools. The tools can be taken away if the Deacon proves to be uncivil as an administrator, so granting them is no big deal. I would, however, like the candidate to affirm both a renewed commitment to niceness and an openness to recall. That would turn my support red hot. --SSBohio 04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Figure he is responsible enough to take civility concerns in mind when being an admin. If not, he seems supportive of admin recall. So sure. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Great contributor, mature enough to learn from mistakes. MrPrada (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. As prolific, sensible and helpful an editor as there can be. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - I never oppose a candidate because of a few moments in the past when he/she has got to the end of the tether and lost their head slightly. We're all humans, we're not perfect and it happens to us all. Hopefully this user learns from mistakes, because the set of contribs we have here is brilliant. Lradrama 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Yes, there are some problematic points, but nobody's perfect and Deacon certainly doesn't look like an angry mastodon. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I hope this can help to stop the campaign of forking articles on Eastern-European topics.--Dojarca (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Highly intelligent contributor to the project. Would be an asset rather than a detriment, and the responsibility of being an administrator will soften some rough edges. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support truly dedicated editor! We definitely need more such contributors. M.K. (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. A serious cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary editor. Practice makes perfect. Let it be. Steveshelokhonov 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support To be sure, certain of the answers to the questions are at least a bit disquieting, but I am sufficiently convinced of the candidate's conversance with policy, deliberative temperament, and cordial demeanor as to conclude with some confidence that the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oh, boy. Back to Oppose. "cool down blocks" are never appropriate. They tend to heat up rather than cool down.Oppose User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive VIII comments from other users show candidate to be quick to wrath and ready to revert. Dlohcierekim 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am not looking hard enough, but would you mind telling me what section/incident you are referring to? Tiptoety talk 01:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to not provide dif's like that, but just reading the archive I linked to, there seemed too many instances. And I did not make it all the way through the page. Dlohcierekim 01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Struck oppose. Only able to find three instances after all that weren't so bad. Dlohcierekim 02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to s Per water Dlohcierekim 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Don't like what User:OhanaUnited pointed out, sorry... ~ Dreamy § 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Back to Oppose - Per Q#8 and [1] - Per Q#8. Tiptoety talk 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Tiptoety talk 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think being conservative about blocking would really make me unfit for the mop? I am very experienced in those situations, and do have reasons for this philosophy; there are also plenty of others who are less conservative. And after all, I didn't say I'd go around unblocking. :) Anyways, I'm not bothered about the vote, but I'd like to benefit from hearing your reasoning. You can do it on my talk page if you like. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above, perhaps reviewing WP:CDB would be of assistance. Ronnotel (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Please read WP:CDB, that will explain my reasoning. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ... was unfamiliar with part of the policy (actually I now vaguely recall reading it from a while ago). I think my answer was roughly in line with that anyway. I didn't say explicitly, but essentially I did say I'd never do it... though because of my experience rather than the policy. Should have double-checked before I answered! Also, let me add that I wasn't really thinking of "cool-down block" in the rigid terms described by WP:CDB. Shall I make my answer clearer? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that revising a response in line with new information would be a desirable or undesirable quality in an admin? Ronnotel (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say leave the original response, and place the new response under it. Tiptoety talk 04:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, Q#8 was a loaded question (per this. Deacon started with, "...everything is situationally dependent...blocking is a last resort..." I don't think that the answer to Q#8 should be a deal-breaker for receiving cleaning tools. Even Jimbo said that being an admin was no big deal. It's apparent from his prior history that he would not abuse the mop.--Sallicio 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, a user should not be judged on one question or incident. I will change to neutral for now. Tiptoety talk 03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I hate to do this as your contributions here are stellar, but "you're the only person who wants this trash in the article njan" as an edit summary? Civility trumps even article building in my canon. Sorry. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment fair enough, I have in the past been impatient with verifiably false content additions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Your talk page is a little bothersome for me - hints of edit warring and issues of incivility as pointed out above. Also, your answer to question 8 raised my eyebrows slightly. Advocate of page protection for a content dispute? Cool down blocks? No. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I really hate to keep blasting this annoying trumpet, but is that worthy of not receiving tools to clean others' messes? I am usually not this vocal at RfA's, but I think we have unreasonable expectations of prospective admins. This user has over 20,000 edits. One off-color (we ALL have written worse to those annoying trolls) comment and he is somehow not worthy of a mop (literally). Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox. :)--Sallicio 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    20,000 edits is peanuts to me - I'm not saying it isn't impressive (in this case it is since he's a great editor, very dedicated), but in the grand scheme of things I take quality over quantity. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My point wasn't just that he has 20k edits, but that one off-color comment in 20,000 shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Know what I mean? :)--Sallicio 04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get the impression it was just one dodgy edit summary. The recent talk archive linked above has several complaints about the user's civility. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can anyone show some diff's?--Sallicio 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose: Clearly a strong contributor to article space, and passionate about the project, but I've found this user overly combattive on talk pages, even rude, negative and dismissive on occation. Some of his remarks I've seen do little to move discussion along and seem to have the purpose of ridiculing others attempts at engaging with the community (such as here). An example of talking about contributors rather than contributions is also found here - again, no purpose of moving discussion along, but mocking other users who may hold an alterative view or look at a problem from a different angle to his own. Amongst other pages, I'm concerned about how Deacon went about putting his views forwards here. I made an edit in good faith but Deacon seems to imply I did not. He did not contact me for an explanation or my views, and again acts more as a "joker", mocking others' views rather than behaving like a mediator. In this capacity, I wouldn't feel comfortable with Deacon having administrator status. I do not think his mediation skills are developed enough and his manner, dare I say civility, with those with alternative perspectives leaves much to be desired. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This I can only swear was not meant as ridicule.I think it may just have been that I wasn't conscious of being perceived as on the other side of the dialogue there. This was indeed a partial comment on a contributor, but I was merely praising User:Breadandcheese for a very perceptive comment he made. Again, I regret this impression of me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - if you want an idea why, you only have to look at some of his recent comments on my talk page, eg. this, not to mention the way he harasses every user who disagrees with him in a debate by adding snide little comments under their contributions. I don't dispute that he is intelligent and knows a lot about his "specialist subjects". He is, unfortunately, also unbelievably arrogant and offensive. Were he to be given admin tools, he would undoubtedly use them to impose his own strong opinions on others. Deb (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - I did initially have a good oppose for this but it was lost in a session data muddle-up, but civility concerns are a major issue so per Jza84 and Deb - (who's talk page is a good example of the behvaiour conducted by DoP, like this for example). Rudget. 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - too many concerns raised by others. I don't feel this user is ready yet. Come back soon, please. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - have had a very negative experience with this user at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Scotland guidelines - during which I unfortunately allowed myself to get a little riled. The user repeatedly moved pages ignoring an existing naming convention. I moved them back, and they reverted the move. They then claimed that there have never been any consensus on the issue, despite evidence - and tried to remove evidence that there had been a consensus, ignored any attempts at compromise and insinuated collusion on IRC. When another presented a proposal which would have altered the existing guidelines to prefer the disambiguator Deacon insisted on, Deacon left on a wikibreak, and despite returning a week later, did not attempt to build a new consensus either way. Warofdreams talk 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do sincerely apologize if I got you riled. Anyone is free to read that page for themselves, but the one thing I probably should say is that the only reason I've not returned to that page in ages is because the debate is running its course. I think one should avoid enforcing one's own guideline proposal when there's clear opposition, even if it's only small, though I see there is still broad support for the suggestion I made there.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Tends to work in Black or White - the "Halychina" vs "Galicia" debate tends to support what he is most comfortable with rather bluntly. Admins need to promote TEAMWORK in Wikipedia! Bobanni (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I think you may thinking of is Talk:Galicia-Volhynia. In that instance I perceived clear enforcement of WP:UE, a guideline I'm not always a big fan of. I also thought you had been satisfied with the responses of myself and User:Irpen. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - "As mellow as the come". Really? I don't think so looking at the uncivility on Deb's page.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Cool-down block is the tipping point, clearly indicating that the individual did not read throughly in blocking policy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Regardless of other experience, the candidate does not currently have right approach for adminship if they believe that cool down blocks are a good idea, plus the incivility issues raise are a concern. Overall candidate seems more likely to create extra admin work by annoying other editors. TigerShark (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not unfair to point out that I didn't review the policy before answering that Cool Down Block question, which I revised within hours, but I think it's a tad unfair to speak in the present tense as if I favoured them. I explained this, for all it's worth, here to Sallicio. I was working from memory. It may sound like an excuse, and I suppose it is, but Cool Down Blocks didn't get marked so significantly as proper-ish nouns until the middle of last year. I was responding to the question without reference to policy, which was my mistake, but as the answer didn't depart from policy very much (other than omitting reference to it, which was what the question in hindsight was clearly aiming for), I'm not sure it's really evidence for concluding that I favour them, which I assure everyone explicitly I do not. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per civility concerns. Epbr123 (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per discussions mentioned by Deb (talk · contribs) and other evidence of conflicts on Deacon's talk page. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose The issues raised here in regards to Q#8 just bother me a bit... sorry. Jmlk17 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose The issues raised here do seem to be substantive. Whilst I think the user has learnt from their mistakes, I think the civility issues mean they are not ready for adminship just yet. More uncivil admins is not what we need right now. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose; we have here what I beleive to be an extremely valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, but who seems quite unsuited to janitorial duties. His answers to questions 12 and 14, in particular, worry me. I'd add that the original response to Q8, even if it was fixed a posteriori, is a bad sign. Not everyone is cut out to clean up messes over constructing an encyclopedia, and I don't think not having the bit removes any of the shine from Deacon's contributions. — Coren (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - I thought this was mean and condescending, especially when followed with the post that Rudget points out above. This is not the way to resolve disputes, it looks more like taunting to me, which is bound to stir them up rather than calm them. Plus, the past couple talk page archives show evidence of edit warring (or at least other users accusing them of it). I'd rather see this user take a few more months to more clearly demonstrate that they've fixed these civility problems. delldot talk 02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - not quite ready, too many lingering issues. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Unfortunately, I believe there are too many little problems here, the recent civility issues in particular. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 07:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Civility issues render me unable to place a support. However, you otherwise seem to be contributing well, and I would be happy to give my full support next time should this RFA fall through. Thanks, and good luck -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per civility concerns and removing cited material. El.Bastardo (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Changed to neutral from my oppose above. Tiptoety talk 03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Changed back to oppose (see my oppose). Tiptoety talk 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Gut feeling. Shows experience, but User:Dlohcierekim makes an excellent point. SpencerT♦C 15:11, 27 February 2008 (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.
Category