Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:05, 27 February 2008

Deacon of Pndapetzim

Voice your opinion (talk page) (11/4/0); Scheduled to end 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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[REDACTED] since 2004 and an admin/bureaucrat upon the Gaelic[REDACTED] 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)

I second that nomination. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept with pleasure. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, I would patrol that for lagging closures, patrol Misplaced Pages: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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages, 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medieval Scotland, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Washington and the Misplaced Pages: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 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Questions from Chetblong

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)

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[REDACTED] 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)

General comments

• See Deacon of Pndapetzim's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Requests for adminship/Deacon of Pndapetzim

• Links for Deacon of Pndapetzim: Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support Excellent candidate. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Great encyclopedia builder and a good member of the community. Majoreditor (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Looks like an excellent candidate. Ronnotel (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   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)

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)

   Deserves and has earned it, and for the right reasons. ~ Dreamy 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Support without reservation. A great encyclopedia builder. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

   Sometimes we write "oppose", but it's too confusing and we are only joking. Dlohcierekim 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   It's tradition. Useight (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   Believe it or not, I never realized that putting Support was completely pointless. Parent5446 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

8. Well, I would do, wouldn't I? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support per this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)

Oppose

1. 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)

   Maybe I am not looking hard enough, but would you mind telling me what section/incident you are referring to? Tiptoety 01:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   My apologies. Struck oppose. Only able to find three instances after all that weren't so bad. Dlohcierekim 02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Don't like what Dlohcierekim pointed out, sorry... ~ Dreamy 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose - Per Q#8. Tiptoety 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   As mentioned above, perhaps reviewing WP:CDB would be of assistance. Ronnotel (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   (ec) Please read WP:CDB, that will explain my reasoning. Cheers, Tiptoety 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   I would say leave the original response, and place the new response under it. Tiptoety 04:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   Alright, a user should not be judged on one question or incident. I will change to neutral for now. Tiptoety 03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

   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)

Neutral

1. Changed to neutral from my oppose above. Tiptoety 03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)