Deor

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (62/6/0); Scheduled to end 13:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Deor (talk · contribs)

Nomination statement by User:Drmies

It is my pleasure to nominate Deor for the mop. Deor--a lovely name based, one assumes, on the Old English poem of the same name--has been here since 2006 really continuously (I note a likely vacation in July 2011, but I trust that won't happen again). They are mostly a content editor, doing a bunch of gnome work on the side. They have over 70,000 edits, more than 75% of which in main space; while not a prolific article creator, they have a couple short ones to their credit, on things I can't pronounce (Craig y Forwyn, Denbighshire) or things I didn't know existed (Kadleroshilik Pingo is the highest pingo in the world! what's a pingo?). Their block log is clean as a whistle. Worst thing I've heard them say is "drat"--no "double drat", as far as I know.

In addition, Deor is a well-known and helpful contributor to various reference desks (since forever), esp. for language and humanities; I don't know if they're a professional linguist or not (Deor isn't as chatty as some people are), but they sure sound like one. They have extensive knowledge of policy and of various technical/template-related aspects of the project. Most importantly, Deor is a voice of calm and diplomacy, and that's something we can use, and they are a really, really nice person to work with. I gladly endorse their candidacy, and I'll state that I and some others gave them a little nudge in this direction. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Deor (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I don't plan to do anything until I've satisfied myself that I understand how to operate the relevant tools properly, but after that I imagine I will focus on areas that sometimes get backlogged a bit, such as page-protection requests, CSDs, requested moves, and XfDs, or things that may require immediate attention, such as vandalism reports. I have no interest in becoming a "professional" sysop; most of my edits will no doubt continue to consist of the usual gnomery, and I'll just try to help out where I see a need.

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

A: I don't really think in terms of "best contributions". I've done a lot of work in geocoding (well over 10,000 articles), copyediting, vandalism reversion (mainly in my early days), and general cleanup, and to me those sorts of things are quite as valuable as writing an article that perhaps 100 people a month will view. I must admit that I do tend to get a special glow from being able to satisfy reference-desk querents—as here—and from developing rather sloppy beginnings into short but adequate encyclopedia articles, as I did at Robert James (physician), for instance.

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: Yes, like everyone else I've experienced conflicts—the earliest major one I can think of was at Guy Davenport—and they have occasionally caused me stress, although I think less so now than formerly, when I may have tended to slip into a "Someone is wrong on the Internet" attitude. Most have been handled (if not to everyone's satisfaction) through informal talk-page discussion, though I've occasionally gone so far as to initiate an RfC. In other cases, when I've been overcome by a sense of futility or indifference, I've simply walked away.

Additional question from Jim Cartar

4. Please set out your position with regards to Recall.

A: I can't say that I'm familiar with all the proposals that have been made for a formal process for admin recall, but it appears that none have gained sufficient acceptance to be implemented. That said, I don't expect to go to my grave greedily clutching the mop to my chest. If a number of users agree, at an RfC/U or ANI or somewhere, that I've failed to use the tools properly or have used them to the detriment of the project, I'm perfectly willing to hand them in. I edit Wikipedia mainly for recreation, and if adminship becomes a burden, I'd rather resign than become soured on the whole business. Deor (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5. Have you previously edited Wikipedia using any other account ? Jim Carter ^(talk) 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: No. Deor (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5.1 (Note:To get a good understanding of the candidate, I'm adding a question.) As becoming an admin, you are allowed to block editors. Which of these names are reasonable, and which should be switched?

• User:BarackOBama
• User:AGreatAdmin
• User:****
• User:I'm Better Than You
• User:TheRamBot
• User:Small Jim is Barack Obama!

A: Username policy is definitely not my area of expertise, and I don't foresee myself blocking anyone on such a basis in any but the most obvious instances; but I'll give it a go. The first and last ones aren't really credible attempts at impersonation, but I can see that they might be somewhat problematic; I might start by suggesting to the users that they adopt different names. AGreatAdmin and TheRamBot are right out, as names that "give the impression that the account has permissions which it does not have" and "could be easily misunderstood to refer to a 'bot'" (unless, of course, the latter were an approved bot). I don't see that the four asterisks violates any explicit rule (but I do see that such an account already exists and has been blocked for the reason "username", so I may be missing something), but—supposing that it could be newly created—I'd definitely want to make sure that it wasn't Willy on Wheels. I'm Better Than You might be construed as a name that "seem[s] intended to provoke emotional reaction", but, again, the first step would probably be to try to convince the user to change to a less confrontational name. In most cases of "iffy" names, I'd definitely want to check the users' contributions for disruption and perhaps ask a more experienced admin for a second opinion. Deor (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Liz

6. Since you expect to use Admin tools in the areas of CSD and XfD, I was just wondering, specifically, where your experience in deletion discussion has occurred. Have you been active in AfD, MfD, TfD or CfD? Have you closed deletion discussions? Looking at your most edited pages, they seem to be primarily in mainspace articles, not in Wikipedia space. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: I used to participate at AfD more frequently than I do these days, since I've been focusing more on geocoding and other areas. You can see my stats here. MfD, TfD and CfD are areas I'm not really knowledgeable about (though I've made a few nominations), and I certainly wouldn't dive into them without familiarizing myself with the accepted procedures and practices in those areas; but I do have confidence in my general ability to read a discussion and determine consensus. I'm sure that I've closed a few AfD discussions that met the speedy-keep criteria, and I've definitely closed some in cases where admins had deleted the articles but (perhaps unaware of the AfDs) neglected to close the discussions. I'm not, however, in general a fan of non-admin closures of AfDs—even ones in which a "snow" decision is apparent—as they can lead to unnecessary drama. (Also, despite Axl's comment in his oppose opinion below, I've tagged a number of articles for speedy deletion—two within the past two days, in fact, one for copyvio and one as a duplicate article.) Deor (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from kelapstick

7. What, if any, criteria would the following articles be eligible under for CSD.

7.1 Joe's Bar & Taxidermy

A: Not a candidate for speedy, I think, though someone may choose to prod it or take it to AfD. Would it be this place? Why is a Pennsylvania bar getting so much coverage in Canada? Deor (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well played, actually it is completely different (and of course, fictional). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7.2 Best Flaming Homer

A: A3—"a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks". Deor (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7.3 Super Chemical Fire Engine Power Generation

A: A1—no context. Deor (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from DarkFalls

8. On the Festival Theatre AfD, what did you do wrong and what should you have done instead?

A: The only thing I'm certain I did wrong was to allow myself to get nettled. I came across that article because it was tagged as needing coordinates, and after what I feel was adequate WP:BEFORE investigation, I nominated it for deletion, unfortunately not looking to see who had created it until I went to inform the creator about the nomination. (There are a very few WP editors who rub me the wrong way, and, I admit, he is one. If I had noticed who had created the article, I would have passed it by.) I still think that in the state it was in when I nominated it, the article was a borderline A7 speedy and an effort unworthy of an experienced editor, but I regret my intemperance. There's nothing wrong with nominating an article and having consensus go against one (as long as one doesn't make a habit of it), but I should have left it at that. Deor (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Hawkeye7

9. Can you detail some of your work on content creation. What articles have you created? Of which article work are you most proud? What ones have passed GA and FAC?

A: The articles I've created are listed on my user page, and I can't say that I take more pride in any particular ones than I do in the others. None, of course, have passed (or been submitted for) GA or FA, but I have little interest in those processes. Some articles may have the potential to reach such heights—to become Britannica Macropedia articles, as it were. Some, however, by the nature of their topics or the available sources, will never become more than Micropedia (or even Columbia Encyclopedia) articles. I'm satisfied that the articles I've started are worthy contributions to Wikipedia, but article creation isn't my main interest here. Deor (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Coat of Many Colours

10. Can I put you on the spot please regarding your response to the question about the Malvern Festival Theatre AfD please? 10.1 When nominating an article for AfD don't you check at least it's not by a new editor? 10.2 The article was a stub. Why did you think it lacked adequate context to expand? A simple Google search would have established its notability. 10.3 "I still think that in the state it was in when I nominated it ... was ... an effort unworthy of an experienced editor" is at odds with your statement that you were unaware who the start editor was, is it not? Can you explain? 10.4 Was your issue in reality that you didn't think the article "encyclopaedic"? If so why, if not what then? Thank you. And added 10.5 I can only find one other interaction of yours with the editor you say rubs you the wrong way and that concerned an AfD from you over a trivial E/W typo in a geolocation. Would you care to clarify please?

A: 10.1 I suppose that sometimes I have checked to see who created an article, and sometimes I haven't. I've certainly tagged some articles by new editors for speedy deletion or prod or AfD. If an article is unsuitable for the encyclopedia, I don't see that it makes much difference who created it. 10.2 As I said in my answer to question 8 above, I did search for evidence of notability and found nothing that seemed to constitute significant coverage in secondary sources. 10.3 I don't understand this question. No, I didn't see that the article creator was an experienced editor before nominating it; but when I did see who the creator was, I thought the article a poor effort for such an editor. 10.4 No, I have no clear idea what constitutes "encyclopedicity"; I merely thought that the article failed WP:N. 10.5 I don't see much purpose in going into this here, except to say that in the past I've expressed frustration with the editor's mass creation of unsourced or poorly sourced one-sentence substubs, and as a result there have been some less than friendly (on both sides) exchanges between us. Deor (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Tutelary

11. Could you recall an example of when you did an edit, then undid your own edit in response to new information/changed situation? Say, you added a citation needed tag, and then undid and found a citation to fit, though something a tiny bit more substantial than that. I'm on the fence about this RfA atm. Tutelary (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: Nothing is coming to mind at the moment, and it's a difficult thing to search one's contributions for. If I think of anything, I'll add it to this response. Deor (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from JayJay

12. What do you enjoy most about Wikipedia and editing it?

A: A difficult question, since I've not really examined my motivations for editing very deeply. If one thinks that WP has some value, then one may reasonably conclude that improving it has some value as well. I suppose that editing is principally a sort of hobby for me, and who needs to justify their hobbies? All in all, I guess I don't have much to add to what I said in my answer to question 2 above. Deor (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Links for Deor: Deor (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Deor can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support after doing a little research. Appears to be heavily involved with content rather than the back office, yet has enough overall experience to do it all. I expect them to be a great asset with the extra tools. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Solid editor. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Fairly sure from what I've seen that Deor has the potential to be a quality admin. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Deor's been around for ages - I highly doubt he'll do anything that will make me regret voting for him as an admin. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 13:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - Kraxler (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support – Very easy decision. United States Man (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Trustworthy candidate and nom; should be a help with the mop. Miniapolis 15:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support...no evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO 15:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support – Long editing record and no apparent problems. I checked some of his remarks at ANI and didn't see anything amiss. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Sure. → Call me Hahc21 15:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    —Dark 16:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The above entry seems to be a support vote, moved from Neutral. Please confirm whether that's the case and, if so, fix the numbering. Kraxler (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    [1] —Dark 20:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14. Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per nom. --John (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support BethNaught (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - no concerns, will make a fine admin. GiantSnowman 18:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. ///EuroCarGT 20:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. A name that I have seen around often, no alarm bells ringing, likely to be a net positive with the tools so support. Bencherlite^Talk 00:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Weak support Frankly, based on Q1 and their editing history, I'm confused why the candidate desires the tools. There's little recent experience in administrative areas, and they've made it clear they'll primarily continue their gnomish work as they do now. However, they've been upfront about this, have been around a long time (I'm not calling you old), seem to be versed in policy, and I don't foresee misuse of the tools. Tag on the respect I have for the other supporters and you've got my support. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Stephen 00:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Looks like a very solid contributor who deserves the tools and won't misuse them. Z10987 (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Qualified editor. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I checked a couple of old discussions and found that Deor was calm, precise, and helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support See no problems. Would love to see a bit more experience in a few areas (dispute resolution mainly) but is well above the bar. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Without reservation, even having read the opposes. Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, happy to do so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, looks like a trustworthy user, modest, willing to do the hard unglamorous work of being an admin. There's a reason why it's call the mop; we need solid cleanup people like this. --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support- no concerns here. Reyk _YO! 04:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Solid editor, who seems unlikely to break the wiki. Definite WP:NETPOSTazerdadog (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Looks like a good candidate. Judging from their response to question seven and from their deleted contribs, they have a good handle on speedy deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. It would be hard for any mature editor with such a solid and regular contribution to mainspace not to have picked up the rules and policies on the way - whether they have demonstrated that knowledge in the drama areas or not, and whether or not they have made dozens of creations. He maintains a calm disposition especially when challenged by some users who may have a less friendly approach towards their fellow editors. I underline the support by Dennis in this and other sections, in that I believe Deor to be a classic example of the kind of admin Wikipedia needs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Big thumbs up for this one.--Razionale (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
35. Easy support. Really competent, really dedicated. - Dank (push to talk) 11:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support I feel it is unlikely they will break anything or turn into a raving drama monger. Additionally, they seem to have sufficient WP:CLUE and been around long enough to wield the mop effectively. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 11:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
37. No edits to the Help talk: or Portal talk: namespaces. —Kusma (t·c) 11:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that a support? GedUK  12:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That may be a reference to "my role in portal talk's been small" from WP:Songs about Wikipedia/The RfA Candidate's Song ... and the humor's appreciated, but I'm also wondering what you think of this candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Candidate looks good, and will make a fine admin. I didn't have anything useful to add, so I tried to make fun of ridiculous oppose rationales by presenting an obviously ridiculous support rationale. If you want to discuss this further, please use my talk page, not this RfA, as it has very little to do with the candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 19:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

38. Support Looks good to me. GedUK  11:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support No concerns. If this editor only takes 3 admin actions a year, by all indication they will be correct actions. That makes this adminship a net positive. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. I don't think there's any danger of Deor misusing the tools. He certainly seems to know his way around policy and has the support of respected members of the community. I'd like to have seen a bit more content creation/improvement, but hey, you can't have everything.  Philg88 ^♦talk 12:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support As noted in my original statement of Neutrality (see below), this is an excellent editor. I would prefer to see more than 1500 AfD edits under the belt of someone with 70,000+ cumulative, but as Dennis Brown pointed out that's a reasonable amount compared to many nominees in raw numbers. Given his other excellent qualifications I think he/she will be a good addition to the Sysop team. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - Recipient of the Dennis Brown Seal of Approval.™ More than adequate tenure, more than adequate edits, no indication of assholery. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support I like the answers to the questions and can't see Deor wrecking the place. Obviously not badge collecting - and I rather like someone who can admit that they have no real interest in GA and FA. A good nomination (and I now know what a hydrolaccolith is even though I'm unlikely to meet one). Peridon (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support looks good, no serious issues.--Staberinde (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
45. Good candidate. I knew this was coming, maybe because of Drmies. I Support, mainly because Deor probably won't break the encyclopedia. An admin who only needs the tools once per two or three months is still a good admin, which I am sure he will be. Epicgenius (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support I really like this RFA. Some good answers and a lot of respectable editors already supporting you. Your body of work is impressive and leave me with no concerns. I particularly laughed at "I don't expect to go to my grave greedily clutching the mop to my chest". In terms of the opposes, requirements like needing AFC's seems ludicrous to me, and reveals the differing views on what the administrator tools actually do. Mkdw^talk 19:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support No concerns. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support This candidate is clearly a WP:NETPOS and I see no big concerns. I hope the candidate decides to try moving at least one article toward GA or FA status. - tucoxn\^talk 20:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Good answer, your contrib count is also high, but mostly I vote because you know Willy on Wheels, means you know English Wikipedia (also Wikimedia) past problem itself, and being observant about it.---AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. A genuinely nice, helpful, laid back editor who can only add value to the project. He's precise. He's straightforward (sounds like a boy scout). I like his edit summaries. I like his very earliest edits. My only reservation is whether he'll be put off if he starts using the tools more, but I trust his judgment on that matter. He seems to want to proceed slowly and cautiously and doesn't really want the tools to be the big and powerful Oz. A constructive approach going in. (BTW, it's very hard to resist Drmies's nudging. He's very good at it.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Has my full trust, decent candidate. Spencer^T♦C 02:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support No concerns at all. Very levelheaded editor with a strong grasp of policy and a sense of what's good for the project. ThemFromSpace 02:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
53. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Per BBB23 and others above, this user seems to have the qualities of a fantastic future admin! WooHoo! • Talk to BrandonWu! 02:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support No concerns. Vacation9 03:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Drmies, Dennis Brown, EdJohnston, Johnuniq, Kudpung, Mkdw and Bbb23, for starters, have reviewed this candidate's work and have made good analyses and comments. Other editors whose opinions I respect also have positive comments. Some experience with gnomish work seems like a positive to me when added to other areas of work and good temperament. No reason for me to add more detail to that already stated by others. I have confidence that Deor will make positive contributions as an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
57. I checked a random sample of the candidate's edits, and found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
58. Per nom and answers to questions. I don't see room for making mistakes. Japanese Rail Fan 15:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support, plenty of experience. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Strong, polite candidate, a lot of editors, helpful contributor and in the discussion that I've seen, keeps a calm head. I do hope they will be gracious with the mop, given their WikiGnome philosophy. Tutelary (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support wholeheartedly. Into the top 500 editors at #493, focused on content, not drama. Re the concerns raised, I agree with the nominee completely. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support without reservation. The only question that needs asking is why an editor of Deor's calibre and experience hasn't stood for adminship sooner. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. Infrequent AfD comments—only one this year. Drama at this AfD nomination. One CSD tag this year. Inadequate experience with deletion areas. Content creation isn't great either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. Per Axl above. Indeed there's virtually no content creation here. I looked at the example of Robert James (physician) Deor gives and I can't say I'm blown away by before and after Deor's main editing there. RfA candidates with so little content experience are never going to get my support, but when that is combined with the sort of attitude displayed at the AfD that Axl quotes, then they can expect my forthright opposition. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   He has 55,000 edits just to mainspace, and only 117 of those are using automated tools. "So little content experience" is hyperbole, to put it lightly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   There was nothing special about the editing he did at Robert James (physician). It's the sort of thing any newbie cutting their teeth on our gentle (erm ... solitary) craft should be pursuing, and that hopefully without censoriously striking material (as he did over James' celebrated description of masturbation, resupplied by yours truly here, and BTW since I'm here I added a very nice Egon Schiele to Wikimedia Commons' collection of deplorable images yesterday, check it out).

   Since it's you, Dennis, I'm prepared to offer myself open to persuasion, but I will need some persuading and that especially with regard to the AfD drama Axl mentions. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not necessarily trying to change your mind, but offering perspective to anyone that happens by your comment. As for the one bluntness at AFD, I'm pretty sure that I've done much worse at a few AFDs, if I am to be honest. Both Deor and I have participated in around 1500 AFDs, it is a heated environment, it will happen if anyone is passionate about what they do. It is part of being human. If that is the worst, I can live with it. If you can't, that is fine and I respect that. To me, the bar for adminship isn't perfection, it is about trust, experience and being able to understand regular editors. On those points, I feel pretty good about my support. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Well that's true about AfDs :). I'll keep an eye on this and see how it goes, but at the moment I'm not disposed to withdraw my opposition. I'll see. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I've said some things also at AfDs that I'm not proud of, really not proud of. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I always try to wait 10 minutes before posting replies at AFDs to calm down. Sometimes I succeed... --Randykitty (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I'll stay with my oppose. I thank Deor for his answers to my questions regarding this AfD, but I'm not convinced he was sufficiently sensitive to the possibility that this might have been a new editor and what his issues really can have been with notability I can't fathom. What worries me is that in his spat with this editor he says rubs him up the wrong way, he remarked "Nothing has been proved here but the ability of a Wikipedia administrator, in his role as an editor, to completely obfuscate an article with no possibility of being called to task for his misdirection and evasion". Well the editor wasn't an administrator, there was nothing to "prove" anyway, and why does he want to join a club he evidently thinks is corrupt? Not here on my account, sorry. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   yes, I agree this seems to me to be a much more worrisome red flag than either the candidate or nominator seem to understand, and for the record, despite his comment, I have never seen Dennis behave this way, nor would I expect him to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Admittedly, he was a bit of a dick in that AFD, but that was over 6 months ago. Admittedly, I've done worse, although I can be more flowery in my language. Admin are chosen among those that volunteer, not among all editors. As this dickishness is certainly not a pattern, I tend to let singular instances of said dickishness slide. If you don't, I understand. The reason I tend to let occasional incidents slide is because I too can be passionate about a topic, and I too can have really bad days in the real world that bleed off into Wikipedia. Sometimes real world frustrations bleed into AFDs, it is the most heated place around, after all. I'm not saying you shouldn't give weight to the incident, I'm only saying it should be weighed against all the other contributions to determine if he is likely to make a habit out of it. I really don't think he will. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, I'm the queen of bad days and agree one shouldn't make too much of them. I guess I'm just a bit concerned because this is apparently some kind of long-running spat with an extremely productive editor that never seemed to be resolved, from what I can tell. Blofeld's not going anywhere -- we shouldn't want him to! -- so it would be nice to see some resolution to this. Whether that's a compelling rationale for anyone else to oppose, yeah, probably not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the world of Dr. Blofeld (even if he opposed me at RFA ;) and we get along great, swapping links for guitar music and such. But he can take care of himself, he is no delicate flower. If I have to pick sides, I would cheat and pick both. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, that is indeed true of the Evil One :). I did use Mr. X's tools to check out the interactions between them. If this were a close run thing, I would defer to the positive opinions of Deor by experienced editors here. But it's not close and I'm going to stay out on a limb here. It might have been a new editor and I would have hoped for a more constructive approach to perceived problems. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I opposed you at RFA ;-). Anyway, could I ask either of you to post a link to those "Mr. X" tools (which I'm unfamiliar with) or a link to that interaction, either here or on the RFA Talk page or my User talk page? It hardly matters to the end result, but if it turns out that the candidate was goaded somehow, I might strike my oppose. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Shawn. The tool I was using is here (you want the interactions one). I found (from memory) three interaction on Deor's Talk page and six on Dr. Blofeld's. In defence of Dr. Blofeld's "Parma (Tibet)" stub, I have some experience locating places in Tibet in other work. Many of these localities are unnamed in Google Earth. I have no idea how Dr. B. found his "Parma" location, but it was good as his Chinee source show. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. No AfC contributions. Please correct me if i'm wrongAneditor (talk tome) 09:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   ?? Why would AFC contributions be necessary? There must be a lot of admins that never even visited AFC... --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   For an editor who's been here that long, he'll never have needed to use AfC to create one, and if he's never worked there clearing backlogs that's no reason to oppose; most people don't work there (hence the backlogs).GedUK  11:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I imagine you specifically mean no AFC reviews -- in which case the only value of that would be to demonstrate A) their demeanor in interacting with other editors and B) their knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Both of these qualifications can be extrapolated from other areas such as the help desk, AFD, and article writing in general. So why would no work in one small area make you think this editor should not receive the tools? Further, if you polled the number of current sysops that have no AFC contributions I'm willing to bet you're more likely to find those without than with some. I also noticed you only have about 18 edits to the AFC namespace of which slightly more than half of those are actually reviews, so I am curious to know from your experience, what makes this particularly important over other areas which you clearly spend much more time at. Mkdw^talk 19:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. Sorry but the answer to question 8 is just bad. [2] is no way near being able to be deleted under A7. —Dark 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Just out of curiosity, which part of the article do you feel makes A7 inapplicable? Do you consider it a building, and thus not being eligible per the criteria? Or do you feel that the second sentence about "Killing Castro" is a claim of notability? Personally, I agree with the nom. I'd say it could be considered an organization and the play isn't a claim of notability at all. But I think considering it a building, instead, is a legitimate perspective as well.--v/r - TP 21:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   A7 only applies to individuals, animals, organizations, web content and events. That article is not any of the above. Also, having a reviewed play from a notable newspaper is a claim of notability. It may not necessarily make it notable, but it is definitely a claim or a reason why the theatre may be notable. —Dark 21:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Interesting, I figured it was that. Like I said, I'm convinced that this theater can easily be considered an organization but there is probably significant disagreement on that so I won't hound you on that. I don't think having a notable play, of which it was described as an "acclaimed comedy" before the performance at the theater in question and not because of the particular showing at that particular theater, is any claim of notability. Of course theaters show plays. That's their purpose. If it didn't, I think that would make it notable.--v/r - TP 21:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   The thing is, the article is about the showing of a notable play at that particular theatre. It wasn't just about the showing of a play. The subject of the article is "THE FESTIVAL Theatre in Malvern is preparing to present ... Killing Castro". That in itself presents a claim of notability, enough to satisfy A7. A7 is simply meant to ensure that you present a credible indication of why the article can be significant or important. Notability is not inherited from association. A claim of significance to satisfy a CSD crtieria however? I would definitely say that it is. —Dark 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   It's certainly arguable that it's enough to pass the CSD criteria, but it's also arguable that it's not. The article is practically a press release to advertise that a play is coming to town. It's not really about the theater at all, the theater is only mentioned as the location. The performance that earned Killing Castro attention wasn't even at the theater. Either way, I've got a good idea what your reasoning was, so thank you.--v/r - TP 22:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   The point, of course, is that speedy deletion is meant for uncontroversial decisions to delete. The moment it becomes "arguable" then it's a red-flag that CSD isn't appropriate and the discussion needs to take place at AfD. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   ""oppose"" per Axll GMT1337 (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   my sock alarm is ringing, brb. Cloudchased (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Indented trolling; if I was a crat, I'd have just removed it, but I'm not, so I didn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose. yeah, I don't know know what was going on here at this AfD nomination, but it's not the small matter it's been made out to be, imo, and raises some temperment and grudge-carrying concerns as we consider giving more powers. I'm not one who feels admins must be unctuously polite and some of my favourites are pretty darn crusty, but this goes beyond that, especially for someone who's been presented as "a voice of calm and diplomacy." I might reconsider. I would be especially interested in hearing from Dr. Blofeld on the matter, should he choose to weigh in. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose There are a lot of positives and it's possible that he could make a really good admin, but the AFD that's been brought up doesn't give me enough confidence to support. Without judging who was right in that debate I saw a lot of personalization of the conflict, and the way he interacted with Bloefeld is exactly the way conflicts get escalated. It was over 6 months ago and if it were much older I probably just wouldn't have voted, but I can see it being a problem. If there are some examples of him defusing a situation since then those could sway my vote, particularly if they are in an area where he clearly holds an opinion. Chuy1530 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Seems to be well-versed in policy and have a level-head but I was wondering if you could provide me with several links to disputes/discussions you have been involved in, just so I have a rough idea of temperament and dispute resolution skills. Even stuff that you have "walked away from" would be fine. —Dark 14:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to forget such things quickly, so I'm having a hard time coming up with any good examples. Certainly the most protracted article dispute I've participated in, involving a particularly loquacious (now blocked) user, is one that can be followed on archives 1, 2, and 3 of Talk:Celestial spheres, ending with the RfC I started here, though I wouldn't recommend anyone's trying to wade through that mass of verbiage. My most significant dispute(s) with a particular user were probably with User:A Nobody and his previous account, though those discussions are scattered all over the place; you may want to look at my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody. Most of my editing has been at relatively obscure articles, and what small spats have occurred have been correspondingly minor. Deor (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look over ANI. Despite a few misclicks with rollback [3][4] (which could happen to anyone), I don't see anything objectionable. —Dark 16:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The nominee looks like an outstanding editor but a tad thin in AfD and some of the Adminny kind of things I expect to see more of in a nominee. That said, I don't think it's to the point where I need to oppose the nomination. But I'm not really sold on this one, so I'm going to respectfully abstain while wishing Deor well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1548 AFDs doesn't seem thin. Most were a year ago, but that is still a tremendous amount of experience. Most candidates don't even have 300 behind them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate with less than 300 AfD discussions under his/her belt would almost certainly get an Opposed !vote from me. But your point is a fair one. I will think about it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?--v/r - TP 18:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]