| Revision as of 23:42, 26 February 2008 editGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers495,701 edits →Deacon of Pndapetzim: seconding that← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:10, 27 February 2008 edit undoDeacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators39,755 edits accept and answerNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| :I second that nomination. ] (]) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | :I second that nomination. ] (]) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :''Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:'' | :''Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:'' I accept with pleasure. ] (<small>]</small>) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| <!--The candidate may make an optional statement here--> | <!--The candidate may make an optional statement here--> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ====Questions for the candidate==== | ====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: | 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? | :'''1.''' What admin work do you intend to take part in? | ||
| ::'''A:''' | |||
| ::'''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 ], I would patrol that for lagging closures, patrol ], ] and ], 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 |
||
| ::'''A:''' | |||
| ⚫ | :'''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 ], ], ], and ], and even more substantial in ] and (most recently) ]. 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 ... ] 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 ], ] and this ] 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 ], ] and the ]. | |||
| ⚫ | :'''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 ] and ] annoy me the most, but I've learned that these are inevitable in certain areas, so I console myself with a paraphrase of a ] 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 ], and the ] page. Note that I was ] 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 ] 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 ], 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 ] and ] 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. | |||
| ⚫ | :'''3 |
||
| ::'''A:''' | |||
| ====General comments==== | ====General comments==== | ||
Revision as of 00:10, 27 February 2008
Deacon of Pndapetzim
Voice your opinion (talk page) (0/0/0); 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 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)
- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
General comments
RfAs for this user:- 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.