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

Deor[edit]

Final: (95/16/0) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 13:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Deor (talk · contribs)

Nomination statement by User:Drmies[edit]

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[edit]

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?
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]
Additional questions from Northamerica1000
13. Do you tend to gravitate toward deletion in AfD discussions? Your AfD statistics display that in the last 500 AfD pages edited you have !voted to delete in 76.1% of discussions you've participated in (229 !votes), to redirect 14.3% of the time (43 !votes) and for article retention at 6% (18 !votes). Do you consider yourself to be a "deletionist"? What are your thoughts about the various alternatives to deletion delineated at WP:ATD?
A: I don't consider myself a deletionist. When I was participating in AfDs, I'd scan the daily logs for something that caught my eye—usually either an article's name or something in the nominator's rationale. (Most of them I'd ignore, especially ones on topics of which I'm ignorant, such as contemporary popular music.) After investigation, I might or might not express an opinion. I think that the number of times I opted for deletion pretty much reflects the number of deletion-worthy articles that make it to AfD (though I have no statistics to support that statement); but I may have tended unconsciously to select AfDs in which the nomination seemed particularly incontestible or the articles were manifestly unsuitable (hoaxes, copyvios, etc.). I've certainly !voted for redirection or merging on a number of occasions—and I've redirected, stubbified, and nominated for merger articles that seemed clear candidates for such actions even though they hadn't been AfDed—so I have no problem with alternatives to deletion per se. Deor (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. What is your opinion regarding supervotes?
A: I'm against them. :-) The only exception is the sort of close mentioned in the third sentence of WP:NSUPER. If a nomination garners no responses, even after relisting, it makes some sense to "soft delete" the article, offering to restore it on request. After all, an uncontested prod is routinely deleted even though no one has advocated deletion other than the nominator. Deor (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from LT910001
15. Firstly, congratulations on generating such a lively RfA. I would like to ask: It is possible that admins, particularly those that 'wield the mop' in reducing backlogs and combating vandalism, both very useful activities, may become distanced from content editing. This may influence, in positive and negative ways, their actions, beliefs and behaviour towards editors and issues. I personally think it is important that admins, with their unique role, make enough edits to maintain an connection to and understand of general wiki issues, such as consensus building in article space, collaborative editing, and difficulties in building up an article. These issues are, in my mind, unique from the discussions that occur in AfD and other venues, which occur in a different manner, format, and with a different set of participants.
As an admin, particularly one with an interest in AfD, how will you maintain your connection with content editors and issues faced by content editors? --LT910001 (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A: As I implied in my answer to question 1 above, I plan (should I be given the mop) to engage in admin tasks in addition to, rather than instead of, the sorts of editing I do now. I definitely keep an eye on the work of content editors through my watchlist, talk-page discussions, selected WikiProjects, and the like, and I don't foresee that changing. I no doubt will even continue to write and expand a few articles, as I have in the past. With regard to AfDs, I don't think that closing them by judging consensus really need involve a "connection with content editors"—just an ability to weigh, in the light of WP policies and guidelines, the various opinions expressed. Deor (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  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. BencherliteTalk 00:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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) retracting support !vote — MusikAnimal talk 19:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Stephen 00:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 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]
  23. Support Qualified editor. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 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]
  25. 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]
  26. Support. Without reservation, even having read the opposes. Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, happy to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. 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]
  29. Support- no concerns here. Reyk YO! 04:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Solid editor, who seems unlikely to break the wiki. Definite WP:NETPOSTazerdadog (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. Support. Big thumbs up for this one.--Razionale (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Easy support. Really competent, really dedicated. - Dank (push to talk) 11:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 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]
  36. 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]
  37. Support Looks good to me. GedUK  11:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 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]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. Support - Recipient of the Dennis Brown Seal of Approval.™ More than adequate tenure, more than adequate edits, no one comparatively small indication of assholery. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. 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]
  43. Support looks good, no serious issues.--Staberinde (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 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]
  45. 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. Mkdwtalk 19:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support No concerns. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 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]
  48. 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.---AldNonUcallin?☎ 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. 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]
  50. Support Has my full trust, decent candidate. SpencerT♦C 02:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 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]
  52. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  53. 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]
  54. Support No concerns. Vacation9 03:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  55. 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]
  56. 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]
  57. Per nom and answers to questions. I don't see room for making mistakes. Japanese Rail Fan 15:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, plenty of experience. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  59. 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]
  60. 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]
  61. 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]
  62. Support. Based on a his long history of excellent contributions, I'm prepared to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt regarding his response here to the AfD that has been questioned. I trust that lessons have been learned and that he would make a fine admin. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 08:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Wikipedia would benefit from more administrators that are content-focused, and the user has displayed competence. Sufficient AfD contributions. Some of the opposes below have nothing to do with competency for adminship (e.g. No AfC contributions, minor edits on articles). Minor snarkiness in an AfD discussion ([2]) and in a user page post ([3]) is somewhat concerning, but it occurred about seven months ago, and isn't enough to convince me to oppose. NorthAmerica1000 13:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I was gone for awhile and he did great work on Voltaire by welcoming good edits and removing vandalism. Thank you Deor. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support a wise editor a lot of whose contributions I've been familiar with for years. I too have experienced Deor as levelheaded and fair and committed to what a good encyclopedia can provide. A lot of of focus here seems to lie on a heated AFD discussion. Well, apart from the fact that this may be the exception confirming the rule in cases not excepted, I don't mind outspoken admins as long they don't throw their "weight" in with it. I don't see this danger with Deor. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Net positive. I like the "Supervote" answer. Sending an article of an experienced editor to AFD is no crime unless it is done on purpose to nark said editor, which wasn't the case here (not that I would recommend deleting any of Dr B's articles as he seems to have a brilliant eye for notabililiy, he just did not show it too obvious in his minisstub period). Agathoclea (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Seen him around, seems like a strong candidate for the bit. Kurtis (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Fully qualified candidate, and I'm sure he'll bear in mind the opposers' concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Can't see why not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support net positive. Pichpich (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support The opposers raise a valid concern, but without a pattern of such behavior, I have no concerns. I am One of Many (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Appears quite solid, and I appreciate that he opposes "supervotes" as a rule. Collect (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support – likely would've passed easily if he'd decided to run back in 2008, before RfA became the quagmire it is today. Well enough qualified for my sensibilities and I don't see any non-trivial reasons to oppose. Mojoworker (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I have waited to see if anything else emerged comparable to the unfortunate AfD conflict with Dr. Blofeld. Seeing nothing, I will join others in advising the candidate to learn from that bad experience, which I am confident has already been taken to heart. So, that was a one time mistake, and the rest of the candidate's work here has been generally solid, and deserving of the mop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I think Deor's attitude and behavior are more than suitable for adminship, and I think Deor would make a good admin. I feel Deor will bring a slightly different attitude to the table. Like all admins, particularly those involved in AfD, I would strongly encourage involvement with article editing, at least one per season (summer, winter, spring), either in articles such as untended core articles that require discussion and collaboration, or by providing significant content contributions to articles (eg stub --> C-class), to gain some insight into the other side of the coin. --LT910001 (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Have sheepishly struck out the above comment (but question posed above still stands). --LT910001 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Secret account 16:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support – a reasonable human who has bravely volunteered for an impossible job. Good luck! Harej (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support the Blofeld episode is regrettable but is the type of isolated incident that any editor with lengthy service is likely to have on their record. Definitely seems a net positive. Valenciano (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support My interactions with this user have always been positive and I think they'll make fine use of the tools. — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c) 19:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - It seems like most of those in the oppose section are judging a human's entire persona off of one particular bit of data; that's not how this is supposed to work. We look here not for magically perfect god-creatures that have been so kind as to bestow a droplet of their time on us, but for humans that we consider to "get it" enough that their promotion won't damage the goals of our community. To determine whether the editor is responsible enough we look at the entire swath of their contributions and their place in the greater picture, meaning we see both actions and their context. A necessary context that shows us whether a mistake is just that, or if it's part of some larger trend. To do otherwise would be no different than a doctor examining a patient and, upon noticing a slight cough, diagnosing them with stage 4 tuberculosis. Well, Deor doesn't have TB nor does his one interaction with Blofeld define his character. Deor is a well-rounded editor who has proven himself ready for the tools; he has also proven that he's just as human as the rest of us. And good on him for being honest enough to admit that he and Blofeld don't get along well; honesty is a trait I look for in a potential admin, not feigned cordiality. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Based on his contributions, his block log, and no (recent) warnings on his talk page, he seems admin worthy! --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 00:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - per Stfg. WP:CIVIL does not mean you must like everybody, or that you must pretend to like everybody; instead, it says that even if you don't like someone you should endeavor to remain polite, calm, and reasonable. Now, has Deor met that standard? Generally, yes, even if not always. I see the admission that someone just rubs you the wrong way not as putting the blame on that someone, but as a sign of maturity and self-awareness that bodes well for the administrator role. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Will be a content rather than wanna be cop admin; Wiki could do with a few more. I have had difficulties with Deor, where we have both lost patience, but overall I see her as on the same side. I would trust her with extra buttons, and from interactions was left with the impression of a strong, sincear, thoughtful person behind the account. What more from an admin, if this project is to be more than policing and personal advancement. Ceoil (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Him, actually. Deor (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Christ. I'll get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I've seen many of Deor's contribs on my watchlist; a strong copyeditor, a good gnome, makes cogent arguments, is conversant with policies. Not to soapbox too much but if however many years and however many thousands of edits is insufficient because of lack of experience in the alphabet soup department, then we have a problem. Regardless, I'm thrilled to see this nom and to support. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support I'm not a fan of this edit, but Deor is a great editor will be a net positive, I'm sure. MJ94 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  87. I've waited until near the end of this RfA to make my decision, and I have a lot of ambivalence about it. Somewhat to my surprise, I don't remember much in the way of having crossed paths with the candidate, so I'm mostly reacting to what is on this RfA page. For someone with this much editing experience, I'm a little disappointed at the non-answer to Q11. (I could probably write a phone book of my own editing mistakes.) And, like many of the editors in the oppose section, I agree with the comment immediately above my own, about being no fan of that particular comment. Actually, I'm barely a hair's width away from agreeing entirely with oppose number 10 by Stfg, and I came very close to making an oppose comment echoing that one. But, having looked critically at the answer to Q8, I'm seeing a clear indication that the candidate recognizes that it was a mistake, and regrets it. I think it's reasonable to say that, instead, they "would have passed it by" had they realized who the page creator was, before starting the AfD. If the RfA process comes up with a pattern of mistakes like this one, then that's a reason I might oppose. But, with the RfA period almost over, I'm really seeing just this one "skeleton in the closet". And I'm not going to oppose over one mistake, in the context of such an otherwise strong editing history. Insert here the maxim about casting the first stone. So I'm ending up echoing Newyorkbrad's hope in support number 68, that, going forward, the candidate will take seriously all the feedback here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - I wasn't going to !vote, but I wanted to counteract what I think are some flimsy and ridiculous oppose rationales (some are valid, others are not). Moreover, I trust Drmies, Dennis, and Kudpung, all of whom give the candidate a ringing endorsement, and the editor's username gives me a positive response, leading me to believe I've had a positive interaction with the user before. All in all, the answers to the questions like fine, and I am sure Deor will make a fine administrator. Go Phightins! 02:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support per Drmies. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support I'm sure he'll be a good admin. His contribs look good, he has a clean block log, and really seems admin worthy! StevenD99 04:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Looking through the contribs it looks as if Deor has made great work on many articles, can perform maintenance, and can keep a cool head in a discussion. Good luck! -24Talk 05:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Sure. --Pratyya (Hello!) 06:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - The nominee's answers to the questions show his trustworthiness as well as a solid editing history. I have no problems with giving them admin tools. DJAMP4444 09:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - I think you will do well...Modernist (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Long term user ,Trustworthy and experienced.Clearly the project only gains with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  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]
    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]
    Striking, following Shawn below and per all the support above despite this one lapse. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:57, 15 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 Chinese source show. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't seem to be able to figure out how to produce results with that tool, whiz that I am. But I did a manual history search and honestly can't see what Blo did to merit this. Anyway, this Rfa will pass. Lessons will be learned. Life will go on. It's a veritable after school special. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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. Mkdwtalk 19:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sorry but the answer to question 8 is just bad. [4] 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]
    I couldn't let that statement go by. You can always find someone to argue with you about whether the speedy deletion criteria have been applied correctly, and it's not always the creator. Luckily, most people take their medicine and either make the necessary improvements or let it go. I'm not defending Deor's conduct in this case, but personally I would have called that article blatant advertising as it stood, just as TP points out above. Deb (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simply not accurate. Speedy deletions happen all the time without any controversy. The point stands that when the person requesting speedy deletion says the speedy is "arguable", then they know very well that it isn't uncontroversial and an AfD is needed. I'm supporting Deor's candidacy here, even if I don't find his answers perfect. But I'm sure you'll realise that calling an article blatant advertising still doesn't make it A7 (or even G11 - which is reserved for exclusively promotional pages that are unsalvageable). --RexxS (talk) 23:08, 14 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]
    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]
    Striking through my oppose. The % of support has drifted down closer to a region where Rfas start to fail, and I would not want my !vote to have contributed to that. He has admitted his mistake with Blofeld and while it would have been a nicer (and more mature) gesture to have actually apologized, it's sufficient for me. It's an isolated incident. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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]
  5. Oppose per candidate's behavior at the above mentioned AfD and his/her subsequent unnecessary and poisonous remark at Blofeld's talk page. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Lots of admins occasionally get frustrated, but the aforementioned behaviour I'm observing from the candidate, albeit from six months ago, is in my opinion unacceptable. With a WP:DBI and WP:LASTWORD mentality, it shows they have the potential to lose their edge and possibly misuse the tools. I was already apprehensive in my support given their answer to Q1 and recent editing history suggesting they would not be a very active admin. What else has happened in the past six months that we're not aware of? I apologize as weighing in these factors, it is at this point difficult for me to consider the candidate a net-positive. — MusikAnimal talk 20:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But MusikAnimal, what could have happened in the last six months that you couldn't see in their edit history? In all these edits of Deor's, we managed to find one occasion where they clearly lost their cool--I doubt that you'll find this last-word mentality in all the other interactions Deor's been involved in since then. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose for now. I have concerns about the candidate's maturity and civility after seeing the comments made at the AfD and at Dr. Blofield's talk page. gobonobo + c 01:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Looking at his comments made not that long ago, I don't really think this person is a good editor, and don't trust them to be an administrator. Dream Focus 02:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What a miserable thing to say. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not miserable in the slightest. Dream's only given a small faction of his reasons here, we have long experience with this candidate. I was expecting to cast a rare oppose myself too, but sampling Deor's work over the last year, there's a lot less negative stuff, and a good proportion of helpful edits like improving geocoords and help desk answers. The recent attack on the Dr may now be out of character, so Im staying neutral as there seems a reasonable chance Deor has mellowed and will be a net positive as an Admin. But time may well prove Dream's instincts to be the wiser. Someone of Dream's skill could easily build a strong and convincing evidence based oppose that would have a good chance of tanking this RfA. It's typical of Dream's good nature that he had the restraint just to write a lite weight comment. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think "I don't really think this person is a good editor" is lite weight, hate to see what you think is heavy. Hey, I'm opposing but I still agree w/ Julian. Deor is not a "bad editor." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @FeydHuxtable: On the other hand, if Dream Focus has 'strong and convincing' evidence that the candidate is unsuitable for adminship, they should share it here. To do otherwise, and observe from the sidelines, while an unsuitable candidate gets promoted, would be a disservice to the wider Wikipedia community. Bellerophon talk to me 09:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at his AFD stats. [5] He has only been in one AFD this year. Looking at the ones he has been in in the past shows some troublesome signs. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. James's Place we see him nominating something for deletion and 12 people showing up to say it should be kept, with no one agreeing with him. And at the AFD others have mentioned, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival Theatre, Malvern, he nominated it for deletion and no one agreed with him, all seven others participants saying keep. This was back in 13 November 2013, so not that long ago. His comments there reveal his nature fair enough I think. He hasn't done enough AFDs to be an administrator, and some of those I see he has done, he didn't act in a way befitting of an administrator. Dream Focus 11:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "He hasn't done enough AFDs to be an administrator" - so a candidate has to have a minimum number of AfDs to be an administrator now? What's the number then? Candidates can all save a lot of time and effort if they are told the magic figure in advance. --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How about more than one a year. In 2014, he has only participated in one. Honestly now. You want to give him the ability to close AFDS, then you need to be able to judge how well he'll do so. The fact that someone would get irritated when something didn't go their way, and post something as he did, shows his character. Does he not stop and think before posting what he has written? Then to go and post the other comment on the guy's talk page. Did you read what everyone is linking to? I haven't bothered to go through all of his AFDs since I don't see the point. I've seen enough already to make my decision. Dream Focus 23:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "How about more than one a year". Sounds good to me. Considering he's done 1548 AFDs in his seven and a half years editing Wikipedia, I make that over 200 per year. But that's not good enough for you, right? Yes I read all about the Festival Theatre AfD and anybody can have a bad day. But we're not discussing that, are we? We're discussing your assertion that 1548 AfDs are not "enough AfDs to be an administrator". Let's face it: you haven't gone through any of the other 1547 AfDs because you've jumped to a conclusion without bothering to look at the evidence. The point that you don't see is that he's done more than enough AfDs for anyone who bothers "to be able to judge how well he'll do" and you've judged his ability on one case. Time to stop digging the hole. --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So in years past he was far more active in them. I mention anything that happened that long ago, people would just say to judge him now. Are there any AFDs that you see that stand out, showing his character in a favorable manner, able to listen to both sides and make an argument convincing enough to sway people? Dream Focus 00:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I just see steady consideration and competence. Folks don't lose abilities like those, so I'm not worried about the timescale. The reason why RfA is such a quagmire, of course, is because folks like you seem to want superhuman qualities in their admins - 1500 AfDs not being enough. Let's just be satisfied with giving the mop to normal humans, warts and all. --RexxS (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Not seeing much added value or breadth of experience as the candidate seems to spend most of his time fiddling with coordinates. Andrew (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And if no-one keeps an eye on the co-ordinates? There are people who go around altering them to wrong settings. I wouldn't notice, in the main. Would you? But there users who do use them, as I have myself when detecting a hoax. Peridon (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the coordinate edits are summarised as "tweaks". In other words, they are low-value edits of a minor technical nature. The candidate seems to have made few substantial content contributions and so should not be given power over editors who do actually create substantial content; editors like Blofeld, to whom the candidate was so unpleasant. Andrew (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson: Every productive edit is important to someone; it would do you well to remember that. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, but reluctantly and with a big dose of moral support. Of course Deor is a good editor -- a very good one. Geographic coordinates, for one thing, are very useful information to have in articles. And I see a lot of overall competence and usually nice demeanour. People disagree about what should go to AFD, but to call someone a bad editor just because of such disagreements is ridiculous. And I'm with Deor in being irritated by those useless, informationless, uncited stubs with barely if any indication of notability. People complain about people not doing WP:BEFORE before going to AFD: how about requiring something equivalent to WP:BEFORE before rushing something into article space that could have remained in userspace until there was enough to go live? (I suspect that that and some other articles mentioned here would have bombed at AFC these days.)

    But it can't be denied that the comment at Dr B's talk page was vitriolic, and Q8 makes it worse. To say in public that one doesn't like another editor isn't civil, and to implicitly put the blame on them by saying that they rub one up the wrong way makes it worse. It also isn't wise: we all have editors we don't much like, but sometimes a meeting of minds can happen, and publicising the dislike makes this harder. At the very least, Deor needed to wake up the next morning, realise what he had done, and apologise for it. So I'm opposing this time round, for reasons of immaturity and lack of discretion. If the issue with Dr B could be fixed, I'd support another RFA in an instant. (Apologies for the length of this, but I think it all needed saying.) --Stfg (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  11. Oppose, after my personal review of edits. Wincent77 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose very reluctantly, because most of the editor's work is very good. But the material above reveals too many areas where he is insufficient prepared; he nonetheless intends to work in those areas. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. The candidate states XfDs as one of his intended areas of admin activity. Yet, as others have noted above, he has had virtually no AfD and CSD participation this year, and his AfD participation last year has exhibited some non-minor problems. Not yet ready for access to the delete button, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per DGG and Nsk92 and others. I think the candidate should takes note of all the opposes, and try to adjust their editing to address the issues raised. Then after a suitable period, go for a second RfA, where (assuming the editing has been OK) they should get more support from the community.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 11:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose with some regret as Deor shows a number of positive characteristics. But I'd need rather a bit more daylight between that AFD attitude and him with the mop. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Echoing others from the past (who've apparently no interest to !vote or are no longer able to), not a good idea to give the block bat to an editor with limited interest in content creation (article creation isn't my main interest; [...] GA or FA, but I have little interest in those processes). Here, instead of trying to understand/learn something from a more experienced content writer, the nom chooses to get unnecessarily personal and mock instead: What Eric's problem is, I can't imagine, except perhaps that when one is a malleus fatuorum for long enough, everyone else starts looking like a fatuus. [...] Deor (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC). (But that kind of attitude always improves thru time, right!? Especially after receiving the bat FOR LIFE and membering with "the untouchable crowd".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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 [6][7] (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]
Yeah, huh? Since when is participation in 300 AFDs a prerequisite for adminship? Heck, I'm an admin and I don't believe I have that many AFDs under my belt. I certainly have closed only a handful, I think. AFD just isn't my area of interest. Not every admin can be involved in all things. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conceding that there are no real hard and fast criteria for Adminship, and that everyone who bothers to participate here will have their own standards, what I look for can be found here. You are of course free to agree or disagree with my standards. Your !vote is your own. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem, your criteria are fine, although I'd expand your AFD criteria to any form of participation in dispute resolution, of which AFD is just one. For example, before my RFA I had very few AFDs but I had spent years handling a large number of WP:Third opinion cases demonstrating dispute resolution experience. If a candidate's AFD record is weak, I look for an established record in related dispute-resolution areas like WP:3O or constructive comments at WP:ANI. I haven't voted in this RFA, my feelings are mixed, which is why I'm posting comments in the neutral section. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2014 (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