The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship which succeeded. Please do not modify it.

Final - (117/12/3). Closed as successful. Raul654 21:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Well, this is my second nomination for bureaucratship of myself (first is Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Deskana). I'd been thinking about nominating myself again in the past few days, and have decided that I would do it now.

Personally, I feel Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats. Most of the bcrat stuff is done by Cecropia (who might I add, was only recently re-elected as a bureaucrat), and there is a backlog at WP:CHU. The fact that Cecropia now does most of the bcrat stuff doesn't necessarily mean that had Cecropia not been elected we would be stuck without active bureaucrats, but it does make me wonder.

The job of a bureaucrat (as far as RfA is concerned) is interpreting consensus. Basically asking yourself the question "Does the community here indicate that promotion is a good idea?". It's clear there is a correlation between percentage support and pass rate, and to say that is a fact. To say "RfA is a vote" is a point of dispute. Personally, I believe it is safe to say that RfA isn't a vote, because there have been RfAs that have failed with higher support rates than RfAs that have passed. Generally, the community makes good decisions on who to promote to admin, and even when admins go crazy and eventually get themselves desysopped that doesn't mean they made a bad choice.

What's changed since my last nomination for bureaucratship? In matters unrelated to bureaucratship, I feel I've become more mature with regards to Wikipedia. I don't think anyone ever stops learning. Secondly, from watching RfAs and how they go, I feel I understand bureaucratship more. In my last nomination people were concerned that I didn't understand consensus, and while I believe that I did then, I certainly understand it more now. It's clear to me that it isn't the bureaucrat who promotes the admin, it's the community. The bureaucrat just pushes the button.

As a bureaucrat I would be active in closing RfAs, changing usernames, and discussing RfAs where the consensus is not clear. I would add WP:RFBOT to my watchlist to make sure there is never a backlog there, either.

What motivated me to nominate myself for bureaucratship, and why now? I've been admin for 1 year, 2 months and 2 days (according to a box on my userpage), and have been a Wikipedian for over two years. I feel I have a good knowledge the way Wikipedia works from my time here, and given the fact that I believe we need more bureaucrats, I wish to serve Wikipedia in this manner. I also chose now because there is a backlog at WP:CHU and we only seem to have one active crat at RfA, and it has been over five months since my last nomination, and I feel I understand Wikipedia well enough now to serve in this manner.

Oh, and I will probably respond to opposes if their meaning is unclear or I have something to say on the matter. In RfAs and RfBs (including my last RfB) this was interpreted as arguing with opposers. I assure you I am not arguing, but attempting to understand their criticism better. Please ask any questions you want answering. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Based upon button pushing by bureaucrats and what the almost all of the community deems acceptable without dispute, 75+% is a consensus to promote, and 70-% support has no consensus to promote. What I mean is that very few people will complain if someone is promoted with over 75% support or not promoted with under 70% support. There have been exceptions to this rule where the bureaucrats felt that a consensus had been reached to promote with less support than is typical of an RfA.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. Discussion with the community, and with other bureaucrats. Given that it's easier to promote than it is to desysop, it doesn't hurt to err on the side of caution and discuss the matter more with the other bureaucrats after the request has ended to make sure that promoting isn't a mistake, if I feel it would be.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. In my duties as an admin, I believe I am fair. I keep always try to keep my cool and act fairly to users I have had disagreements with, and try to put the past behind me. I have attempted to help users who I have previously had disagreements with in the past, even when they don't believe in me as an administrator. I try to steer clear of conflicts of interest so promise not to take actions that may be viewed as such.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Yes, I do.

Question 5 from Haukur: Are you familiar with the RFA process of the German Wikipedia? Do you think that system has any advantages over the one currently used over here? As a cheat sheet here is a short description of German RFA procedures, here is the German RFA page and here is a Google translation of it Haukur 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a straight vote with a 66.7% majority required to pass, from what I've heard. The translation seems to confirm this. Well, that system has its advantages. For a start, there will probably be less borderline cases than we have here. Promotion or no promotion would be clear cut in every case. I think it's a good system, primarily because its clear cut and cuts out on arguments that get people upset and worked up. However, our system is good too. True, there are a few cases where I disagree with the outcome here, but I think the system works. I can understand why people were outraged at the Danny promotion, given it falling below the support percentage people typically see here, but since his re-promotion he's been a good admin, from what I can tell. Both systems have merits, but to be honest, I prefer ours. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 22:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a prompt answer. I agree with you that having a clear cut threshhold for promotion reduces acrimony and the perception of unfairness. Haukur 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from bibliomaniac15

Q: What are your personal criteria for an RFA candidate? bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: You mean what makes me vote support? I don't have any. It's generally just how I feel about the person. "x edits distributed about n namespaces" personally means nothing to me. Generally more edits = responsible admin, but I don't like to use that standard (example). If I've intereacted with them before then I generally vote (term used for lack of a better one, I don't like "!vote") on my experience with them. For example, I voted support on User:Walton_monarchist89's RfA, because I was impressed at how he conducted himself here. Incidentally, he held the complete opposite opinion of me. I'm glad I supported him, anyway.

Optional question from daveh4h

Q: I noticed an oppose in your last RfB made by User:Alkivar. It regarded a small bulleted essay on your Wikipedia philosophy which you removed here. You then addressed Alkivar stating that you "didn't expect it to scare people". I think I agree what you were trying to express in your "Wikipedia Philosophy", but it is stated very bluntly and some may have a problem with it. Do you still hold similar feelings expressed there? If not, how have you changed? (Please don't feel bound by these specific questions, address it as you wish)

A: I really didn't expect anyone to find it scary. That represents my philosophy, that the spirit is more important than the letter of the rule. I still hold that principle highly, I just don't parade it on my userpage in a confrontational manner anymore. It's quite understandable that people would see it scary, but I guess I just figured something I quickly jotted down on my userpage wouldn't really matter. About the IAR thing... don't get me wrong, the letter of the rule is important. It exists for a reason, after all. If things didn't need to be so specifically stated, they wouldn't be. The spirit is just more important, even if it contradicts the letter.

Question from Walton:

Q. Given that Danny's RfA closed at only 68% support, with over 100 good-faith opposes from established users, do you believe it was right for him to be promoted? I'm not asking for an opinion on Danny himself, but on the bureaucrats' closure of that RfA, which ignored 100 people's opinions given in good faith. Walton^talk 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Well, I disagree with your statement that the bureaucrats "ignoring 100 people's opinions". Does that mean that every time a RfA is closed as pass when there are opposes, the bureaucrats are ignoring what they've said? No, it means that they've thought about it but ultimately decided to promote. Anyway, I thought they made the right decision, given that Danny was a good admin in the past and has been a good admin since. But I'm biased, I supported in the RfA. I doubt I would have said anything in the bureaucrat chat. RfA isn't a vote, it can just be treated that way in the majority of examples. This is where the German system has its advantages. And incidentally, the German system would have promoted him too, but it's also true it would have promoted a lot of other people that failed. --Deskana (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Deskana. Your answer appears to suggest that RfA is neither a vote nor a consensus. In my own re-RfB, I said that consensus was clearly not reached in that case, though the 'crats decision was valid (made in good faith), even if I couldn't say it was the right one. Please tell me how you are not saying that bureaucrats are the "real" voters on RfA, and the community only advisors? -- Cecropia 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise I took so long to answer this, for some reason I thought it was aimed at Walton. Anyway, I must admit I'm slightly confused where you've managed to draw that conclusion from. That's not the way I see it. RfA is based on a consensus. Bureaucrats decide whether there is a consensus for promotion or not. They interpret the desire of the community on RfA. Does this answer your question? --Deskana (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have specified the question was for you, Deskana. Yes, bureaucrats are charged with determining consensus, and since they promoted Danny in good faith the promotion is valid. However, by any reasoning I can use, there was no consensus of the community on the RfA itself, just among the bureaucrats that Danny should be promoted. Now if you go the other way, and say that it was a vote, it didn't reach that either. My opinion is that the bureaucrats in the case were too aware of Danny's historic position in Wikipedia. If Danny were a bank, he would have been characterized as "too big to fail" so essentially I believe that the bureaucrats were leaning more toward a way to promote and avoid further conflict than to make the call that the community consensus indicated if it were almost any other candidate. I could have been restored to bureaucratship by the same reasoning as Danny's RfA if I had garnered only a 2/3 support, but I wouldn't have wanted it, not only because the community had spoken, but also because my work would be permanently tainted. -- Cecropia 21:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. Thank you for the insight. --Deskana (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm still not clear on this, setting aside your personal support for Danny, do you feel that there was community consensus for his promotion? Haukur 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking long and hard about this, and my answer is no. Promoting Danny was the right thing to do in the context of improving the project... but with so many opposes you can't really say there was a consensus to promote him. I agree with Cecropia though. The bureaucrats acted in good faith and (in my opinon) made the right decision, but it wasn't based on community consensus, and I wouldn't have promoted him myself with that kind of opposition. Do you understand my position, here? Right call, but not based on the right information. --Deskana (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying so promptly. The convenient thing for you to do would have been to try to brush this under the rug and I appreciate you tackling it head-on. Just to make sure I understand you correctly, do you believe that a) there was not a community consensus for the promotion of Danny and b) that the bureaucrats nevertheless did the right thing in promoting him? Haukur 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes and yes. It's easy to say they made the right decision in hindsight though, and faced with a similar situation, I'd probably have said it should have closed as a fail with that much opposition, were I involved in the bureaucrat chat. But it was the right decision. --Deskana (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add a different dimension to this. Yes and no. I feel the bureaucrats did the best they could under the circumstances but, as we can see, it was a terrible precedent. Dany could have asked for his bit back (as I could've but didn't) but chose to stand for an RfA. Having stood for an RfA, he should have expected (and I have no reason to assume he didn't) the possibility it would fail and was ready to accept that. Seeing that he voluntarily submitted himself to the process and the process didn't reach consensus, that would have been the proper decision. I don't object, per se to Danny being an admin again. But, if he didn't ask for his bit back, and he didn't reach consensus on his RfA, and if he is that important to the project, then someone higher up, such as Jimbo, could have directed that he get the bit back, and not have the RfA process subverted. -- Cecropia 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC):[reply]

10. In the past, I have noted a concept in the WT:RFA archives somewhere about "scientific scaling" of RfAs in that, in general, it would seem that the commnity thinks an individual member may have different personal standards as to what they expect of a candidate, but that it would be preferable that a given person treats candidates consistently with their standards. In some cases, there are often mutterings about people moving the bar lower because they are friends with a given candidate or conversely some people can suddenly raise the bar for some guy that they don't like. People are always grumbling about RfAs being popularity contests and so forth. How would you deal with a case, for instance, where some person perhaps got 80-85% in raw numbers, but this occurred because a group of people went soft on them for some reason (eg when some person only made 800 article edits and/or only wrote 1 stub or had only been around for 2 months - but some people who have soft spot waived their usual requirements for 2000 edits, multiple non stubs, 5 months etc etc,). Conversely, what would you do if they were below the grey zone, but had a whole group of people who suddenly used uncharacteristically high standards (eg when they oppose citing less common reasons, or selectively quoting 1FA or lack of article writing or vandal fighting, when they usually support people at a much lower bar) - This could be because the people are either "under-rated" and "unfashionable" as well as rank undisguised retaliation against an argument somewhere. What is your opinion on calibrating the opinions in such grey cases with unusual supports/oppositions? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky situation, and I feel it's somewhat hypothetical as I can never really see this happening. However, matters like this should be discussed between bureaucrats. If it was, say, 80%, and lots of people were acting out of character, I'd discuss the matter with other bureaucrats. It's impossible to be sure that everyone is telling the truth in what they say; someone could oppose because "the candidate only has two months experience", which is a valid oppose reason, but secretly be thinking "I'm pissed that they reported me for 3RR". It's hard to know everyone's opinions. If I had concerns that this was the case with a large amount of votes, and that people weren't being honest, I would most certainly request more input from both the community and other bureaucrats before taking any hasty action. It's always better to err on the side of caution and take some time to make sure you've interpreted what's been said correctly. A re-RfA might be appropriate for instance, but it's not really my job to decide on my own whether it is. If a lot of people were complaining about a possible bias and suggesting a re-RfA then I'd discuss that possibility with other bureaucrats. It's a bureaucrats job to determine what the community wants, and if a lot of people are saying a re-RfA is what they want, then that's probably the best course of action. If you're not certain you'd get the same outcome from a re-run, it's probably a good idea, if that's what everyone wants. --Deskana (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WjBscribe

11. I've read your answer to question 9 several times and there's something I'd like you to clarify. Are you saying that there can be a situation where a crat assesses that there is no consensus to promote someone but can validly promote anyway as this is "the right decision" in their opinion?

A: No, I don't think it is ever appropriate to promote someone with no consensus to do so. The only reason I think it was the right decision to promote him was because I supported him. What I think about promoting or not promoting doesn't matter. What matters is the consensus. I think promoting him was a good idea, but in the same situation I severely doubt I would have promoted him. --Deskana (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional (hypothetical) Question from Anonymous Dissident

12. – Hypothetical situation: An RFA is ready for closure. It has 71% support, and 29% oppose. You know the candidate, and both like them as a person, and believe they would make a good admin. All things considered, what would you do as a crat in this situation of RFA closure?

A: Abstain from closing it myself. At 71% it's typically difficult to decide whether a consensus exists to promote or not. Erring on the side of caution and letting another bureaucrat close it is a better idea than closing it myself, as it is a possible conflict of interest to close it myself. --Deskana (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

• consensus not numbers. Very strong candidate. I propose that we make him a bureaucrat. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, oh, can I make a proposal too? I propose that we not. Everyking 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Tony Sidaway; in my experience, Deskana has been a particularly civil administrator and is routinely willing to work with others and explain him/herself. I don't anticipate he will go wild with the new tools, and I don't anticipate that he will do anything contrary to my interpretation of consensus, and am comfortable endorsing the bureaucrat that chooses to sysop him/her. --Iamunknown 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support I would have opposed for misspelling "consensus", but I'm not that mean. Anyway, Deskana's a good admin, and I trust him with the bureaucratic tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Ooops! I fixed that. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 21:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support I've seen you around and you seem like a good candidate. I can't find any reason to criticize you and you seem to be a fair admin from my encounters :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Support - Deskana has been doing a good job and I expect him to be able to handle the job and tasks of a crat very well..Good luck...--Cometstyles 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Very strong support All my interactions with Deskana have been positive. He is a very fair and calm administrator. Acalamari 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support No reason not to. --Banana 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Demonstrated history of responsible admin actions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. User can be trusted. Andre (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Three good candidates in three hours! Bureaucracy for everyone! Bucketsofg 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Firm support and best of luck. Deskana has the right attitude. Gracenotes^T § 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support No problems here. DarthGriz98 23:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Won't promote Willy on Wheels to admin. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support per the power of three. No problems here. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Trustworthy, experienced and responsible user. Húsönd 00:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Trustworthy and responsible. You'd think that a candidate banned from a Battlefield server for swearing would be a lot worse. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I told you that, I got banned from another one for swearing too. :-p --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    'Ey, who the bloody fuck bans people fer a few goddamn curses?! Those yellow brats should be damn grateful they didn't get their ears right fucked by the slimy tongue of some of the bastards I know! --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ

15. Support. No question about it, even tho he seems slightly upside down lately! ;) Phaedriel - 00:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Even though I haven't seen this user around, I believe that they can handle the tools or else 15 users wouldn't have already supported him. —« ANIMUM » 00:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support In the few times I've talked to Deskana, I've felt far more comfortable that s/he knew what they were doing than I do with a lot of other admins. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Definitely. Michaelas¹⁰ 00:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support -- cant say I've really encountered this user much before, but looks like a good candidate. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support regardless of wether we believe there is a need for more 'crats or not, it can never hurt to have them. Viridae^Talk 01:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. You are highly spoken of, and we need some more 'crats. J-stan ^Talk 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Deskana is a good user/admin (unless I've missed something), as I've seen this user out and about. We definitely need more 'crats here, as the user said, Cecropia is practically doing all the work. Good luck, (zelzany - fish) 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Active, with broad experience and with over a year of adminship. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 02:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support- per Mr. Lefty and ReyBrujo. Eddie 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I think I was wrong to oppose Deskana the last time. Although I think the current number of b'crats is quite satisfactory, he's been around long enough, has a fair and civil demeanor, and he doesn't seem to have any ambition for radical reform of the RfA system, a system I continue to believe works reasonably well. While he rubbed me the wrong way with his use of the "rouge" word at his first RfB, the truth is that I've never seen him do anything unreasonable. I think he'll do a fine job. Xoloz 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support He is a thoughtful, patient admin. I trust him to be a good bureaucrat. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support No reason not too. --Banana 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You said almost exactly the same thing in vote number five. :-p --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, sorry! I got mixed up with everyone running for bureaucrat right now. --Banana 03:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

27. Support Deskana is a good choice for a bureaucrat. Captain panda 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support-Good admin. I have trusted him for a long enough time pressing the protect, delete, and block buttons. I can trust him pressing the promote, make bot and change name buttons. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Detest the sig :p But not inherently unsuited to the job. Good luck! ~ Riana ⁂ 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. — Deckiller 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support per the above shared sentiments and opinions. —Kurykh 05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support nice friendly user, will be a good 'crat. Majorly (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Trustworthy and hardworking...'nuff said. Jmlk17 06:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support — More bureaucrats are needed. This user appears trustable. Matthew 08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - Seems willing to wikignome. I'd like to add though that I would really like to see him change his sig to a standard ascii version of his name. Strange sigs impact contactability, and (in my opinion) don't add anything. AKAF 09:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. If RfB is about trust - i Trust this candidate. Agathoclea 11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Weak support - his signature annoys me a bit, but that's more of an RFA comment. Apart from that, this user is perfect. Will ^(talk) 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I changed it back to normal. A few people said they were only seeing boxes, which I didn't think would happen. --Deskana (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

39. Support - I really liked your statement above, gave me a good impression. In addition, I see no problems in your usage of the admin tools and civility to other editors. Good luck! Camaron1 | Chris 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support, trustworthy user. · jersyko talk 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. -- Y not? 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support per answers to questions, in particular the affirmation that RfA is not a vote. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support, seems to fit the bill of a good bureaucrat from what I can see. Wizardman 14:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support (ya rly?) I agree with Deskana that we need more bureaucrats, and I trust him as much as anyone, since he is a seasoned administrtator who has contributed to the wiki in many different ways. Shalom ^Hello 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Terence 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Deskana for b'crat? Hell yes! —Anas ^talk? 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Qst 15:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Trustworthy and fair. ElinorD (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support More Admins 'crats Needed, I have no concerns about this user. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Honestly, I went through Deskana's pretty heavily. I was getting ready to support, then I saw Alkivar's oppose on the RfB and wanted to give him a chance to respond to it. There is no good reason to oppose Deskana that I can see, and we need more 'crats. daveh4h 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. An excellent fellow and a terrific volunteer, I am quite sure that Deskana will be a fine addition to our checkout counter clerks gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support- Good user with deep understanding of the RFA process and a firm grasp of what consensus means. Borisblue 18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. We need more bureaucrats and he will certainly do. EdJohnston 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. I believe that Deskana is a good candidate, and would help the project. Ral315 » 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. (Edit conflict) Support. More 'crats are always necessary, and I trust Deskana fully. I have no doubt that he will only improve Wikipedia with 'crat access, not explode it. ♠PMC♠ 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support - per nom --D-Boy 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats. Turning down a trustworthy, qualified volunteer would be insane. -- Schneelocke 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support I would trust Deskana to have a impartial opinion as a 'crat. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Trustworthy admin. Will make a great addition as a 'crat. --Dark Falls ^talk 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. I trust Deskana with the extra tools and we need more 'crats. Will (aka Wimt) 23:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Deskana should make a good 'crat. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Nice responses to the questions. Promote. Keegan^talk 01:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. SupportUnderstands consensus. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support I trust Deskana's sound judgment and the answer to the tricky Danny-question reinforces that feeling. Though I was in favor of promoting Danny I felt that the bureaucrat's decision was wrong (and was quite vocal about it at the time). In retrospect, the mistake of the b'crats was really to claim that they found a consensus. That actually made the decision look even more arbitrary. It would have been more honest and less clumsy to say "we don't see consensus but we still feel that the greater good is best served by promoting him". Pascal.Tesson 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support There are no major concerns here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support per eventual follow-up to my optional question. I think, all in all, that this candidate has a proper respect for community consensus. Walton^talk 08:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support -seen him around. A fantastic candidate. NikoSilver 12:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - good and honest response to questions. shows good judgement. Sbhushan 12:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support you will definitely make a great crat! -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. Has the temperament and judgment required. - auburnpilot talk 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. I like his answers to questions, and am unconvinced by the "We don't need another 'crat" argument. I have a lot of respect for User:Durin, and I read his comments with interest, but ultimately I think he is more cautious than is necessary. Mike Christie (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support this is the sort of editor we're looking for. A tireless dedication to neutrality and civility. A year of involvement as a sysop in some tough areas of the project and no major concerns. I'm particularly impressed with the level of thought in the response to the nearly impossible Danny question. I think Deskana has the proper take on WP:IAR, something which I feel very rarely from the people who actually invoke IAR. I trust Deskana to never ignore the rules in making a controversial promotion and I trust him to be even more cautious with the relatively minor civility issues that were raised below. Good luck! --JayHenry 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. I have never been persuaded by the "we don't need more bureaucrats" and am not certain why we want everything concentrated in a little oligarchy of bureaucrats. I am also unpersuaded by the opposes, particularly the suggestion that the nominee will be a poor bureaucrat because he won't simply count votes. I'm pretty sure I've read ad nauseum that RfA isn't a vote. I think the nominee is qualified and trustworthy. Agent 86 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support - He'll do good. — Lost^(talk) 13:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Tiger Woods Support - (ie, a sure winner). Will do excellently as a 'crat. --tennisman 17:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support I'm not convinced about the oppose votes sorry, I think that he will make a great crat Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Has been an eccellent admin. Answers to questions on the Danny issue are the best that I have seen, and would in themselves compel support without any other predisposing factors. And of course Bureaucrats have to make judgement decisions on borderline and unclear case, otherwise a bot could do it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. No concerns that the diffs (and by definition, behaviour) shown below would impact on Deskana's ability to perform bureaucrat duties with aplomb. Nick 00:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support one of the more thoughtful and clueful members of our community. I'm sure that Deskana would carefully think through his decisions. Sean William @ 02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. I may well get flamed for this, but bureaucratship is no big deal. G1ggy ^(t|c|p) 07:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support - thoughtful and experienced admin who will clearly make effective and neutral judgement decisions. ck lostsword•T•C 10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. I am convinced by Deskana's understanding of consensus and of his judgment. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. Miranda 21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support This user is among the most trusted and respected on the site. GDonato (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support I would respect any judgment made by Deskana as a 'crat even if I disagreed with the outcome and could find fault with the analysis. Deskana is 'crat material and should be elevated as such. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support, trustworthy user who makes great decisions, great admin, would make an excellent bureaucrat (and we definitely need more bureaucrats). --Coredesat 03:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support because the user has been a good active administrator and I agree with his position on what a bureaucrat should be. We expect discretion by closing admins on Afds because we know that there are some people who go on these Afds who's arguments are just invalid and not in line with policy. Similarly we know that certain users, particularly highly POV users with long-standing block logs, go into RFAs to "get back" at people they don't like. So yes some discretion is not necessarily bad.--Jersey Devil 03:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support why the hell not? ~ Infrangible 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support I agree with Deskana's assessment of the Danny RFA decision.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support per above. Deskana is undoubtly an excellent admin and a trustworthy, responsible individual who can make judgment decisions. He is the best candidate, period. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - On the ball Admin with good sense, sensible, thoughtful responses to questioning. Good history and demonstrates knowledge of the job. WilyD 13:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Seems like a good admin who would make a good B´crat. No reason to oppose. ♠TomasBat 14:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - solid administrator, does a lot, seems to have the right outlook to handle the bureaucrat tasks. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support. I have thought about this for some time. I am satisfied by the very full explanations Deskana has given to various questions over the last few days that he understands the consensus on when bureaucrats should and should not promote (to the extent that there is one). I do have some concerns from the diffs raised by Durin below but am I convinced that these represent exceptions rather than Deskana's usual manner in dealing with others. On balance, and in particular given my own experience of him as a Wikipedia, I am satisfied that he would be able to competently close difficult RfAs and respond appropriately to community questions about his bureaucrat decisions. I am sure other bureaucrat tasks will also be performed well. WjBscribe 22:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Politics rule 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support Many excellent reasons. Thatcher131 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. Good guy, easily trusted with bureaucrat buttons. Rebecca 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support. I think Deskana will be a fine bureaucrat for reasons mentioned above. As to Durin's oppose, while I agree the diffs brought up are problematic, I disagree that they indicate a pattern or a bad demeanor on Deskana's part. He's been here for a while and he's made some mistakes. So have we all. I trust him regardless. Picaroon (Talk) 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support: Deskana will make a fine bureaucrat. Prodego ^talk 05:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support Not flawless, but a good candidate.--Chaser - T 06:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
104. Weak support Although the issues raised with respect to temperament by GRBerry and Durin, et al., are not entirely insignificant, I am largely convinced, perhaps in part by my previous favorable encounters with Deskana, that he is possessed of a relatively deliberative disposition and a civil demeanor, and on the whole I think him, as I thought Evula, to be quite capable of performing consistent with policy and the consensus of whatever discussions may transpire those tasks that are relatively uncontroversial (e.g., username changes, relative to which we can surely use more bureaucrat help [to be sure, my analysis would be the same even were there no particularized need; I continue to believe that we ought to sysop any user the net effect on the project of whose becoming an administrator should be positive and that we ought to bureaucrat (as a verb) any editor about whose becoming a bureaucrat the same can be said]). Whether I would be comfortable with Deskana as an RfA closer is a much closer question, one that is complicated by his colloquies with Walton and Cecropia (and a few other comments here) which, though demonstrative of a propitious willingness to discuss issues fully and of Deskana's being thoughtful, have, perhaps because I am dense, not been all that enlightening with respect to his understanding of how a bureaucrat ought to close a close RfA. I think it likelier than not, though, in view of all of Deskana's comments here and my general dealings with him elsewhere, that he properly conceives of bureaucratship as ministerial and well understands that a bureaucrat acts only to divine for what action a consensus lies and then to effect such action, irrespective of his personal views about the soundness of arguments expressed in discussions—except, of course, where there exist overriding policies to which the community have acceded and where those policies are plainly inconsistent with a discussion, in which case further input ought perhaps to be sought (there are, to be sure, no such policies or general understandings relative to requests for adminship, and I can't imagine that ever there will be)—and in no case in substitution of his views or those of certain others for those of the community writ large, and so I support, although not without some trepidation. Joe 06:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. Experienced editor and admin that should bring value to the position. Cla68 07:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. All experiences with this admin have been great, an active user that I believe is trustworthy. No reason not to support. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. Friendly and experienced admin. If they're willing to take on the tedious extra work (with little to no credit) that comes with Bureaucratship, I say let 'em have it. Better you than me :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Has used the tools effectively, and this is RfB, not Request for Sainthood. SirFozzie 13:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. (changed from oppose, and nothing to do with JayHenry's below response to my vote). I still feel Deskana is too bitey, but we do need a new bureaucrat or two to clear out the backlog, and as he's the closest (hovering around 90% at the moment), I'm happy to change to support to try and ensure we get at least one bureaucrat out of this whole recent mad rush. Neil ╦ 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support John254 14:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support Deskana will make a good 'crat. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. Looks good. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support - Yes indeed. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. I think he'd make a good bureaucrat. I am somewhat concerned by Durin's points, but not enough to change my vote.-gadfium 20:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support I am impressed with the answers to the questions. FunPika 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support. We need another 'crat or two, and this is a highly qualified candidate with significant RfA experience. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support, while I do hope that Deskana will tone it down a little (even while dealing with difficult people, there's a difference between being firm and assertive vs. being rude and insulting), he was willing to address that, and we're never going to find anyone who's been absolutely perfect. On balance, I think he'll do well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Slight Oppose Sorry, I know I'm going to get yelled at, but like I said on another RfB, we don't need another 'crat to close RFAs, as this is dealt with quick enough as is. ~ Wikihermit 02:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   . . .But we do need more bureaucrats at Changing usernames. There are requests from June 18 backloged. --Banana 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed, I intend to help at WP:CHU too, as I stated in my nomination. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 04:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   this RfA was not closed until almost one day later, we definitely need more bcrats. Qst 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This oppose makes me cry, Wikihermit. G1ggy ^(t|c|p) 07:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. Sorry, but bureaucrats should not make discretionary decisions on RfAs. They should not "weigh up opinions" or "take them into account". And their own opinion should have absolutely nothing to do with it. They should count votes, and promote accordingly - that's the only way to ensure that all Wikipedians' opinions remain equal, and bureaucrats do not become political power-holders. The principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is more important than Wikipedia is not a democracy; that's why I believe in wikidemocratism. This is nothing personal; I've asked the same question on every RfB, and will oppose everyone who gives this kind of answer. Walton^talk 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (Changed to support) Walton^talk 08:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Should not, do not is a pretty lame reason for an oppose, as I have reiterated before. This principle is widely disputed among the community members. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   My own opinion is exactly why I said I wouldn't have involved myself in the bureaucrat chat, because it's obvious what I want the outcome to be from the fact that I supported. I see that you want RfA to be a vote, but can you accept that Danny has been a good admin since, so really it might not have been such a bad call? --Deskana (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You are right; Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. So why oppose people who have slightly different fundamental beliefs? — Deckiller 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not arguing whether it was a good call or a bad call. The call shouldn't have been made. And, to Nick, I know that the principle is widely disputed; that's exactly why I only want bureaucrats who share my view on it. I know I'm in a small minority here, and at risk of sounding like a total crank. But I am very worried that Wikipedia is becoming more authoritarian, and that bureaucrats (and admins) are becoming too powerful. I much prefer the way things work on the Spanish Wikipedia (where I also edit) where most things are determined by a vote, with users under 100 edits being excluded from the vote. Bureaucrats and admins have the potential to exercise great power, but they shouldn't; they should carry out the will of the community, even where they disagree with it. Honestly, I'm not intentionally trying to annoy people here. I'm doing what I believe is best for Wikipedia. Walton^talk 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. User still stands by the removed wiki-philopsophy. I don't want a 'crat that thinks becoming more a rogue every day is a good thing, as I don't think that is in the best interests of Wikipedia. GRBerry 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   At the risk of sound a bit petty, I said rouge. The point of that "philosophy" was to illustrate that I believe the spirit is more important than the letter, but that the letter exists to be followed in almost all cases. Do you disagree with me on that? I removed it because it scared people into thinking I was a rogue administrator, which I am not. Are your concerns that I value the spirit over the letter?--Deskana (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   GRBerry, I think when he referenced WP:ROUGE that was a humorous way to put it (and probably a bad way to put it). From his response here and from all evidence I see, the only feeling he was trying to express was that he would strive to make Wikipedia a better place at every opportunity. daveh4h 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Regretfully oppose. Deskana says the bureaucrats made the right call in promoting Danny even though he agrees that there was no community consensus for such a promotion. Whichever way you slice it I just can't get behind that. Nevertheless I appreciate and commend Deskana's forthrightness in answering questions on the Danny RFA. Haukur 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak oppose per Cecropia. That fact that he choose to re-run and failed to gain consensus and was promoted anyway seems off. I doubt it does much harm, but if you opt to stand the test of consensus it should be followed through. I also don't like the idea of crats acting as the voters and ignoring the RfA consensus. I do allot for leeway (see my userpage stuff on consensus), such as discarding troll/sock votes, comments strictly based on facts that turn out to be false, if damning info comes in at the time of closure (the RfA can be extended as a better idea), or outside consensus (VP/policy) and foundational issue considerations. Nevertheless, this doesn't really fit under that. Voice-of-All 02:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, I said the RfA had no consensus. Are you opposing because I don't think the promotion was bad? If so, I'm sorry for pestering you with this question. --Deskana (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I missed some of your responses to Cecropia, I see what you're saying, never mind. Voice-of-All 17:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose: When I was first reviewing, I was tending towards support. I like that he doesn't want the RfA progress table added to WP:RFA [1], and that he opposes using checkusers on fishing expeditions on new RfAs [2]. I also like that he's regularly present on WT:RFA. Good things. I became mildly concerned about what I felt was too much attention towards numbers rather than consensus as observed in the answer to Q1 in this RfB, and this answer to Q1 in his last RfB. This was further buttressed by a comment regarding tallies being harmless [3], and more concerning was the approach that no "votes" should be discounted [4]. But, his well considered responses in the above questions regarding the closure of Danny's RfA helped ease some of my concerns. I was sitting on the fence. Reasons for oppose: Then, I began reviewing talk page contributions of this editor. What I found increasingly shocked me. He referred to someone's query as a total joke [5], deleted someone's comment from a talk page because they'd said they retired, attempting to force the retirement [6], the rather abrupt handling of a long time editor [7], the contradictory manner in which he told a user to speak as much as they like to him but to drop a discussion [8], referring to someone's gripe as "unimportant fantasies" [9], not informing a user of why they were blocked ("you know why") [10], and then reverting a second unblock from the user like vandalism [11], blocking a sockpuppet of a banned user [12] but then mocking the same user [13], deleting their subsequent unblock request [14], and protecting the user's talk page [15]. The more I dig, the more I find of this sort of thing; removing an IP's question on Jimbo's talk page as "bollocks" [16] without explanation to the IP's talk page (which is empty) . His deletion of unblock requests is not isolated either [18]. Also deleted comments left by a user on their own talk page with edit summary "wrong" [19], telling an IP to "oh be quiet" [20], removing comments from people's talk pages saying this isn't a chat website [21][22][23]. And on, and on, and on. Even if Deskana was right in each of these circumstances the behavior shown is inappropriate and considerably more likely to start fires than put them out. On the now deleted philosophy from his userpage [24], he says "but sometimes I lose my temper", "but you've got nothing to be intimidated about if you're acting in good faith and not doing something stupid", and "I can lose my temper if you're incivil to me". The evidence is clear that this is the case. This sort of demeanor is inappropriate for a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats frequently come under intense scrutiny and pressure. We've had bureaucrats resign under the pressure. Having a bureaucrat with this sort of demeanor would be, in my opinion, a seriously bad idea. This is a mistake. --Durin 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand your concerns, but I think every admin on Wikipedia has made a few comments that, on their own, nobody notices, but taken together, such as at RfB time, could cause problems. Deskana is no exception to the rule, I'll easily concede that. I think, however, we're not going to find a perfect RfB candidate, perhaps because none exist and probably because the process is so difficult to pass so I think we're going to have to start promoting the very best of the rest and Deskana is definitely one of the better administrators in this context. Nick 18:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If we were in a crisis situation where we had to have bureaucrats and NOW then I think your concern would carry some weight for me. However, I don't think we're in that situation. Yes, I do think we need more bureaucrats, but it's not a crisis. We can ask for and expect to find great candidates. I don't think Deskana, given the rife civility and behavior problems, is such a candidate. --Durin 19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Strong oppose Durin makes some pretty compelling points. "Bollocks"? "wrong"? "unimportant fantasies"??? These are not the comments of a bridge builder but of someone acting like a jaded cop. As a potential bureaucrat an editors views on RFA come a distant 2nd place to the ability to communicate with civility and understanding with those they disagree with...no matter how misguided they think the editor is. "If you so much as mention that requested move again, I will block you" indeed [25] That's not how anyone should be talking to someone not to mention a potential bureaucrat. We need less of that attitude here, not more. RxS 04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose, leans toward empowering bureaucrats to exercise discretion. Everyking 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose, I have no problem with bureaucrats exercising discretion. I have a problem with stating simultaneously that you think Danny's RFA lacked consensus, but that promoting him was the right thing to do because you supported him. -- nae'blis 03:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I think you may have misunderstood what I said? I apologise if you did not, but I said that were I in the situation where I had to decide whether or not to promote Danny, I would not have done, because there was no consensus to do so. That I personally believe he should be promoted is unrelated to how I would have handled the situation would I have been forced to. --Deskana (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Then frankly, your answer makes no sense. "The only reason I think it was the right decision to promote him was because I supported him.", from Q11. That's as much as an admission of bias in making decisions, which makes me unable to trust that you would be able to step aside from evaluating your friends. If you have a strong opinion, consensus process (in the real world) requires that you step aside from the role of facilitator and become part of the group. The last thing we need are more "well, the 'crats know better" decisions, and I can't trust that you would not do that, at this time. I am happy to be proven wrong if I continue to misunderstand, however; luckily you have days yet left (at least, I hope that's a lucky thing..). -- nae'blis 03:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   In a real world situation, having supported Danny's RfA, I would have done and said absolutely nothing regarding his RfA from a bureaucrat's perspective. However, I answered these questions because me not answering them saying "I wouldn't have done anything because I voted" wouldn't have satisfied the point of the question. Given that I supported Danny's RfA, I obviously wanted to pass. I kind of assumed as a given that everyone understood that I would remain uninvolved if I felt there was a conflict of interest. The reason I spoke as I did about Danny's RfA is because I was answering the questions. If I were a bureaucrat back then when Danny's RfA was being done and I had still supported, I would have abstained from my role as bureaucrat in attempting to judge the consensus. It is not appropriate for me to participate in bureaucrat RfA closes if I am involved in the RfA. --Deskana (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Having taken a closer look at your follow-up responses, it's more clear what you were saying, but it was definitely not the best way to say it (in my opinion). We need enough active bureaucrats so that those with a COI can step aside, similar to what is done at ArbCom, so I am withdrawing this oppose and taking you at your word. Not enough confidence to support, but you seem to align fairly well with the concepts I favor, particularly 'crat consensus to promote in difficult/close cases. Good luck. -- nae'blis 15:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose. Like Durin, I was leaning towards support, but I'm not confident that Deskana has the temperment to be a bureaucrat. I want a candidate that reacts well under pressure and has no history of making comments that border on uncivil. Perhaps a few instances could be overlooked, but Durin provided two dozen diffs of questionable behavior. Chaz ^Beckett 14:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - I do not think Deskana has the right temperament. The diffs mentioned by Durin and some instances which I saw myself, convinces me of this. Sorry. - TwoOars 08:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per my long standing reasoning. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   What is your long standing reasoning? --Deskana (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   He believes we do not need more b'crats, period. --W.marsh 18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That's a silly reason to oppose (made even sillier by the fact that Mr. Gustafson is selective in whom to oppose for this reason, so this vote is not even principled). Back to the point, even if there were no backlogs, having more experienced and dediacted people doing the job can only benefit Wikipedia. One should vote based on that only. And most to the point, we do need more bureaucrats. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Frankly, I don't see why the job couldn't be done by just one person. I don't know if there's some technical process involved in promoting people or if you just hit a button, but surely even if you had to promote several people in a day it couldn't take more than a few minutes. As for deciding to promote or not, if it takes you a long time to do that, you're not doing it right, because the community already made the decision for you, and all you have to do is implement it. Everyking 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Quite a lot of the time, I agree, determining the consensus takes about 10 seconds. If you've got nearly unanimous support, it's kind of obvious there's a consensus to promote. If there's a lot of people opposing compared to how many supported, it's pretty clear there is no consensus to promote. But most people ask questions of candidates relating to the cases like Danny, Gracenotes, etc. that aren't easy to decide. In instances like that, I do think it can take a while to try to determine what the consensus is. I understand your concerns, but can you see what I mean here? --Deskana (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As a purely technical matter, it usually takes a few minutes to scan a non-contentious RfA for anything that jumps out at me and usually read the major comments if there is significant opposition, just so see what people are talking about. The actual dog work (close, delete, fill in fields and push button, move to appropriate finished page, List of admins and inform candidate) takes 6-10 minutes, depending on how together my brain is at the moment. A slightly dicey RfA takes somewhat longer. A more difficult RfA usually takes me a half hour or more, as I pretty much read every word. Then there is an unknown additional amount of time if I have to explain the RfA and that sometimes takes hours over several days. To address some people's view of the job, I would call that responsibility, not "power." -- Cecropia 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose (slightly), for answer to question 1. Unless I'm taking crazy pills, only a few months ago the "discretionary level" was 75-80%, anything above 80% was non-controversial, but below it down to 75% was. Below that, almost no one was promoted. I don't understand why this has changed, as I believe without a somewhat-strict discretionary level, the promotion/non-promotion will almost entirely be based on who closes the RFA, which is absolutely not a good thing. -- Renesis (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - per many of Cecropia's comments and user attitude. pschemp | talk 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Change to neutral. pschemp | talk 13:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. Durin has provided the diffs. Too bitey. Neil ╦ 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to support (see above for why). Neil ╦ 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm usually pretty quick to oppose a bitey editor. But I'm not sure that Deskana fits the bill. If you go through Durin's diffs, Deskana is often dealing with pretty ridiculous trolls, vandals and edit warriors. Read the discussion around the diffs and a lot of those comments that seem strong out of context, actually are pretty good attempts to assertively calm down nasty situations. Also, it's common to protect talk pages of blocked users who are using the unblock template too much. He's been an admin for over a year and he's been active in some contentious areas and really only a handful of those diffs are times Deskana should have toned it down. I dunno, I just don't think he's really very bitey at all. --JayHenry 03:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the worst people who should be dealt with in the most polite and civil manner. Neil ╦ 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose I am somewhat concerned about Deskana's judgement after the nomination of Yuser31415 for adminship. This was Yuser's second RfA in 4 months, the first [26] having failed 2/10/9 due to lack of support. The second [27] failed with 6/28/2, with some alarming reasons given for opposition. Yuser has since disappeared [28] from Wikipedia. Given Yuser's erratic behaviour which resulted in the second failure and the overeagerness with which he/she desired adminship, I think nominating Yuser for adminship was poor judgement. Icemuon 10:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If I might ask, what in the world does a misguided nomination have anything to do with how well the candidate would perform as a bureaucrat? --L^augh! 13:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose. On one hand, Deskana says that "I don't think it is ever appropriate to promote someone with no consensus to do so", that "with so many opposes you can't really say there was a consensus to promote [Danny]", and that "I wouldn't have promoted him myself with that kind of opposition." (So far, so good.) On the other hand, he says that promoting Danny was "the right decision", "a good idea", and "the right thing to do in the context of improving the project". Asked to clarify, he explained that "The only reason I think it was the right decision to promote him was because I supported him." But the original question from Walton explicitly asked not for an opinion on Danny himself, but on whether, given that his RfA closed at 68% with over 100 opposes, it was right for him to be promoted. This is a distinct question; Deskana might have supported Danny in the RfA, but believe that the bureaucrats made the wrong decision in promoting him without consensus. That, however, is not the answer he gave. Rather, he said that he supported Danny in the RfA and that he thought the bureaucrats made the right decision in promoting him. He thinks they made the right decision, but admits it lacked consensus, he thinks it was inappropriate, but also a good idea, he thinks it was the right thing to do in the context of improving the project, but wouldn't have done it himself. From a potential bureaucrat, I expect a more consistent affirmation of the role of consensus, as opposed to one's personal view of the candidate, in determining which outcome at RfA is "the right decision." Tim Smith 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. neutral. While otherwise good, I don't know that I can trust Deskana in RfA cases where there is only a majority, not a consensus. However, response to follow-up question is enough for me to not oppose. User:Argyriou (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If you don't mind my asking, based on what? J-stan ^Talk 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral per Durin's diffs. I'm not bothered by the Danny comments, even though I opposed that Rfa, and I don't think the comments Durin points out are horrible enough to oppose over ... but they're not great. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral, I've seen good things from Deskana in general, and came here to support, but the issues Durin raises are cause for significant concern. Bureaucrats must be levelheaded, civil, and responsive to criticism and questions. If Deskana is willing to address or explain these issues, I would be willing to reconsider. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to support, see above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   JayHenry has addressed these concerns above in response to Neil, and I agree with his assessment. --Deskana (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral - Changing from oppose, reasons the same. pschemp | talk 13:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I think only you can decide I will not decide for youMountainD 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)User just registered today. - Miranda 13:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   After consultation with User:Rebecca as a checkuser, this user has now been indefinitely blocked. I get this quite a lot. --Deskana (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You may want to note what person/user/thing/alien he was a sock of in order to avoid confusion. Miranda 13:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. Miranda 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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.