Encephalon (
talk·contribs) – Encephalon is one of the finest Wikipedia editors I have come across. He is intelligent, courteous, and articulate. Within months of his arrival, I knew he would make an excellent administrator, and informed him of my intention to nominate him once he had a bit more experience and if he were willing. Encephalon has shown himself to be very well-versed in Wikipedia policy, he is able to communicate extremely well, and remains calm and rational during disagreement. He is a highly experienced editor and and has been active in several policy areas. He is well-respected and friendly, and I can think of no better embodiment than he for the qualities we value in our administrators. In short, Encephalon will be the sort of administrator I would like to be. Several of us have been attempting to persuade Encephalon to allow us to nominate him for quite some time; I consider it an honor to put forward this nomination.
Titoxd previously tried
nominating Encephalon for adminship; I have invited him to co-nominate. —
Knowledge Seekerদ 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)reply
There isn't much I can add to Knowledge Seeker's nomination, but I think Encephalon is the standard to set with respect to civility and administrative knowledge all nominees should have. He has excellent grasp of Wikipedia policy, and has a flair for language, using the best possible words to defuse even the most tense situations surrounding the
thorniest issues. I've "had my eye" on him since December, but Knowledge Seeker has finally brainwashed him into accepting what he has deserved for at least half a year now. He has already declined
twonominations, and as they say, the best administrators are the ones that have to be dragged to get the
mop and the
flamethrower.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us) 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored (and more than a little embarrassed) to accept this nomination. —Encephalon 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A steady hand and a cool head coupled with a thorough knowledge of guideline, policy and practise as well as outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia mean that Encephalon will set a standard that most admins will have to aim at. One other important quality he has that certainly some editors don't is actually reading a discussion before adding his commentary to the bottom of it — you can be sure that a comment from Encephalon is one that takes into account all that has already been said and thus is the kind that actually moves things forwards. -
Splashtalk 15:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support A fine editor with plenty of experience. --
NormanEinstein 15:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Everything I've seen from Encephalon has been good.
Paul August☎ 15:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Looks good to me. --
kingboyk 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm at the point where the adminship is something I would not wish on my worst enemy. But I do wish it on you:>--
R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support A great editor. mmeinhart 15:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
User:Go for it!/Vote Support he'll do fine. If he wants the mop and bucket, then let's take advantage of that and give them to him! --
Go for it! 16:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Will be a good admin. --
Ghirla-трёп- 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
SUPER STRONG MEGA GIANT SUPPORT Editor is plainly brilliant, extraordinary thoughtful... just amazing. I think he was certainly qualified for adminship on his first day here.
Xoloz 17:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I see no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools.--
MONGO 02:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support shows every sign he'll be a fine admin. Taking a wikibreak, far from disqualifying him, shows sense of balance in my book.--
CTSWyneken 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Finer user and if Titoxd recommends you than I will follow his lead. --
Patman2648 21:34 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Mega-strong Support. E, was absent for a while, but now, back and fully functional. Good luck.
Orane(t)(c)(e) 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Pretty impressive edit count, I'd have to say. Meets my requirements 100%. Keep up the good work and good luck.
CrnatecGora
Strong Support exceptionally well mannered, courteous and cool-headed in his dealings with others. I think will have a very sensible approach when it comes to issues of POV disputes and wikipedia development, especially in what is likely to be a critical year for wikipedia (its size now over that million mark, issues of accuracy/libel, ?
Wikipedia 1.0 etc).
David RubenTalk 06:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, it is always a pleasure to deal with him, and he will make a great administrator. --
Natalya 12:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support. Encephalon is, undeniably, the finest Wikipedian I have ever had the good fortune of coming across. He routinely reads the archives, keeps himself informed, is polite, well-mannered, thoughtful, and concientious. He can apologize for his mistakes (which are few and far between). He has a extremely thorough understanding of the workings of Wikipedia and rather than sling mud always, always, gives good rationales for his opinions and discusses them, rather than arguing. This editor is so far above the necessary bar for adminship that this RFA is practically unneeded. We need more people like Encephalon: the sooner he's given adminship the better.
Blackcap(talk) 17:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong support. -- I tried nominating him as well, I guess he just doesn't like me ;) --
Avi 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. Good experiences when encountering the user, also has strong experience with deletion review, afd, ... --
Aude (
talk |
contribs) 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Diplomacy is an absolute necessity in Wikipedia.
Ziggurat 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support a truly decent candidate. I've always found Encephalon's manner and activities perfectly suited for the role of admin. --
cj |
talk 02:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Cliché support - I thought he already was an admin! —
Kimchi.sg |
Talk 04:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Because I didn't get to be #100, I get to use the cliche "I thought he already ..." Good contributions and a chap with a sense of humour, will be a fine admin. --
Cactus.man✍ 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - very strong candidate. --
JoanneB 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Further expanding on that, Encephalon's break was due to professional obligations
[1], not because of stress. The fact that he came back and resumed editing in his usual areas is a good indicator of the kind of committment to the project he has.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us) 20:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
If anything, leaving this place for personal reasons for a while and then coming back to resume his activities makes Encephalon a better candidate as he's proven that he's got his priorities straight. It certainly is not, as was implied, a sign of emotional instability. What's more, he seems to have the full support of those who know him. That makes him a very strong candidate in my book. --
Mmounties (
Talk) 01:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
First, I'm sorry to see an unopposed nomination go away because of a pointless confusing objection. First, emotionally unstable people often ignore real life issues and focus on Wikipedia without taking breaks. Those people should get priorities straight, which, in my mind, shows emotional issues. Encephalon did the right thing in getting his priorities straight, which shows a lot about his character. — Deckiller 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Hi there. As Masssiveego's concerns seem to have generated some interest, I thought I'd briefly address them. Tito is indeed correct: I took a short break at the time because of increased professional duties during that period. This had been scheduled well before November, in fact, and quite a few of my wikifriends were aware of it. I returned to editing once I'd more free time. Thank you for your concern, Masssiveego, and DaGizza, Tito, Mmounties and Deckiller for your kind remarks. :-) Happy editing —Encephalon 04:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Comments
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk) 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
If I'm granted SysOp permissions, I forsee using them where appropriate in activities related to the above. Of the three permissions (page deletion/restoration, account/IP blocking, and page protection) and the automated tool (rollback) given administrators, I will probably find rollback and page restoration/deletion the most useful. This is probably similar to the experience of most (see for example
Haukur's report), with the notable exception of those technically gifted individuals who manage to code and run vandal-blocking bots n' things that do so much to protect our encyclopedia (see
User:Curps).
I am less involved with some areas of the encyclopedia to do with more specialized functions, for example
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. While I've observed it with interest and participated in a limited capacity, I do not forsee taking an especially active administrative role there. (I remain quite impressed, however, with how WP's category scheme has evolved via the wiki process; in many areas it compares quite favorably with the schemes in longer established encyclopedias (compare
Wikipedia's vs
Brittanica's)). I am fairly clueless in the technical side of many things, and have no plans at present to write code (of any kind) or develop (anything).
I think an important thing for administrators to have is the inclination to say sorry, if when they've managed to screw something up nicely (which with most people happens inevitably). I'm happy to report that my qualifications in this regard are quite good, having had many opportunities for practice.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm fortunate to be member of an informal group of editors involved with
Wikipedia:Medical Collaboration of the Week and
Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine, who pick articles every so often to bring up to featured standard, and address issues related to the very incomplete but steadily improving set of medical articles on Wikipedia. I have never met a nicer, friendlier, more industrious bunch of people online, and it's been an honor to be of some assistance to them. Of the current set of featured medical articles, I made substantial contributions to
Asthma and
Pneumonia. I also sometimes write shorter, "satellite" articles that help support the main featured article, for example
Wheeze and
Hopkins syndrome. My modest contributions to the article space will likely continue to be associated with the activities of
WP:MCOTW and
WP:CLINMED.
The other type of contribution I make to the article space is of the clean-up variety. This includes RC patrol,
Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, and
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes. RC patrol has been an on-off affair for me. When I first started out I reverted manually, but this was often a very suboptimal use of time because of its slowness (most of the time one of you unbelievable vandal slayers would revert ahead of me). After getting godmode things were much better, and I did RC patrol regularly—until godmode started malfunctioning for various reasons (eg. the ampersand bug, contribs page bug, poor function with IE7 etc). Hence, these days I mainly revert vandalism that I catch on watchlisted articles, as setting aside time to do RC patrol using CDVF + manual reverts might mean spending one hour only to manage 1-2 reverts ahead of someone with a quicker draw.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I don't think I've had conflicts, which I take to be of a more serious character than disagreements. I don't recall being stressed by something on Wikipedia—surprised yes, and, on two or three occassions, even rather shocked.;-) Conflict on Wikipedia seems to follow some broad patterns. In the article space, most disagreements that attain the sort of intensity we regard as indicating conflict seem to start because of
NPOV-related issues. In the project space, conflicts seem often to occur over a background of disparate wiki-philosophies. In the sysop world, they often involve repeated reversals of sysop actions (ie. delete-undelete, protect-unprotect, block-unblock) and can have their bases in many different things. It seems to me that, regardless of the proximate cause of a disagreement, a few common factors tend to escalate conflict, and I try to pay attention to them. The first is suboptimal communication. When faced with an article edit that one does not necessarily agree with, it is a good thing to talk to the editor who made the change, stating the reasons for disagreement and seeking to understand the reasons for the edit. It will often turn out that there were good reasons for it; WP can be an excellent learning experience in more ways than one. If after a discussion it becomes quite clear that the edit was indeed suboptimal, providing the opportunity to the other editor to rework his own edit can be a very positive thing (instead of simply reverting, ourselves). A second factor is impatience, and an unwillingness to relinquish some control to the wiki process. In a discussion that is at an impasse, there is sometimes a tendency to revert war—patience always runs thin when it is needed most. Revert wars rarely result in anything productive. Being willing to allow an unfavored edit to remain in an article or policy page for one more day will not end the world, but instead may help de-escalate a conflict and allow the focus to shift to thinking about solutions, rather than the most biting edit summaries.;-) A third factor is disrespect, which can escalate a conflict very quickly.
WP:CIVIL and
WP:NPA should be unfailingly adhered to; the latter is not very hard to do, but the former can sometimes seem impossible for even the best among us. I have found that if I'm feeling exasperated or incredulous at another's behavior that the best thing to do is often to hold off replying for a moment or two. I try to bear the above in mind when editing WP, and so far it has been a positive experience.
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.
Encephalon (
talk·contribs) – Encephalon is one of the finest Wikipedia editors I have come across. He is intelligent, courteous, and articulate. Within months of his arrival, I knew he would make an excellent administrator, and informed him of my intention to nominate him once he had a bit more experience and if he were willing. Encephalon has shown himself to be very well-versed in Wikipedia policy, he is able to communicate extremely well, and remains calm and rational during disagreement. He is a highly experienced editor and and has been active in several policy areas. He is well-respected and friendly, and I can think of no better embodiment than he for the qualities we value in our administrators. In short, Encephalon will be the sort of administrator I would like to be. Several of us have been attempting to persuade Encephalon to allow us to nominate him for quite some time; I consider it an honor to put forward this nomination.
Titoxd previously tried
nominating Encephalon for adminship; I have invited him to co-nominate. —
Knowledge Seekerদ 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)reply
There isn't much I can add to Knowledge Seeker's nomination, but I think Encephalon is the standard to set with respect to civility and administrative knowledge all nominees should have. He has excellent grasp of Wikipedia policy, and has a flair for language, using the best possible words to defuse even the most tense situations surrounding the
thorniest issues. I've "had my eye" on him since December, but Knowledge Seeker has finally brainwashed him into accepting what he has deserved for at least half a year now. He has already declined
twonominations, and as they say, the best administrators are the ones that have to be dragged to get the
mop and the
flamethrower.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us) 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored (and more than a little embarrassed) to accept this nomination. —Encephalon 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A steady hand and a cool head coupled with a thorough knowledge of guideline, policy and practise as well as outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia mean that Encephalon will set a standard that most admins will have to aim at. One other important quality he has that certainly some editors don't is actually reading a discussion before adding his commentary to the bottom of it — you can be sure that a comment from Encephalon is one that takes into account all that has already been said and thus is the kind that actually moves things forwards. -
Splashtalk 15:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support A fine editor with plenty of experience. --
NormanEinstein 15:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Everything I've seen from Encephalon has been good.
Paul August☎ 15:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Looks good to me. --
kingboyk 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm at the point where the adminship is something I would not wish on my worst enemy. But I do wish it on you:>--
R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support A great editor. mmeinhart 15:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
User:Go for it!/Vote Support he'll do fine. If he wants the mop and bucket, then let's take advantage of that and give them to him! --
Go for it! 16:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Will be a good admin. --
Ghirla-трёп- 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
SUPER STRONG MEGA GIANT SUPPORT Editor is plainly brilliant, extraordinary thoughtful... just amazing. I think he was certainly qualified for adminship on his first day here.
Xoloz 17:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I see no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools.--
MONGO 02:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support shows every sign he'll be a fine admin. Taking a wikibreak, far from disqualifying him, shows sense of balance in my book.--
CTSWyneken 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Finer user and if Titoxd recommends you than I will follow his lead. --
Patman2648 21:34 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Mega-strong Support. E, was absent for a while, but now, back and fully functional. Good luck.
Orane(t)(c)(e) 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Pretty impressive edit count, I'd have to say. Meets my requirements 100%. Keep up the good work and good luck.
CrnatecGora
Strong Support exceptionally well mannered, courteous and cool-headed in his dealings with others. I think will have a very sensible approach when it comes to issues of POV disputes and wikipedia development, especially in what is likely to be a critical year for wikipedia (its size now over that million mark, issues of accuracy/libel, ?
Wikipedia 1.0 etc).
David RubenTalk 06:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, it is always a pleasure to deal with him, and he will make a great administrator. --
Natalya 12:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support. Encephalon is, undeniably, the finest Wikipedian I have ever had the good fortune of coming across. He routinely reads the archives, keeps himself informed, is polite, well-mannered, thoughtful, and concientious. He can apologize for his mistakes (which are few and far between). He has a extremely thorough understanding of the workings of Wikipedia and rather than sling mud always, always, gives good rationales for his opinions and discusses them, rather than arguing. This editor is so far above the necessary bar for adminship that this RFA is practically unneeded. We need more people like Encephalon: the sooner he's given adminship the better.
Blackcap(talk) 17:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong support. -- I tried nominating him as well, I guess he just doesn't like me ;) --
Avi 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. Good experiences when encountering the user, also has strong experience with deletion review, afd, ... --
Aude (
talk |
contribs) 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Diplomacy is an absolute necessity in Wikipedia.
Ziggurat 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support a truly decent candidate. I've always found Encephalon's manner and activities perfectly suited for the role of admin. --
cj |
talk 02:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Cliché support - I thought he already was an admin! —
Kimchi.sg |
Talk 04:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Because I didn't get to be #100, I get to use the cliche "I thought he already ..." Good contributions and a chap with a sense of humour, will be a fine admin. --
Cactus.man✍ 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - very strong candidate. --
JoanneB 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Further expanding on that, Encephalon's break was due to professional obligations
[1], not because of stress. The fact that he came back and resumed editing in his usual areas is a good indicator of the kind of committment to the project he has.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us) 20:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
If anything, leaving this place for personal reasons for a while and then coming back to resume his activities makes Encephalon a better candidate as he's proven that he's got his priorities straight. It certainly is not, as was implied, a sign of emotional instability. What's more, he seems to have the full support of those who know him. That makes him a very strong candidate in my book. --
Mmounties (
Talk) 01:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
First, I'm sorry to see an unopposed nomination go away because of a pointless confusing objection. First, emotionally unstable people often ignore real life issues and focus on Wikipedia without taking breaks. Those people should get priorities straight, which, in my mind, shows emotional issues. Encephalon did the right thing in getting his priorities straight, which shows a lot about his character. — Deckiller 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Hi there. As Masssiveego's concerns seem to have generated some interest, I thought I'd briefly address them. Tito is indeed correct: I took a short break at the time because of increased professional duties during that period. This had been scheduled well before November, in fact, and quite a few of my wikifriends were aware of it. I returned to editing once I'd more free time. Thank you for your concern, Masssiveego, and DaGizza, Tito, Mmounties and Deckiller for your kind remarks. :-) Happy editing —Encephalon 04:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Comments
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk) 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
If I'm granted SysOp permissions, I forsee using them where appropriate in activities related to the above. Of the three permissions (page deletion/restoration, account/IP blocking, and page protection) and the automated tool (rollback) given administrators, I will probably find rollback and page restoration/deletion the most useful. This is probably similar to the experience of most (see for example
Haukur's report), with the notable exception of those technically gifted individuals who manage to code and run vandal-blocking bots n' things that do so much to protect our encyclopedia (see
User:Curps).
I am less involved with some areas of the encyclopedia to do with more specialized functions, for example
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. While I've observed it with interest and participated in a limited capacity, I do not forsee taking an especially active administrative role there. (I remain quite impressed, however, with how WP's category scheme has evolved via the wiki process; in many areas it compares quite favorably with the schemes in longer established encyclopedias (compare
Wikipedia's vs
Brittanica's)). I am fairly clueless in the technical side of many things, and have no plans at present to write code (of any kind) or develop (anything).
I think an important thing for administrators to have is the inclination to say sorry, if when they've managed to screw something up nicely (which with most people happens inevitably). I'm happy to report that my qualifications in this regard are quite good, having had many opportunities for practice.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm fortunate to be member of an informal group of editors involved with
Wikipedia:Medical Collaboration of the Week and
Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine, who pick articles every so often to bring up to featured standard, and address issues related to the very incomplete but steadily improving set of medical articles on Wikipedia. I have never met a nicer, friendlier, more industrious bunch of people online, and it's been an honor to be of some assistance to them. Of the current set of featured medical articles, I made substantial contributions to
Asthma and
Pneumonia. I also sometimes write shorter, "satellite" articles that help support the main featured article, for example
Wheeze and
Hopkins syndrome. My modest contributions to the article space will likely continue to be associated with the activities of
WP:MCOTW and
WP:CLINMED.
The other type of contribution I make to the article space is of the clean-up variety. This includes RC patrol,
Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, and
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes. RC patrol has been an on-off affair for me. When I first started out I reverted manually, but this was often a very suboptimal use of time because of its slowness (most of the time one of you unbelievable vandal slayers would revert ahead of me). After getting godmode things were much better, and I did RC patrol regularly—until godmode started malfunctioning for various reasons (eg. the ampersand bug, contribs page bug, poor function with IE7 etc). Hence, these days I mainly revert vandalism that I catch on watchlisted articles, as setting aside time to do RC patrol using CDVF + manual reverts might mean spending one hour only to manage 1-2 reverts ahead of someone with a quicker draw.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I don't think I've had conflicts, which I take to be of a more serious character than disagreements. I don't recall being stressed by something on Wikipedia—surprised yes, and, on two or three occassions, even rather shocked.;-) Conflict on Wikipedia seems to follow some broad patterns. In the article space, most disagreements that attain the sort of intensity we regard as indicating conflict seem to start because of
NPOV-related issues. In the project space, conflicts seem often to occur over a background of disparate wiki-philosophies. In the sysop world, they often involve repeated reversals of sysop actions (ie. delete-undelete, protect-unprotect, block-unblock) and can have their bases in many different things. It seems to me that, regardless of the proximate cause of a disagreement, a few common factors tend to escalate conflict, and I try to pay attention to them. The first is suboptimal communication. When faced with an article edit that one does not necessarily agree with, it is a good thing to talk to the editor who made the change, stating the reasons for disagreement and seeking to understand the reasons for the edit. It will often turn out that there were good reasons for it; WP can be an excellent learning experience in more ways than one. If after a discussion it becomes quite clear that the edit was indeed suboptimal, providing the opportunity to the other editor to rework his own edit can be a very positive thing (instead of simply reverting, ourselves). A second factor is impatience, and an unwillingness to relinquish some control to the wiki process. In a discussion that is at an impasse, there is sometimes a tendency to revert war—patience always runs thin when it is needed most. Revert wars rarely result in anything productive. Being willing to allow an unfavored edit to remain in an article or policy page for one more day will not end the world, but instead may help de-escalate a conflict and allow the focus to shift to thinking about solutions, rather than the most biting edit summaries.;-) A third factor is disrespect, which can escalate a conflict very quickly.
WP:CIVIL and
WP:NPA should be unfailingly adhered to; the latter is not very hard to do, but the former can sometimes seem impossible for even the best among us. I have found that if I'm feeling exasperated or incredulous at another's behavior that the best thing to do is often to hold off replying for a moment or two. I try to bear the above in mind when editing WP, and so far it has been a positive experience.
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.