Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Oppose: support here
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 73: Line 73:
#'''Support''' I don't see any special reason behind the two first oppose votes. From what I've seen, this is a good, trusted user. [[User:Diego Grez|Diego Grez]] ([[User talk:Diego Grez|talk]]) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I don't see any special reason behind the two first oppose votes. From what I've seen, this is a good, trusted user. [[User:Diego Grez|Diego Grez]] ([[User talk:Diego Grez|talk]]) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I can't see any reason to oppose. Best of luck! [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 21:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I can't see any reason to oppose. Best of luck! [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 21:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A level headed user who has the interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Will make use of the tools without harming the work through accidental or deliberate misuse. @WMC - you do realise your trolling opposition is likely to create knee-jerk reactions of support don't you? Oh, no, you probably don't. That would require a skill set you seem not to hold. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 21:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - hard-working user with a seemingly level temperament. The opposes have not brought up any points, so... <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">[[User:PrincessofLlyr|<font color="darkgreen">PrincessofLlyr</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:PrincessofLlyr|<font color="blue">royal court</font>]]</sup></font> 21:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - hard-working user with a seemingly level temperament. The opposes have not brought up any points, so... <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">[[User:PrincessofLlyr|<font color="darkgreen">PrincessofLlyr</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:PrincessofLlyr|<font color="blue">royal court</font>]]</sup></font> 21:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#All three current opposes really don't have any reasons while the candidate is a level headed editor with plenty of experience. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:green">21</span>]][[User:Derild4921/Guestbook|<span style="color:orange">☼</span>]] 21:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#All three current opposes really don't have any reasons while the candidate is a level headed editor with plenty of experience. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:green">21</span>]][[User:Derild4921/Guestbook|<span style="color:orange">☼</span>]] 21:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Line 90: Line 89:
# '''Oppose''' <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #F4A460"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>[[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|Perseus!]]</B></font><font color="#FF33FF"><B>[[User talk:Perseus, Son of Zeus|Talk to me]]</B></font></span> 20:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #F4A460"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>[[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|Perseus!]]</B></font><font color="#FF33FF"><B>[[User talk:Perseus, Son of Zeus|Talk to me]]</B></font></span> 20:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#:Mind providing a reason? [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:green">21</span>]][[User:Derild4921/Guestbook|<span style="color:orange">☼</span>]] 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#:Mind providing a reason? [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:green">21</span>]][[User:Derild4921/Guestbook|<span style="color:orange">☼</span>]] 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A level headed candidate - per nom. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 22:22, 11 November 2010

Sphilbrick

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (19/4/1); Scheduled to end 18:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) – Sphilbrick has been a member of the English Wikipedia community since June of 2007. In that time, in my opinion, he has demonstrated the qualities that I look for in in an EnWiki admin: intelligence, common sense, an understanding of how the project operates, the courage to both question the status quo and to enter the fray at the various boards at which the difficult decisions are rendered, the humility to accept that prevailing consensus may not be in line with his personal opinion, and, most of all, a healthy dose of courtesy and respect for his fellow editors. Another reason I respect Sphilbrick is that the majority of his edits are not auto-Twinkle/Huggle/bots but are the product of a person putting thought to paper--or should I say screen. To use wikimedia jargon, Sphilbrick demonstrates serious levels of "clue", and is someone in whom I am more than willing to trust that he will use the maintenance tools wisely and with forethought. Even if I may disagree with the actual decision, I trust him enough to come to that decision with deliberation, wisdom, and humility, which is all that can be asked of our admins. Therefore, I respectfully submit his name to the greater English wikipedia project for consideration to receive the administrator maintenance toolkit. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I'm grateful for Avi's kind words, and hope I can continue to live up to them—I accept the nomination.SPhilbrickT 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am fairly active at MFD and would like to transition from simply !voting to closing some of the discussions. As with many other candidates, I plan to monitor the backlog, and do my part in terms of the cleanup work. I'm active at Requests for feedback, most of which doesn't require an admin, but often times, a new editor will ask for feedback on an article that has been deleted by the time I see it. If I could see it, I could be helpful to the editor in cases where the subject could be salvaged, possibly userfying all or a portion if the editor is interested in continuing to work on the potential article.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Everyone expects WP to have solid coverage of Barack Obama, but I think one of the strengths is the coverage of subjects where the alternative may be hard to find.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Let's face it, women's basketball doesn't quite compare with the Balkans, so early on, I had no conflicts. I jumped to the other extreme by getting involved in Climate Change—I think I've managed to keep my cool in a challenging atmosphere, but that's for you to judge. This is one of the more heated exchanges; I could have done better. Unfortunately, I can't find the underlying talk page comments, but it boils down to a misunderstanding, and was resolved fairly quickly. I do get emotionally involved in subjects, but I'm fairly good at recognizing this, and, remembering There is no deadline, I can walk away for a few minutes or a few days, whatever is needed.
Optional question from Parrot of Doom
4 An administrator and anon IP argue over the addition of cited text (from an apparently reliable and neutral source) to an article. The argument descends into abuse and blockable personal attacks, of equal weight, from both editors. You're asked to intervene. What do you do?
A: The first point is, admins don't get positive consideration for their content argument by virtue of being an admin. However, while we do not tolerate abuse from anyone, we expect admins to know better, so a blockable personal attack is worse from the admin. I'd start with a stern warning for both, stronger worded for the admin. You said blockable, but generally speaking, a personal attack doesn't rise to a block without a warning. (if there are prior warnings, different answer, I'm assuming no prior warnings) If personal attacks continue, the warnings escalate quickly, but the admin deserves a block sooner, as they should know better.
Optional question from NuclearWarfare
5. I followed the climate change topic area since about this February, so I know many of the incidents and discussions the first two opposes have likely voted based on (or perhaps not; I am not psychic). But most of the other editors who will be voting in this RFA won't be aware of those incidents, and I hardly think it is fair for voters to be expected to dig into the mess that was the climate change disputes over the past year. So, do you think you could expand on your answer to question #3 some more? Also, since this your RFA after all, you should have some say in this: Would you be OK with editors who have been topic-banned from the climate change topic area discussing disputes from that in this RFA rather than just leaving what are essentially votes and not furthering discussion?
A. First, I don't know that I have authority to grant this, but I am fine with anyone who is topic-banned posting specifics about why I might not be qualified. (I suppose an arb could grant such permission; oddly, I have been arguing that a topic ban should be broad, but here is a good example of an exception I would support.) In fact, I just left an email with one of the opposers, offering to post any diffs provided. I'll elaborate on question 3 shortly.
Expanding on question 3 per NW request, I was involved in some of the Climate Change issues. I don't encourage anyone to wade through that material again, but if you want to, my most edited talk page is Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I cut back once the Arb hearing started, so you have to go back to archives such as Archive 14. A careful researcher can find some strongly worded statements, but I don't think you will find anything that crosses bounds. The CC evidence page has a lot of unpleasant reading, but I see at least 749 diffs, and I don't think a single diff of mine made the list.
Optional question from Rd232
6. You log in one morning and find that a BLP page on your watchlist has a major edit war in progress. Two editors have repeatedly inserted a claim that the subject has been unethical in his work, sourced to a well-known blog. Several newspaper columnists have also mentioned the claim, in less detail, but no mainstream news reports cover it. A single editor has reverted the claim 7 times, claiming the WP:BLP exemption to WP:3RR. The dispute has got increasingly heated, with accusations of censorship and increasing incivility in edit summaries and on the talk page. Whilst you're looking at the situation, a fourth editor reinserts the information, adding several more blogs and a press release from the subject's institution rejecting the claims. You're fairly familiar with the topic area (having participated in some fairly collegial editing in it not too long ago), so you know that all 3 editors adding the claim hold views strongly opposed to those of the BLP subject; you also know the fourth editor is an administrator. What do you do?
A. First, we have to be very careful with such a strong claim in a BLP. It cannot stand without impeccable sourcing. While I personally think some blogs are better sources of information that some reliable sources, until WP finds a way to formalize this, we have to use blogs in a very limited way (statements about themselves, for example). The fact that no mainstream news reports have covered it is controlling at this time. You said some columnists have mentioned it; how they mentioned it may be relevant. It may well be that they are discussing it as a rumor that everyone is talking about. We cannot be in the position of converting a rumor to fact just because a lot of people are talking about it. The admin insertion looks like an attempt at balance, with one mention supporting the claim and another refuting it, but that doesn't work for me. First, the subject institution may feel compelled to rebut the claim, as they may not be able to take the position that it is just appearing in sources that don't meet Wikipedia's list of RS. Adding more blogs doesn't justify adding the assertion.
While I personally might find the multiple blog references compelling (for my personal beliefs), that simply means I now think there's some truth to the statement. However, we aren't in the truth business, we are in the verifiable business. It isn't our mission to be the first to post something as soon as we think it is true, it is out mission to compile relevant and verifiable information. We need to wait until a mainstream news outlet covers it. Even then, we have to be careful and diligent, to monitor how other news source address the subject once one covers it, in case the others cover it with a very different conclusion.

General comments


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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support. Appears to be more than qualified knowledge-wise, and comes over very calm and collected. I liked the last section of your talk page where you asked help before just jumping in and messing something up. If you stick to this when you become an admin there shouldn't be any problems. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Seems to be a solid contributor with an even temperament. 28bytes (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Very helpful and knowledgeable editor. Was going to nominate him myself. -- œ 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems like a fantastic editor. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Someone I've frequently seen around, and I see absolutely no downsides in terms of competence, civility, or clue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No concerns. ~NerdyScienceDude 19:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Of course I would support this RfA! Perseus!Talk to me 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not. Perseus!Talk to me 20:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support – Great contributor that can be trusted with the tools. MC10 (TCGBL) 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes Inka888 19:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support dedication at help desk is a strong reason to say plus one. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I asked S to ping me if and when he was nominated. So here I am. :) Avi has it just so, I think S will be a fine admin. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - plenty of experience, seems trustworthy, opposes are unconvincing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support My interaction with SPhilbrick has been at the help desk - they are a knowledgeable editor and very willing to help. TNXMan 20:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Trust the judgment of Avraham and Good Track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Yes. Tiderolls 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I don't see any special reason behind the two first oppose votes. From what I've seen, this is a good, trusted user. Diego Grez (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I can't see any reason to oppose. Best of luck! Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - hard-working user with a seemingly level temperament. The opposes have not brought up any points, so... PrincessofLlyr royal court 21:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. All three current opposes really don't have any reasons while the candidate is a level headed editor with plenty of experience. Derild4921 21:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. This user is a hard worker with plenty of experience. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a very pretty signature. Would you mind giving a reason for your oppose? The WordsmithCommunicate 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I think you're not the first person to use that reply. And I find it humorous still. :) (X! · talk)  · @879  ·  20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry darling but the police say I can't tell you [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do not trust this user not to abuse the tools to push a fringe POV. Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to share? That way other participants can make a more informed decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I am topic banned from providing more information. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly both opposes relate to climate change (see here). The only interaction on either of their personal talk pages that I can find is a notification about this page, which S seems to be involved with only for formatting purposes. Perhaps someone else can cast more light on the situation? PrincessofLlyr royal court 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like an hypocrisy... Diego Grez (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Perseus!Talk to me 20:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind providing a reason? Derild4921 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A level headed candidate - per nom. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral for now. I have some concerns, e.g. wikilawyering here, but I've also seen some sane comments. I'm a bit concerned that he seems to have dropped all contentious topics and sticks with Wikignoming - I'd like to see more behavior under stress from an editor who has (had?) an interest in contentious topics. Also, his Erdös number is too small to be plausible, but too large to use it to bribe me.No longer relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]