Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick

Sphilbrick

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (52/8/5); 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)

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)

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.

• I've added new articles or expanded existing articles related to women's basketball. For example, I took Nera White from this to this.
• I expanded the history section of Simsbury, Connecticut from 163 words here to 1235 words here
• I added 172 photographs, mostly on National Register of Historic Places, as part of the Connecticut photo contest
• I've commented on dozens of request at Requests for feedback, for example: here, and here.

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.

Addendum Anyone reading this should note it was added after Rd232 noted I concentrated on content and omitted admin actions Some consideration of protection is warranted. If most of the editors involved are non-confirmed, then semi might be enough, but a strongly worded note to the admin is warranted, noting their lack on understanding of the sourcing issues, and urging discussion at the talk page. If many of the editors are confirmed, temporary full protection may be in order. Full protection should be rarely used, but multiple attempts to add material that could be libelous should qualify. This still requires strong admonition to the admin, as they can edit over protection. All parties should be warned about edit-warring. Either report them to WP:AN3 or confirm that they have been reported. Those that may have previously been warned might now deserve a block.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

7. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

7a. ...an editor to be blocked?

A:Blocking is something that ought to be used sparingly. I view every block as a failure of the community to persuade an editor to contribute constructively. I'm not so naive as to think that means blocks are never warranted. There are some people uninterested in contributing to the project, and fascinated by their ability to wreak havoc. They get a very short leash, but usually do get a leash. ("usually", to note there are exceptions, and a block can be issued with a prior warning in some circumstances.) In general, an editor who is violating some policy ought to be warned that their edits are in violation of policy. Especially for newcomers, there are a lot of policies, and some actions that are quite permissible in other places are prohibited here. However, and editor than continues to violate policy in the face of warnings, and is making no good faith efforts to modify their behavior can be blocked. If warnings are being ignored on the belief that they are merely warning, then it is time to step up and stop the ability of the person to edit. Initial blocks should be short in duration, as you are trying to send the message that the warnings are serious. Continuation of behavior even after a block should result in blocks of increasing duration. However, one should not simply issue longer blocks. One should also makes clear why the block is issued. I can live with a user complaining that the block was unfair, I don't ever want an editor to say they were blocked but don't know why. Now, I'll possibly get myself into hot water by saying I personally do not like indef blocks. I prefer time specific blocks in all cases. (I don't feel so strongly about this that I would ever reverse someone elses indef, this is more of a personal preference.)

7b. ...a page to be protected?

A:

7c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

A:In general, our goal for articles is "get it up and clean it up". One of the main rationales for a wiki approach is that we do not need to wait until something is close to perfect to include it. We are willing to have imperfect article on display, as we believe that the crowd can help make the article better. (My personal preference is to use user subspace for very early drafts, but that's another subject). This doesn't mean everything is acceptable. There are examples of articles that do not belong in our main space. In some cases, where the article simply is not up to the standards required, we can work through an orderly process to delete the article from main space. One advantage of a time-consuming process is that some might be able to rescue an otherwise unacceptable article and make it better. We have Prod and AfD as "normal" processes for removal of such article. However, there are certain types of article where we do not want to grind through the process. In those cases, we want to remove them much faster than the "normal" process. The reasons for circumventing the normal process falls into (in my view) two broad categories - those we want to deal with quickly because we don't want to waste time on process for process' sake, e.g. pure vandalism, and those we want to remove quickly because their existence creates a problem, e.g. BLP attacks or copyright violations. We try to err on the side of caution in both categories, but caution leads to different actions. In the second case, where the existence causes a problem, err on the side of removal. We don't want to debate a week whether an article is libeling the subject - remove it, and discuss slowly and calmly whether it can be restored. In contrast, for the other category, subjects that are not notable, and articles considered poor for other reasons, the caution rule means we only speedy things that very clearly do not belong. The fact that you think it won't survive an AfD or Prod is not a sufficient reason for speedy, use the more deliberate process and get more eyes on it.

7d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

A:The intention is that this project should follow the principles set out in the five pillars. The first four of those pillars are very broad statements. Over time, the community has developed a set of policies, guidelines and essays to help address specific situations. Inevitably in any human enterprise, the attempt to codify the spirit of the first four pillars onto specific rules about how to handle vandalism or address copyright issues will result in some missteps. The point of the fifth pillar is not to bind yourself by an imperfect rule, if the result would harm the encyclopedia. It is not carte blanche to do anything—the guiding decision ought to be - yes, I know what I'm about to do is a technical violation of some rule, but I am confident that the community will reach a consensus that the rule was flawed, and may even change the rule for the future. Suppose at one time there was a rule never to block anyone until they have been warned. Then the editor create the first bot, and starts it deleting every article. Don't let the rule bind you, block, because you are sure the community will quickly agree the rule "always warn first" needs an exception.

8. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

A:First and foremost, consensus is not a vote. In theory, nine people expressing an opinion to keep and one expressing an opinion to delete could be closed as delete, if the keep rationales are forms of "I like it" and the delete rationale is a solid example of a clear violation of policy. In practice, numbers like this are unlikely to occur; once the one person finds the major problem, others are likely to change their opinion. However, at XfD, it is not uncommon for editors to register an opinion, and not revisit it in light of subsequent positions, so it could happen. Ideally, consensus represents a position that all can accept. In my contrived example, some of the keep !votes might stick with their original position, but accept that the delete rationale has some validity, and won't be upset if the decision is delete. In practice, we are too diverse to insist that 100% accept the decision, but it is the admins function to determine one of three (not two) outcomes—the opinions expressed strongly support one position, the opinions strongly support the opposite position, or there is no consensus. This is a simplification, as there can be more than two options in the table. In general, with n options, there are n+1 possible outcomes.

Getting specific, in an XfD discussion, the admin has to conclude that the arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for keeping and there is a sufficient number of editors commenting. If there are not enough, it should be relisted. If there are enough, the decision follows the consensus, with no consensus generally defaulting to keep (There are some who feel that certain categories of BLPs should default to delete, but I don't believe a consensus on that decision has been reached.)

I have limited involvement with DRV, so I'll emphasize that I would never close a DRV without more experience there, but I believe the main difference is that a no consensus defaults to relist. The community did make a decision to delete the article, it should not be restored or even remain deleted on a sharply divided opinion—the community must affirmatively reach a decision.

A talk page discussion can be a bit less formal. While the nature of a wiki is than any decision can be reversed, it is much more disruptive to delete an entire article or template, then restore it, compared to the decision to accept or reject a particular edit to an existing article. Edits that are challenged (in a WP:BRD approach) need to reach consensus for a preferred version. The rule that it is not simply a vote still applies, but the critical mass needed to make a decision is smaller. For example, at a AfD, three keeps and one delete should probably invoke a relisting. but on a talk page if one person wants a phrase in and three are opposed, that is sufficient to make the decision (at least for now). Another difference is that an admin formally decides the consensus status of XfD, and DRV, but talk page consensus is determined by those involved, including non-admin registered editors and IPs.

9. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

A:My first step is to warn both JohnDoe and JaneRoe.

My first instinct is not to consider protection - I view protection as a solution for a broader problem of edit warring, not just two clearly identified editors.

My initial warning will be a warning. I don't yet have enough information to warrant a block. The warning will strongly encourage going to the talk page, with an admonition that a further revert could result in a block.

I'll try to note in the warning that I separately plan to determine which version should be displayed while we work out the issue, and neither editor should take it upon themselves to unilaterally decide which is the right version. This is especially important when protecting, but also applies when protection is not invoked. in general, the version before the revert war broke out may be appropriate, but if the war broke out over contentions that material in the older version was libelous or an attack, I would use the cautionary principle and use a version without the questionable material while we sort it out. In many case, identifying the right version to maintain while we go sort it out is easy, but in other case it is quite difficult. I feel comfortable on my own issuing warnings, and making a decision whether blocking is necessary. Early on, I would look for feedback form other admins if I think protection may be needed, but I anticipate reaching a comfort level with that decision in due course. I lean toward a four eyes approach if there is a question about which version should remain while the issue is discussed, as I see quite some heat generated over this issue.

I would make sure the article is in my watchlist. Ideally I can find the time to help sort through the issue, at a minimum, I need to keep an eye on it if the participants agree to try to work it out, in case they cannot.

I will try to remember to thank JohnQ for bringing it to my attention. Even if I think JohnQ was motivated by something other than pure intentions, I'll AGF.

10. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

A:

General comments

• Links for Sphilbrick: Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Sphilbrick can be found here.

---

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)
2. Support. Seems to be a solid contributor with an even temperament. 28bytes (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. Very helpful and knowledgeable editor. Was going to nominate him myself. -- œ^™ 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Seems like a fantastic editor. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
6. No concerns. ~NerdyScienceDude 19:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Support Of course I would support this RfA! Perseus!Talk to me 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Maybe not. Perseus!Talk to me 20:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

7. Support – Great contributor that can be trusted with the tools. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Yes Inka⁸⁸⁸ 19:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Support dedication at help desk is a strong reason to say plus one. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
11. Support - plenty of experience, seems trustworthy, opposes are unconvincing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
13. Support Trust the judgment of Avraham and Good Track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
14. Support. Yes. Tiderolls 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
16. Support - I can't see any reason to oppose. Best of luck! Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
19. Support. This user is a hard worker with plenty of experience. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. Good history of content creation, and good answers to the questions. Best of luck.--Korruski^Talk 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
21. Support. Hard-working wikipedian; provided good answers. TheRasIsBack! 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
22. I've followed the climate-change judicial processes closely, and I'm OK with what I've seen there from Sphilbrick. (S)he strikes me as thoughtful, calm, and reasonably grounded in policy. I differ from Stephan in that I think this is actually a reasonable take on a somewhat overdramatized dispute. I'm very willing to support someone when I've seen them deal with conflict in a mature and sensible manner, even if their positions on specific questions don't agree with mine. I haven't spent much time looking at climate-change articles, so I guess there could be something hidden there that would make me change my mind, but based on what I've seen thus far, I can get behind this as a good idea. I think Sphilbrick will be a good admin. Make us proud. :)

    As an aside, I would greatly appreciate it if some of the opposers below were at least allowed to expand on their rationale. MastCell ^Talk 23:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

23. Support—I've seen many of his contributions during my time here on Wikipedia, whether they be to articles or discussions. I have not once seen something that would suggest he is an incompetent or uncivil editor; on the contrary, my previous encounters with his contributions have proved otherwise. I can trust him with the mop. Airplaneman ✈ 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
24. Support per nom. Great candidate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
25. Support I have had significant interaction with this editor in the "topic area which must not be named", and while I didn't always agree with this editor, they always seemed to be reasonable and level headed. ATren (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
26. Support. In addition to what others have said: I recall seeing good work in areas dealing with newcomers particularly, and that's an attitude/focus which should be part of the variety of interests in the admin corps. Rd232 ^talk 00:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Per all above.intelati^talk 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
28. Support His edit history suggests that he is well familiar with WP policies. I don't have any interaction with this user and my opinion is solely based on his contributions. EngineerFromVega^Discuss 01:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
29. Support Per all above AND how could I not support a potential admin who actually cares about editing the entry for Carol Blazejowski? --Quartermaster (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
30. Not naming names, a few prolific drama mongers below that have offered either a completely blank oppose rationale or IMO inaccurate claims of the candidate inciting drama. This has lead me to Default to Support until I can be convinced otherwise. The candidate has clearly made popular enemies, but their arguments on why we should not support the candidate are beyond weak and/or non-existent. Vodello (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
31. I think he would do fine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
32. Support. Everything I see here indicates to me that he'll do fine. Seems level-headed and plenty skilled enough. No serious negatives - nothing provided by the Oppose commentors rises to the level of a deal-killer, or even close. Candidate is to be commended for being willing to work on climate change topic, even though its stressful and likely to create enmity. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
33. Support per Herostratus' reasoning. I'm underwhelmed by the oppose comments so far. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
34. Support A level headed candidate - per nom. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (Note - this comment was originally posted in the "Oppose" section Raul654 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC))

    Uh, this is the oppose section... ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    Is it? I just thought it was a page on a website. How fascinating. Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    You may wish to glance at WP:POINT, of which the above appears to be a (minor) infraction. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    I have little doubt that Pedro is well aware. This is fairly innocuous and can probably be ignored (as I note below). So at this point, the less we focus on it, the less likely it'll be disruptive, imho. - jc37 23:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    It looks like WP:IAR is in fair form here. I'm fairly sure that whoever closes this will notice this. So nothing further to be concerned with, I think. - jc37 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    Enough. I am not going to be as politically correct as my fellow editors above. The oppose rationale and the subsequent nonchalant condescending response by Pedro is completely irresponsible, immature, and a poor representation of all administrators of Wikipedia. If you are going to oppose the candidate, please do it right instead of doing this petty pussy-footing in a deliberate attempt to get a negative response. You have succeeded. This is my only response to Pedro's completely disrespectful comment, so if anyone wants to indefinitely block me without ever so much as receiving a single warning in four and a half years just for daring to point out how absurd his comments are, you will highly unlikely receive any opposition. No user, administrator or no, has the right to turn RFA into a joke like Pedro and several others here have. Vodello (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I will not refactor this comment in any shape or form. Vodello (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) NOTE: Pedro's "Support" vote was initially in the oppose column until User:Raul654 moved it to the support section. My initial comment is in response to Pedro deliberately placing his "support" vote under the oppose section and his response to his action. Vodello (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

35. Support Nothing of major concern here. We all make mistakes and I'll assume that you mean the best. Besides, bringing the issues to light here is a good thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
36. Support the reasons given for opposition are weak to say the least. DC T•C 05:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
37. Support Yes definitely! I was thinking when this would come up. Minimac (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
38. Support I don't see any issues in this user's history that raise concern at this time. Oh, and Closing Burecrat: Please just do everyone a favor and just ignore the first four opposes. The first two are from people with personal grudges that are ignoring the spirit of the rulings against them in order to avoid having to justify opposes that they probably cannot justify with actual words if they had to, the third has no reason at all, and the fourth is a boilerplate oppose by someone who appears to not want anyone at all to be an admin, i.e. a POV pusher. This is a really pathetic lineup of opposes here, except for the ones that actually give reasons, of course. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Don't you think that's rather disrespectful, not to say dishonest? What you really mean is "Closing Burecrat [sic]: Please just do everyone a favor and ignore the votes of everyone who doesn't agree with me". Given the admin-for-life mentality, any rational person ought to oppose a candidate if there's the slightest doubt about that candidate's suitability. That so many here are irrational is hardly my problem. Malleus Fatuorum 12:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

39. Support the opposes so far are pretty convincing: this is the kind of guy we could use as an administrator. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
40. Support, per Jclemens, who's onto something. Sphilbrick seems ripe for teh tools, and has much to get on with. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
41. Support -- wiooiw (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
42. Support - about time too :P —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:16pm • 08:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
44. Support - per nom. Looks fine to me & should make a good admin. No concerns here - Alison ^❤ 10:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
45. Support per a most persuavsive nomination. I'm confident that the 'crats will ignore oppostion attempts to rat-fuck this candidiate. MtD (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
46. Support. I have an impression of someone who always gives thoughtful and constructive contributions. I am unfamiliar with Climate change and POV issues raised by opposers, but I believe that administrator status has no bearing on these issues. If he were to use administrative privileges in a partisan way, the community would respond resoundingly. I am sure he will be a greater asset to the project per his answer to Q1A. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
47. Support. I see no worries here. Moreover I liked "However, we aren't in the truth business, we are in the verifiable business" in the QA. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
48. Support unquestionable support. Due to extended interaction with this user I judge them to have common sense and the project at heart. Even when I disagree passionately with them. Polargeo (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
49. Support. Plenty of good and varied experience, and good answers to the questions. Climate change conflict opposes don't really worry me. If you edit in contentious areas like that, you're certain to garner vociferous opposition - and it is the opponents who have the bans, while the candidate does not and has a clean block log. The discourse highlighted in Q3 is perhaps not ideal, but if that's the worst example of a heated exchange, I don't think we have a great deal to worry about. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    I would just like to point out that topic banned editors both support and oppose this RfA. I am one of them. This should not diminish their opinions because they are experienced editors with considerable content building, vandal fighting and even admin experience. Polargeo (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

50. Support Good responses to questions, giving me the impression he is able to exercise restraint with the tools where appropriate. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
51. Support Was concerned by the opposers implication that the candidate might push the harmful climate skeptic POV, but Polargeo's support and a quick check of their contribs mostly allays this. Other than their take on climate they look excellent, per all the above. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
52. Support per nom, answers to questions, Feyd's support above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, that's a very pretty signature. Would you mind giving a reason for your oppose? The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   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)

   Sorry darling but the police say I can't tell you [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   This [2] may help you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   I'm sorry, but I am topic banned from providing more information. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   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)

   Seems like an hypocrisy... Diego Grez (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose Perseus!Talk to me 20:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Mind providing a reason? Derild4921☼ 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

4. "admins don't get positive consideration for their content argument by virtue of being an admin". Really? Until there's a fair and honest desysopping process in place (which may be never judging by current progress) such a blinkered view does not bode well for the use of the admin utility belt. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   What do you mean by that? From Sphilbrick's answer, "don't" is meant in the sense of "should not", with action following accordingly. You surely don't think they should do you? Did you read the answer differently? Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   In which variant of English does "don't" mean "shouldn't"? Malleus Fatuorum 11:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   I'm looking at the answer as a whole, particularly as it relates to the specific question "What do you do?". So "don't" here relates to what should I do not what happens normally. Rd232 ^talk 11:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   I'm looking at the facts, which is that they do. Malleus Fatuorum 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   The facts are not at RFA, Sphilbrick is. And his answer indicates he shares your concern. Rd232 ^talk 12:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   If he shared my concern then he would be addressing my concern, not putting himself forward to join the ranks of the untouchbles. Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   He didn't put himself forward, he was nominated by User:Avraham. The reference to "untouchables" makes me smile - I heard a thing on the radio yesterday about Dalits who have to earn a living by emptying toilets. Well, "cleaning shit up" is part of the admin job description... :) Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Malleus makes a good point. When I wrote the sentence, it was implicitly "admins don't (from me) get positive...". It was intended as a prescriptive answer, not a descriptive answer. I'm happy this exchange occurred, because I was quite surprised at the oppose, and didn't originally understand the rationale. Happily, I agree with MF. In short, some do, but they should not.--SPhilbrickT 13:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose as I believe too much drama will ensue from this editor being made an administrator. Someone who teams up with another user to write something like this, in my mind, is running afoul of community standards we have to avoid, say WP:ATTACK and WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's not the kind of problem I like to see surrounding an admin candidate. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Point of order: that page states "material was compiled by [another user] and formatted by Sphilbrick." Rd232 ^talk 01:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Helping another user make an attack page is at least a tacit endorsement of the content. It's unapologetically in the admin-candidate's user space and he did not, to my understanding, try to correct any of insinuations (dare I say, personal attacks?) contained therein. I cannot guess as to his motivations, but I can see how he's involved himself and I'm not impressed. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   "attack page"? It looks like a summary of events, with neutral descriptions of "X did Y", plus quotes from editors from their edit summaries etc. There is no commentary that I can see. Rd232 ^talk 01:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Directly commented: "William M. Connolley reverts with no explanation in edit summary. William M. Connolley marks this edit as minor." -> This is not a neutral summary of how WP:ROLLBACK works. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   The diff doesn't say "rollback", you have to guess it. And using WP:ROLLBACK on that edit looks like an abuse of the tool, in which context, the given summary is neutral. Rd232 ^talk 01:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   It seems that you've fallen into a similar trap of trying to make commentary about this subject without having all the information, casting aspersions where you likely should not, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   I chose my words carefully: "looks like". It is not outside the realm of possibility that the use was OK. But (a) it looks like a misuse on a reasonably close examination as one not familiar with the entire context (b) the summary you refer to is neutral (c) an editor involved in "formatting" a page like that can not be expected to review every piece of information in great detail. (d) it is really quite amusing that you would cite that casting aspersions link when you are the one seemingly unable to back up your accusation towards Sphilbrick. Rd232 ^talk 08:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   It is funny how problems related to climate change tend to bring out the worst in people. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to bait me into some sort of uncivil argument. Be that as it may, it's clear that Sphilbrick was closely aligned with a group of editors who exacerbated the problems surrounding climate change. The user Sphilbrick was "helping" was eventually subject to a topic ban as part of the arbitration. This indicates poor judgment on Sphilbrick's part: a judgment that indicates an unacceptable possibility of abusing certain administrator tools. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose - I do respect Avraham. But I think that the timing for this isn't the best. And in this case, I don't think clairvoyance was needed to note that such drama could occur. (Not that drama should stop us from doing what is right, of course.) Anyway, all that aside, in looking over contributions, I'm not sure that this person currently meets my personal criteria for trust. Not to bring out an old RfA cliche, but "maybe next time"... - jc37 01:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose - On good days i've been considering giving out a barnstar for levelheadedness and adherence to NPOV, despite S's personal POV - but unfortunately each time its been followed by incidents that made me wonder why i even considered it. More detail is unfortunately not within my means to provide, given that my interaction with S is in an area from which i've voluntarily topic-banned myself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   The heated exchange example in #3 is a good reason for why i'm in opposition. Without touching upon the basis of the conflict (since i can't), the exchange to me shows a faulty way of addressing a problem. If any editor has background knowledge of sources that can resolve a situation/edit - but these sources aren't referenced in the article - then the incorrect way (SP's unfortunately) is to ignore this background knowledge and state that nothing supports the edit/situation. The three correct ways: a) tag unsourced b) add one or more references c) ignore for now... are significantly better. In this situation i believe that SP let his POV determine the method of resolution, instead of his mind. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Summarize: the heated exchange case in #3 seems to me to be a POV statement of the kind that (paraphrased) says i can will-fully ignore verifiable reality, at the detriment of the article, because conveniently enough no one, has yet, provided the verification that i know exist, but do not like.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

8. Weak oppose I'm not inclined to grant adminship to anyone who has been involved in the climate change fracas right now. This user certainly seems to have offended one of the factions, and looking through their contributions I can see why. AniMate 08:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   "and looking through their contributions I can see why" - would you have something specific to point to? You might then go beyond justifying your vote to affecting the opinion of others. Rd232 ^talk 14:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

   Neutral. Answer to my question (Q6) is fine for what it covers, but it's solely focussed on the content issue, and says nothing about the issues involved in deciding whether or how to carry out any administrative acts in relation the situation. Rd232 ^talk 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   An imperfect addendum to the Q6 answer, but it is a learning curve and all round seems a good candidate. Rd232 ^talk 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral. You do some good work around here, but I'm concerned by the opposes above. I'll sit on this for now and re-evaluate in a few days. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral, at least for now. Your work welcoming new users seems solid and shows good follow through; your contributions to basketball and historical places look well written and make appropriate use of references. Your understanding of copyright seems to sit well with mine; asking SandyGeorgia to double check your work in response to the recent kerfuffle shows both good sense and good judgment, as does your breakdown. You show a willingness to work in unglamorous areas, and appear committed to the major purpose of the project.

   On another hand, I do not see any evidence of resolving complex disputes besides being a player in the climate change mess. It is important to be able to investigate an unfamiliar situation and arrive at a clear understanding of the underlying issues. A few things to think about:

   • unnecessarily argumentative and ignores the main thrust of that thread, WP:DUE.
   • way too WP:BATTLEGROUND; in fairness, both this and the preceding diff are from the some conversation at the now-superseded climate change noticeboard.
   • This series of posts ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]; full discussion) gives me significant pause. It passes the dead horse line, shows a serious lack of awareness of the problem of cherry picking, and is not your finest moment with respect to WP:BLP (misrepresenting a living person's positions could have serious real life consequences for the subject of the article). You seem to be a bit of a pedant, especially when it comes to process; I appreciate that, but as an administrator people will make bad faith requests and it will be up to you to recognize patterns, not just details.
   • The above is followed shortly by [8], which is a long way from helpful.
   • This post from back in March (linked from the climate change arbitration) shows you again missing the point of a discussion despite arguing elsewhere that part of our job as editors is to filter and weigh sources. In your defense, I think that that is the only diff of yours posted to the /Evidence page.

     On the gripping hand, I think you are deficient in a few admin-relevant areas and an excellent editor elsewhere. I am not comfortable supporting on this basis, but neither do I think you would delete the main page. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

     • I'm usually quick to oppose any candidate given probable cause, but out of these plethora of diffs provided, I just don't see anything incriminating in the least. Is this a Request for Adminship, or "Wikipedia editors versus William M Connoley's Crew"? We're getting completely blank oppose votes, and then this long, well-thought out neutral vote comes along with many diffs provided.. that still seems to be much ado about nothing. Vodello (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   FWIW, I would expect Sphilbrick to have the good sense to avoid non-trivial admin actions in the climate change area. Whether or not xe's done anything substantially wrong there, it's clear that this would not be a good idea. Rd232 ^talk 08:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   do not see any evidence of resolving complex disputes besides being a player in the climate change mess - I do not think that SP can be said to have helped to resolve what you so aptly call a "mess"; partly because the mess wasn't resolved, merely ended; and partly because he didn't help William M. Connolley (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral - candidate's answer to my question seems to suggest a certain level of naivety with regard to how some admins regard themselves here. Nice though to see someone who actually creates content. Parrot of Doom 10:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)