Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philafrenzy

Philafrenzy

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (139/61/17); Scheduled to end 11:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

Philafrenzy (talk · contribs) Philafrenzy is very much a "content creator"; he's started over 4,000 articles, and contributed substantially to the good articles The Indian Antiquary and Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Elizabeth II. He's got a good track record at Articles for deletion and he's a prolific contributor to Did You Know, with over 300 nominations making the main page.

Philafrenzy primarily approached me for adminship because he thinks there are not enough people monitoring and updating the DYK queues, particularly when issues are reported there, or at Main Page errors. Having had a go at doing the work myself, I agree that we need some more admin resource in this area. His work elsewhere gives me full confidence he will be able to use the tools in a responsible manner, and be civil and polite to all. So, let's give him a go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Co-nomination by 78.26

I am very pleased to present for your consideration the candidacy of Philafrenzy for Administrator. Additionally, I am honored that such a candidate has selected me to be one of his nominators. Philafrenzy is one of our most prolific content creators. Since he began contributing regularly in February 2011, he has amassed more that 175,000 edits, of which more than 80% are in the article space. That’s more than 1500 improvements per month to article space alone. More than 4000 new articles are the result of Philafrenzy's endeavors.

Philafrenzy has a long and respectable record at AfD, where his "correct" voting totals more than 85%. It is refreshing that when he does not match consensus there is no particular pattern of "delete" against a "keep" result, or vice versa, showing an independence of thinking which is sometimes lacking in that area.

Philafrenzy is communicative. His page is full of useful discussion with new and experienced editors alike. He is open to suggestions and new ideas, but knows his way around Wikipedia’s labyrinth of guidelines and policies. My personal interactions with him has revealed a character of collegiality, flexibility, thoughtfulness and perseverance.

Philafrenzy has a true need for the additional tools. The areas of WP:DYK and WP:ERRORS are always in need of further administrative attention, and it is here that the candidate wishes to focus his attention in an administrative capacity. Here is no hat collector, it has only been at the repeated (I hope gentle) prodding of several highly experienced editors that Philafrenzy has agreed to proceed with this RfA.

He has the correct temperament. He has more than adequate experience, both in edit count and tenure. He has the WP:CLUE. He is an exemplification of WP:HERE. It is for these reasons I request that Philafrenzy receive your positive consideration as an administrative candidate. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Ritchie333 and 78.26. I accept. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional statement

I would like to add some more to my statement bearing in mind some of the feedback that has been given below about my candidature.

My Wiki career before this RfA has been uneventful with little feedback from anyone. I haven't been involved in any drama, don’t comment a lot on ANI, and am not one of those Wikipedians who everyone knows. I have just been quietly getting on with it and in the vast majority of cases nobody seems to have had any problem with what I have been doing. On the other hand, it's possible to fall into bad habits in such a situation and this RfA has given my editing a real forensic examination that it has never had before and has been very worthwhile. Everyone should do this once a year. I would like to comment on two criticisms in particular:

With the benefit of hindsight, the Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat article should have been in draft until this time-consuming RfA was out of the way and I could give it proper attention. There was an embarrassing error of mixing up two identically named people (father and son in the same household). I hope nobody will judge me too harshly for that.

Several voters have commented on the matter of close-paraphrasing. I have already said something about the risk of false positives in my answer to question 17 so I won’t repeat that here. I just want to say that I am sorry for past lapses, I would hope that they can be seen in the context of my whole body of work, and I understand the need for administrators to act as exemplars in this area, as in others. I will take on board the advice given and act accordingly. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2018 (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 anticipate working in DYK and ERRORS as I am already quite active at DYK. Both are always crying out for admins to fix problems and there seems to be a shortage so I should be able to help. I also anticipate being more active at AFD but starting with non-controversial closes. I haven't done any non-admin closes as I think all closes should be by admins.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am mainly a content creator and so would say my 300+ Did You Knows, most of them joint. Working in a team to expand an article from almost nothing to complete enough to appear on the front page is something I enjoy. I have two GAs.

I have created over 4,500 articles that are listed on my user page, mostly on biographical or historical topics. Many of these are stubs but there are plenty of longer ones mixed in. I know not everyone likes lots of stubs and I don't claim that my stub creations are great works, just that every article adds to the richness of the encyclopaedia.

In terms of the wider community I have mentored new users and have done outreach work. I was the organiser and one of the presenters at the event to train new users at the Black Cultural Archives in London and I helped train at events at King’s College London and the British Library. I started the meetups in Oxford, Reading, and Glasgow. I maintain the London meetup page and that's the one I attend now. I have contributed over 10,000 of my own photographs to Commons some of which are in use 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: There was a discussion on ANI in 2015 about articles I created for professors of history and the interpretation of WP:PROF. They were criticised for being too short and lacking a strong assertion of notability, which was fair criticism. I have taken that on-board and I don't think I have had any problems in that area since then.

I declined a request for mediation this year as the request came from the PR agent for the article subject and I don't see how they can ever approach mediation in good faith with a neutral point of view. I oppose paid editing.

I have had some AFDs in the last year. Some were for articles that on reflection I shouldn’t have created such as a tax lawyer who was just another lawyer and a vet who was too soon. Others were kept such as British Society for Surgery of the Hand or even found their way on to the main page like Columbine cup. I find the best way to handle them is to expand with plenty of referenced content.

I have had the usual minor disputes about article content but they have all been resolved through discussion. Wikipedia is not a source of stress for me. I have never been blocked.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from SoWhy

4. Your edit summary usage is below 55%. Can you elaborate why?

A:There was a discussion about this on my talk page. It depends what tool you use. I create a lot of new material and if I am creating an article in 20 or 30 straight edits that I know is not on anyone's watchlist I tend just to use CE (copy edit) to save time. Where an article is more mature or for anything contentious or high traffic I will use a fuller edit summary. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The higher count in the edit counter tool probably stems from section headings counted as edit summaries. But a look at your last 50 non-minor edits at this moment reveals more than thirty edits without edit summaries which makes it pretty hard to track your edits and understand your motivations. Are you willing to change your behavior and use useful edit summaries for all edits? Regards SoWhy 14:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed SoWhy. Starting with this edit! Philafrenzy (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Nihlus

5. As someone not entirely familiar with the WP:DYK process, can you show where your lack of administrative tools has negatively impacted the DYK process?

A: Please see the archives of WP:ERRORS Nihlus. It's empty right now but is often littered with non-admins reporting errors, for which there is consensus over the necessary changes, and no admin available to action them. Often they remain unfixed on the main page for hours or even the whole time the relevant article is there. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: This does not answer my question. I am more concerned about the main DYK process. Please elaborate on how the process there has been impeded by your inability to take administrative action, as you have little experience at WP:ERRORS. Nihlus 23:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not the main DYK process where admin powers are lacking Nihlus. It's when flawed DYKs are reported on ERRORS where the admin powers are required as by then they are live on the main page. Obviously they should never get that far but they do on a regular basis. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Fram

6. Considering that you want the mop partly to help at DYK / Errors, where it is especially necessary to be careful with sourcing, correctness, and other policies: you created Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat three days ago. How did you decide that the subject is notable, considering that all sources you give only have a very passing mention of the subject? Additionally, how did you decide that all sources are about the same Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat, and not e.g. his father, who died in 1863, and who may well be the one mentioned in source 1?

A: The article is still under construction Fram and will need further research but I have sufficient sources to say definitely that the subject was a justice of the peace and deputy lieutenant of Kirkcudbrightshire and a notable figure in his part of Scotland. There are far more sources than currently in the article but I haven't had a chance yet to go back and develop it. In policy terms it is GNG as JPs and DL's aren't automatically deemed notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I moved it to Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat, where it should stay until it is decided which of the two Roberts it's about, and until it demonstrates some notability. Fram (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Nosebagbear

7. Why do you believe that even completely non-controversial, Non-Admin Closes by experienced AfD editors should be prohibited in AfDs, given both that they can't close "delete" and that it would significantly increase admin workload unnecessarily?

A: Early in my Wiki career I saw a number of questionable closes where there was insufficient voting to assess the consensus accurately in my view (not on articles I created). For instance 2/1 or where the nominators vote wasn't given any weight. It was a long time ago and maybe things have changed. I understand the rationale for getting non-admins to help and I don't feel terribly strongly about it but it did put me off from ever doing my own. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Jbhunley

8. DYK and ERRORS are areas with lots of conflict between editors with strong opinions. An admin in that area needs to be able to both function in that environment and have the skills to deescalate or otherwise manage conflicts. Please describe either some situations where you have done this or how you plan on doing so in the future. My concern is that demonstrated skill in writing articles in not necessarily a good proxy for how one deals with conflicts between other editors.

A: I don't have a great deal of dispute resolution experience Jbhunley, unless you count DYK reviews of which I have done 100s, many contentious, but I try to approach disputes by AGF and with patience and persistence. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Northamerica1000

9. What are your thoughts regarding WP:NEXIST?

A: I agree with what is said there. This is particularly the case with offline sources which are often overlooked and sometimes there is a lack of persistence in tracking down the sources, but ultimately, if they are not found the article or the unsourced material in it cannot exist until they are found. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from Ivanvector

You've said a couple of things in your nomination statement which stuck out to me as being a personal qualification on a widely-accepted policy. Administrators must be able to put aside their personal opinions and enforce community-consented policies, which can lead to tough situations. A couple sample scenarios:

10. A non-admin user comes to your talk page with a complaint. They have closed a requested move in favour of keeping the article title as is (closing as "not moved"). They explained in their closing statement that the opinions of the supporters were outweighed by policy-backed arguments from the opposers, and signed with the {{nac}} marker. In addition you note that the opposers outnumbered the supporters three to one. One of the supporters has reverted the close, with an edit summary "you can't close this, you're not an admin". Noting WP:NAC and considering this RfC, how do you respond?

A: Per WP:NAC, a non-admin is allowed to make that close and in the scenario you describe it sounds like the right decision too. If arrived at properly it can't be overturned just because the closer is a non-admin and the revert should be reversed to allow the original close to stand. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

11. An editor with a paid contribution disclosure notice regarding the article Trade Air has edited the article's table of destinations, adding a new route the airline has recently started servicing, and updating the source provided. A second editor has reverted them with the edit summary "NO PAID EDITING!", and requests indefinite semiprotection at WP:RFPP citing vandalism. In response, the COI editor adds an {{edit request}} to the article's talk page, asking for the same information to be restored. The second editor also reverts this using rollback, adds a {{uw-vandalism4im}} notice to the user's talk page, and starts a thread at WP:ANI complaining of "all the paid editing on Trade Air". As an administrator, what would you do?

A: The COI's edits are not vandalism but they are contrary to our policies and they should be warned to stick to talk page requests. I wouldn't think the page needed protection if the matter was a one off as it might block good edits from other users. The reporting editor should be warned not to revert the COI's attempts to engage on the talk page as they were doing the right thing. I would remove the vandalism warning from the COI's talk page. Incidentally, I would question whether the constant updating of detail like travel routes is actually encyclopedic content. It is the sort of content that is hard to maintain with reliable third party sources and tends to date quickly. It could be considered on the talk for deletion from the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Amakuru

12. Looking at Oppose #2 below, there's a copyvio / close paraphrasing identified at Chicago Milk Commission, with the IWS history page at [1]. Please could you comment on this?

A: That's one part of the lead sentence. Maybe it's too close but it's also a statement of the basic purpose for which they were formed - to fight the consumption of unpasteurized milk. The sentence as a whole is OK I think. I tweaked it slightly. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Wumbolo

13. All reviewing jobs, including at DYK, require a sharp eye for promotional material, even if the article appears well-written and well-sourced. Just by looking at this COI-written revision, can you spot the extremely fishy COI self-promotion issue?

A: It's not difficult to spot the promotional tone of that one is it? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant a specific content issue (a specific part of the article), not a tone issue. wumbolo ^^^ 20:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean the feuds section where famous people are quoted criticizing her which might give the appearance of making the article seem more neutral but actually is promotional? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Good guess, but no. wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

14. What area(s) of Wikipedia do you consider yourself to be the weakest?

A: Some of the more obscure aspects of Wikicode slightly baffle me still, such as tables and some of the more unusual referencing systems. Non-diffusing subcategories are a mystery to me. I am under no illusion that there is still plenty to learn Dolotta. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Beeblebrox

15. I see an oppose below based on your knowledge and abilities regarding image copyright. While the criticism may be fair, I am curious as to how you think it might impact your ability as an admin. So my question is: Do you plan to work with image copyright in an administrative capacity?

A: Not as a specialism. I feel I have a good track record on images and that the criticism made was not accurate. Please see my reply Beeblebrox. Having said that, I do realise that copyright of images can be very complex. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Banedon

16. Why did you approach Ritchie333 for adminship instead of self-nominate?

A: I needed the advice of an experienced nominator as to whether I was a suitable candidate. It's difficult to be objective about oneself. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Vanamonde93

17. I'd like to give you the opportunity to answer the close paraphrasing issue more broadly, since a number of users have now brought them up. Are things like this a problem? If so, how would you make certain the issues didn't crop up again? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A: Thank you for the opportunity Vanamonde93. This is Lisa Littman which on the face of it includes a 30% similarity to the sources. It's not identified as too close by Earwig but clearly would be if it really was 30%. However, the majority of the phrases matching are ones that should match:

• Assistant Professor of the Practice of Behavioral and Social Sciences (job title)
• Littman is a physician (statement of profession)
• a residency in obstetrics and gynecology (basic facts, what’s the alternative, gyn and obs as a resident?)
• residency in General Preventive Medicine and Public Health (capitalised in source as having that job title)
• Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (organisation name and location)
• reproductive health, rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), detransition, iatrogenic persistence of gender dysphoria, and maternal and child health including prematurity and substance use (almost all technical and medical terms, what’s the alternative to “iatrogenic persistence of gender dysphoria”?)
• works with the Rhode Island Department of Health (principally an employer name)
• maternal and child health (could be health of children and their mothers I guess)
• iatrogenic persistence of gender dysphoria (technical term again)
• rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) (technical term again)
• “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports” (Article title)
• American College of Preventive Medicine (organisation name)

If you remove these from the calculation there is little left.

Early stage articles inevitably tend to focus mainly on a recitation of basic facts that includes job titles, technical terms, publications etc. This is as it should be and is neither plagiarism nor close paraphrasing. Biographies also follow a logical and well-established broadly chronological structure which the sources also tend to use so the overall flow may tend to resemble the sources in the early stages. Later, articles become more discursive and analytical and move away from stating facts that may provide false-positive reports of copyvios.

The need to avoid close paraphrasing has to be balanced with the risk that if we change too much we introduce a new meaning not intended by the original author and are not faithful to the sources. It’s difficult to get right and I apologise for the occasions when I have made the wrong judgement but I can say I have sincerely tried to get it right and will pay close attention to this question in the future. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Cwmhiraeth

18. I see that if successful, you are proposing to work in the area of DYK and ERRORS on the main page. Apart from your nominations at DYK, and the QPQs you have done in connection with these, what other part have you played up till now in the administration and decision-making processes at DYK?

A: One issue that has concerned me is the lead time on DYKs where I have consistently argued for longer leads to enable articles to be more developed when they reach the front page. This would improve quality and reduce errors. When the matter was debated in 2014, I proposed 10 or 14 days. When it was discussed again I thought there was a consensus on 30 days and boldly changed the rules with an invitation to revert me if I had been too bold. I was reverted and the idea fizzled out. In a later discussion I proposed again that it be extended. It is still too short at 7 days in my view as articles often stay in the queue for a month or even two so why force people to rush to get them nominated within 7 days? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Have you ever built prep sets or moved hooks into preps? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No, but thank you for your brilliant work there Cwmhiraeth. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Lee Vilenski

19. This is more of a question regarding the above question for number 5. The crux of this request for adminship is regarding the need for admins specifically for the WP:DYK project. However, I'd like to know more, as I don't know much about the project what exactly is it that DYK needs administrators for? (I understand they get vetted by administrators.) What is the current and previous backlog in the project, and how much time would you spend in that area, above say, closing WP:AfDs, or the administrators noticeboard, or WP:ERRORS as stated above. I'm a little worried that the request above is regarding to helping out at one portion of Wikipedia; but you would clearly be using them across the encyclopedia.

A: Only an administrator can place a DYK hook (the sentence with the interesting fact in it) on the main page and only an admin can change if it is found to be wrong. Obviously they should never be wrong but it happens fairly regularly and is reported at the errors page. Often there is consensus about the error and the necessary correction but no admin can be found to make the change so we have incorrect material there for hours or a whole day. I can't say how long I will spend on admin tasks as I don't know how long they take, never having done them, but I do intend to continue doing article work. I will act cautiously and gradually extend my admin tasks as I learn the ropes. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from PCHS-NJROTC

20. What are your thoughts on blocking shared IP addresses (usually corporate networks, educational networks, and ISPs that use carrier-grade NAT) and IP ranges for extended periods of time to stop sporadic instances of silly vandalism that are inevitably going to happen on an open wiki, in absence of any actual pattern of WP:Long term abuse by a single person?

A. IP or IP range blocks risk blocking the innocent as many computers are shared. I would be cautious about such blocks. There are other ways to fight vandalism. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

21. I realize this isn't your primary area of interest, but assume it is May 23, 2016, you have been asked to help with a backlog at WP:AIV, and someone has reported this fictitious IP address. There has been no edits from the IP in four hours. What do you do? (Pay close attention to the talk page comments.)

A. Sorry, this really is way out of my area of expertise and not one of the areas I envisage working in. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Power~enwiki

22. What are some specific articles you've worked on this year that you feel are particularly good examples of content creation?

A: Thank you Power~enwiki, I enjoyed working on:

The Last Day of Pompeii - 5 x expansion of painting stub

Camilla Gray - historian of Russian art

Nikki Sievwright - model who became a soldier

Rudi Cormane - Dutch dermatologist (jointly)

Shirley Pitts - Notorious British shoplifter Philafrenzy (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from HaEr48

23. In which page(s) have you been helping the most with admin duties? Could you post some links to corroborate that, and also for us to take a look at your sample contributions? For example, this link lists all your contributions to WP:ERRORS

A:

Additional question from Nosebagbear

24. Significant opposition has come from concerns that close-paraphrasing (et al) have come from a habit of working a little too quickly. With specific reference to your potential admin work (and the risks of quick decisions), what would you say to this?

A: Thanks Nosebagbear. There's a big difference between paraphrasing a sentence from a book and deciding whether an article should live or die or an individual should be able to edit the encyclopedia. I know some admin actions may require quick work, such as anti-vandalism, but I think more often they require careful deliberation and the weighing up of pros and cons, policy etc. I won't be rushing to any hasty decisions about anything. I will be starting small and building experience and seeking advice from other admins if in doubt. I now know far more of them than I used to. I won't be going on any power-sprees, I won't abuse the powers and I won't be bullying any non-admins. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from Neovu79

25. The tool set as an admin is quite vast. I know that you have states that you would be willing to work on DYK and AfDs, but are there anything else you would be working on with your admin tools? Granting you admin tools for just those two areas, seem, minimal to me for the tools you would access to.

A: I don't think they are that minimal Neovu79. There is a constant turnover on DYK, every 12 hours sometimes, and AFD is massive. But one additional area that people constantly ask about at the meetups I attend is user permissions such as Autopatrolled, and Account Creator and Event Coordinator in connection with training events. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

26. Additionally, if you were to be elected as an admin, would you support a system of reconfirmation of your admin privileges in order for you to remain an admin?

A: Yes definitely as long as it applied to all admins equally. I think there is a general feeling in the community that it is too hard to get rid of the minority of bad admins that create an unpleasant atmosphere for everyone while it is relatively easy to ban non-admins. Whatever system is adopted, however, it needs safeguards to ensure that a minority cannot round up a lynch-mob to get rid of an admin that has made a correct but unpopular decision. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support We have talked about this together - net positive for Wikipedia. However, one thing is please try to use edit summaries more often but apart from that, you would be an excellent administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Dedicated at the coalface, + all the boxes ticked, - dramaz = WP:CLUE. Good luck. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   @Serial Number 54129: erm... whats coalface? —usernamekiran(talk) 14:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   kəʊlfeɪs... Lourdes 16:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   @Serial Number 54129 and Lourdes: i thought it was supposed have some different meaning in the context here. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   @Usernamekiran: No, apologies for opacity. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   @Serial Number 54129: lol, an apology is not called for here. Anyways, we should cease this conversation, or we might get moved to the talkpage —usernamekiran(talk) 12:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

4. Support I've met Philafrenzy at the pub before, and he seemed a very nice chap. More importantly, he is experienced, has a clue, content creation aplenty, and the proposed DYK work is certainly needed, particularly when it comes to correcting errors and misleading hooks.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   Reaffirming support - I must admit that when I cast this vote early, I was not aware of the paraphasing issue, just the general body of Philafrenzy's work and, like others here, it has caused me some concern. I also apologise to TonyBallioni for leading you to a vote which you later decided you had to change to oppose. That said, though, there are plenty of respected admins who have come in to support even once the above issue came to light, and I think I am of the same mind as Tryptofish below. Philafrenzy you do need to take the copyright issues more seriously, and understand that the community doesn't even allow close paraphrasing in a two-line stub like Chicago Milk Commission. But I see from your "additional statement" that you are willing to do this, and your temperament is one of a listener and a collaborator, not reckless or abrasive so I'm confident that you will listen to others on this. Addition of stubs which may not be notable is of less concern to me, we have processes for that and nobody is supposed to get things right on the subjective issues every time. So I hope this RFA succeeds, and if it does, I think you'll make a definite WP:NETPOSITIVE addition to the corps.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

5. Support - Clean block log, adequate tenure, excellent contributions to some art history content, no concerns. Carrite (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
6. Support I have known Philafrenzy for several years, mainly through Wikipedia meetups at Oxford, Reading and London (also Wikimania 2014). Always helpful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
7. Support Matt14451 (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
8. Suppport Great content creation and seems an obvious net positive. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
9. Support - exemplary candidate with a good track record in a diversity of content areas Chetsford (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
10. Support - you had me at ERRORS. Fish+Karate 12:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
11. Support - Some stunning work, and a great track record. Orphan Wiki 12:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
12. Strong support Great content creator & very level-headed. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
13. Support as nom, or course! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
14. Support ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
15. Support - has clue, has demonstrated that they could use the tools, and they're not a jerk, so I think this would be a net positive. I'm not particularly impressed by the low edit summary percentage, but it's not such a big of a deal for me to oppose.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
16. Support, I do not have any worries.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

    Close paraphrasing is a concern, I will be doing additional research on how widespread this problem is.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Support per Amakuru, whose judgement I trust. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

17. Support precious, responsive, to the point. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
18. Support Has a very strong history of being useful and anyone that wants to help are errors, well Jimbo bless them. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
19. Support: Edit summaries should not be required for articles that have just been created or have only one major contributor Catrìona (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
20. Support definitely deserving of the tools, we need more admins in DYK. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

    Support. It's not clear to me exactly why they need the tools but there hasn't been any significant reasons raised why not. Ifnord (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

21. Support Happy to support - looks like he'll be useful with the mop Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 15:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
22. Support: Though we need admins at DYK, that's not the reason why I support this RfA. Philafrenzy has done an amazing job at DYK/GA and new content creation. I've followed his editing and work over the years and can only speak great things about his contributions. He's an invaluable asset and I have no reason to believe he will abuse admin powers if granted to him. Give this man a mop! MX (✉ • ✎) 15:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
23. Strong support: clearly has a clue and wants to work in an understaffed area. I approve of the "starting with non-controversial closes" qualifier regarding AfDs. In 178,000 edits and 4500 page creations, people will always be able to find a plethora of problems, and indeed there is good advice to bear in mind from the sections below. I encourage the candidate to be careful with copyright concerns and AfD nomination justifications in the future, particularly when admin actions are involved. Edit summary usage, using a couple of unreliable sources and making a mistake with two identically named people do not concern me at all. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

    Coming back to add: in regard to the pile-on of "copyvio" opposes, the answer to question 17 is excellent and wbm1058's support is one I agree with. The examples I've seen do not convince me that many of the candidate's 4500 articles have clopping issues, and dozens of opposes over the same one or two pages are ridiculous in context. I think questions 13, 16, 19, 20, 21 are absurd. It is not the candidate's responsibility to describe what DYK is, solve cryptic riddles or describe obscure elements of policies they won't be invoking. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

24. Support. Solid background in content creation and a willingness to assist in areas where help is needed. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
25. Support --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
26. Support - seems like a good candidate. Also, since it was brought up in an oppose below, I am also supporting because of the lack of involvement at the dramaboards. It is absolutely acceptable for an admin to work away in the background without engaging in those no-win scenarios. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
27. Support Per the noms. Lourdes 16:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
28. Support Great content creator, admirable work with DYK (and as admin could help out more efficiently there), helpful to others and just the kind of well rounded admin we need. JC7V-constructive zone 17:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
29. Support Per nominators, excellent candidate.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
30. Support Wikipedia needs workhorse admins to keep the wheels turning and the candidate seems to have an aptitude for such work. Notice that the Picture of the Day co-ordinator has just retired after 13 years service and some friction at WP:ERRORS. The candidate wants to take up the slack in this area and so will help in filling the gap. Andrew D. (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
31. Support Has clue, shows need for tools, no major problems (as others have said above, this editor should also use edit summaries more often). ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 17:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
32. Support Excellent prior contributions to Wikipedia, with clear ability to meet an area where more admin attention is needed. Daask (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
33. Support Reasonable AfD record, good article creation. (some edits could have been combined, and polished a hair, but that is not related to being an admin at all.) Best of luck! Collect (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
34. Support Amazing amount of content creation, clean block log, and lots of experience at DYK, where admin tools will make him even more productive. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
35. Support — Damn, that's a great amount of mainspace participation, including having participation in good and DYK promotions; the concern raised by B about improper upload of files is a cause of concern, yes, but, at the end—to me. at least— Philafrenzy is a clear net-positive.
    Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 19:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
36. Support Excellent nomination for a great contributor who has shown enormous care and dedication to the project for 8 years with countless hours, hundreds of DYKs, as well as other, smaller articles, in addition two very nice Good Articles. The contribution part is extremely important, and it is people like Philafrenzy, who assist wikipedians toward quality within the articles. I am confident that his experience with DYKs will be a push to the DYK process. We need admins that are heavy contributors: they are an example to all contributors, especially to newbies, with their leadership skills in content building. I am also sure that his participation in the AFD closing process will be important, we need admins in that area too, especially someone like him, who has successfully started ~4600 pages in enwiki, and thus is very aware of the notability issues. That experience is not matched easily by many candidates at an RFA. Last: No behavioral issues, no blocks in 8 years, and, by looking at his talk page, everyone has good words for Philafrenzy, especially for the great help that he distributes to fellow wikipedians continuously and generously. That shows a great spirit of collaboration, which does not come easily and doesn't go away easily. I would have no issues trusting the mop to Philafrenzy, and he won't disappoint. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
37. Support. I like what I've seen so far. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
38. I do not see anything to make me believe that the editor will misuse the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 22:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
39. Support ERRORS needs more admin involvement, and someone with 300+ DYKs seems like the perfect person to chip in there. For the record I asked my question because similar concerns came up at my second RFA, and I felt like it was not a good reason to oppose as image copyright/fair use is a very complicated topic with significant grey areas. If the candidate is not planning to work around it their relative knowledge of it is of minimal concern. I also think working at the “bottom end” of new content is a great way to prepare for being an admin as that is where most content-related admin work is needed anyway, but they also have GA credits to their name, which shows they have solid content work experience (more than I did when I became an admin to be sure) No other serious, recent issues found, current oppose rationales not at all convincing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
40. Support 4600+ contributions and less than 1% deleted is a remarkable track record. I feel confident they understand what we're doing here and DYK sure as heck needs the help. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
41. Support I have had lots of conversations with this candidate at London meetups, delighted to see and support this RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 22:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
42. Support - good content creation is very hard work so it is pleasing to see someone with such an excellent content creation record being prepared to take on some admin duties, as well. Just Chilling (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
43. Very Strong Support - As a physician keen to see medical articles improved and expanded, they have made more than average contributions to WikiprojectMedicine, not just in their existence, but to their quality. In addition, regarding articles on minorities, women and others, they have demonstrated without doubt that they are capable of sifting out sensible from otherwise. Best virtue- tolerance. Whispyhistory (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
44. Support. Philafrenzy is a helpful and trusted editor. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
45. Support. Impressive content creation, very good answers to the questions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Reaffirming support. The opposes raise valid concerns. However, I believe that they are insufficient to support an oppose of this candidate. His behavior in this very proceeding shows that he has a quality that is vital in admins: steady temperament. Too many administrators develop an excessively abrasive behavior pattern especially after being in their posts for a while. Since their posts are lifetime and there is no practical way of ousting an admin if he or she needs to go, short of their committing a Wikipedia felony, such problems are rarely addressed. In the realm of emotional maturity I believe Philafrenzy will excel, and we will not have that problem. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
46. Support - No concerns, clear net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
47. Support No concerns about this editor gaining the tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
48. Great candidate, great experience and I strongly respect the answer the question 16. Acalamari 01:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
49. Support: would be a valuable addition to the admin corps. Thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
50. Support -- Well put answer to my question. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
51. Support - The sheer amount of content creation speaks to this nominee's level of dedication to the project. That coupled with the support of many editors I look to as bellwethers seals the deal.  spintendo  02:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
52. Support - Very impressive level of content creation, one of the most prolific and dedicated editors. DYK is an important area and needs dedicated people, which Philafrenzy has really shown Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 02:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
53. Support: I am familiar with the candidate's work in DYK and ERRORS, and I am certain that they will be a net positive as an administrator in these areas. Unconvinced by the close paraphrasing concerns; Template:Did you know nominations/The Pheasantry was troubling, but that was 2014. I am under the impression that Philafrenzy works tirelessly on large volume of articles, and consistently tries to address concerns that are raised (although not always successful). As long as they are willing to adjust their approach to recognise that if a information cannot be paraphrased well and can be left out, it is best to just leave it out, then I have no concerns. Alex Shih (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
54. Support. Will be a net positive. No concerns. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
55. Support. I am sure that Philafrenzy would make an excellent admin. James500 (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Discussion on this !vote moved to talk page Λυδαcιτγ 11:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

56. Support - Net positive Agathoclea (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
57. Support - Meets my RFA criteria Iffy★Chat -- 09:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
58. Support. There are valid issues in the oppose section, but I hope the candidate can learn something from them. Becoming an admin isn't a reward and isn't the end of striving to improve your editing. Net positive overall, with no evidence tools may be abused. —Kusma (t·c) 10:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
59. Support, in general this is WP:NOBIGDEAL, in this particular case I know the editor and trust their judgement (although I don't always agree with them!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Is this a common thing on RFAs? Editors saying they know the candidate and trust them, but without disclosing the nature of their relationship? In this case the only two pages Mike and Phil have edited more than once each, less than a week apart, are this article and on TT:DYK. In the former the interaction was non-existent, and in the latter I might be missing something but the section titles in their edit summaries appear to imply that the only direct interactions were this and this, neither of which are actual interactions. The claim to NOBIGDEAL is a bit dubious (the actual WP:NOBIGDEAL makes it clear that it is not a rationale that is widely accepted now that Wikipedia has a more respectable place in the world than it did 15 years ago) given the copyvio concerns multiple editors have raised, and given what happened a few votes up from here (essentially an editor making a demonstrably bogus claim to know Phil's record, in order to justify a bad-faith hound vote) I'm beginning to wonder if we should be a bit more scrutineering about exactly where such voters observed Phil's judgement as being trustworthy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Whatever happened to AGF? Iffy★Chat -- 11:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    @Iffy: AGF regarding whom? I'm not going to "assume good faith" on the part of the candidate and change my vote based on the "assumption of good faith" that the recent copyvio was an uncharacteristic accident. I'm not questioning Mike's good faith; I'm questioning what he means by claiming he knows and trusts the candidate's judgement, having never interacted with him on-wiki. I am asking this question because, when I asked almost the exact same question on the talk page of another user who is clearly acting in bad faith (I went out of my way to assume good faith until that assumption was killed), I got no answer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    You're the one challening support !votes, nobody has challenged your oppose !vote (yet, knowing how often oppose votes get queried). So you're assuming bad faith here because you believe someone else assumed bad faith an another !vote. RFA !voters can support or oppose for any reason (or no reason at all). Iffy★Chat -- 12:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    I don't know what someone else assumed bad faith an another !vote means but I suspectit might be missing a word or two. Anyway, the problem with the one further up was not that I believe someone assumed bad faith; the problem was that I believed they were hounding me and voting the opposite way from me just because. The fact that, as it turns out, a bug in the tool I used makes it not show a bunch of pages where the editor in question hid his !votes by not bolding them unless you limit the search to a certain time range (!?) means I'm unlikely at this point to convince anyone that his motivation for choosing this one of the dozens of RFAs his old associates have been involved in to comment on was dubious, so I really don't want to argue it anymore, mind you. (I'll finish by just pointing out that RFA !voters can support or oppose for any reason (or no reason at all) relies on an assumption of good faith that assumes WP:HOUND is not taking place, even though a lot of the time it definitely is: if JoshuSasori had shown up to an AFD/RFA/whatever right after I did, you wouldn't claim he was acting in good faith.) Anyway, for all I know the same bug is hiding Mike's interactions as well for whatever other mysterious reason, and I really couldn't be bothered figuring it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    You're just going OTT. Calm down, drink some coffee, and stop making comments all across this RfA that are, well, absolutely embarrassing, given your editing experience. Lourdes 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    @Hijiri88: Sorry for not answering this more quickly, I only just spotted it (please ping me if you reply further). I've also met Philafrenzy at offline events in the UK, and I've read (but not necessarily directly responded to) various of their edits here. I mention WP:NOBIGDEAL quite regularly when supporting RfAs as I believe that the criteria for giving admin tools to editors here are way too high. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

60. Support, net positive. Good record, bodes well for mop-use. Willing to do need admin work in areas where we need more admins. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
61. Support. I'm okay with this one. Deb (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
62. Support I see nothing to make me think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
63. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
64. Support per others above. Respect opposers' opinions, certainly; however, there is strong reason to believe that this editor would be a good administrator all around, and I find it dissatisfying to see so many objections, some from editors I know and revere, that might make this attempt fail. I submit that this editor appears to be one of Wikipedia's best, a fast learner and would be great with the tools, so I ask all conscientious objectors to please do reconsider!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
65. Support No reason not to trust. effeietsanders 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
66. Support Conclusion, I am Supporting.This is in a cot because before I went on wikibreak I saw that a discussion was on WT:RFA about length, and I don't know what became of it, also the bullet point list makes it fairly drawn out. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    (I have transferred the collapsed list to the talk page, as it messes up the numbering - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC))

67. Support Great content creator, and they have a clear idea what they want to do and why they need the tools. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
68. Support - experienced user who, other than in this RfA, seems entirely uncontroversial and productive. As yet unpersuaded by the opposes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
69. Support Been here a fair amount of time, known how the place works, absolute excellent editor, and now they will make an excellent administrator. scope_creep (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
70. Support The opposes do not sway me, although it could be a learning experience. I've seen him around and admired his work. Question: Are you from Philly? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    If you search through P's Userpage for stamps, you get some 50-70 instances of articles in that niche, and if I remember correcly P is involved with wikiproject on the matter. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

71. Support I don't see any issues. Opposing because there's some instances of close paraphrasing found from +4000 created articles is rather unconvincing. --Pudeo (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
72. Support. Amakuru, Redrose64 and WereSpielChequers having had personal interactions with you and vouching for your character, and the support of Collect on your content contributions is good enough for me. plagiarism is a serious charge and I'm very bothered to see it bandied about so loosely in the oppose section. Your answer to Q.17 is good. There's an issue with this?? The source was cited, and it's not even the organisation's own website. Perhaps it would be better to focus more on quality writing of fewer articles in depth rather than writing stubs in large quantity; other than that very little of the criticism on the opposing side is resonating with me. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    update: on the need to focus more on quality and less on quantity: Ealdgyth's oppose-side comments are resonating. This is stuff you should take onboard. I still don't see the close paraphrasing issues, though (funny that there's no in-depth article about that topic, nor does the term appear in our copyright article). Paraphrasing is something to be more concerned about with longer-length articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    The candidate is responsible for 95% of the currrent text of Dolores (artists' model). So they know how to do this. It would be a shame if we let these mass-produced stubs derail his RfA. wbm1058 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

73. Support. Sounds like just the sort of editor who should be an admin. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
74. This is hard. I'm putting myself here in a position that kind of spans support and moral support, after really struggling with what I think I should do. Close paraphrasing is a very big deal for me. I absolutely oppose plagiarism on-wiki or anywhere else. And I get it that doing admin work with DYK is just the kind of place where we don't want admins who are careless about it. (On the other hand, I think most plagiarism issues are dealt with by reviewers rather than by promoting admins.) But I also recognize that this is someone with a ton of editing experience and a clean block log along with no history that I can see of getting on the wrong side of fights. And I do worry about RfA getting too demanding. I've crossed paths with the candidate at DYK (recently did a QPQ review of one of his submissions, and checked for paraphrasing of sources and didn't find any) and I can kind of see how there might be an issue with him creating a lot of new pages in a hurry, and with a sort of casual way of communicating that seems to be putting some editors off in regard to his answers to questions here. But I'm not seeing someone who is particularly likely to do harm with the tools. This isn't like a candidate who might treat other users badly or delete pages that shouldn't be deleted. And I reviewed the examples of paraphrasing in the oppose section, and much (albeit not all) of it was paraphrasing of people's CVs, where there is a limit to how many ways one can reword it. This doesn't look to me like someone who really goes around plagiarizing, and I'm concerned about editors following the crowd into the oppose section after the accusation arose. So I suspect that this RfA is going to fail, but I think that may be the wrong outcome for a candidate who is a net positive. This hasn't exactly been a ringing endorsement, but at a minimum I want to give moral support. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    I've been watching this discussion closely, and based on comments by the candidate and by other editors that have been made after my original comment, I am coming back to say that I now support with more confidence than I did originally. First of all, I think that the candidate has been impressively gracious in response to the criticisms, and has acknowledged the paraphrasing issue in a way that makes me more confident that it won't be a problem in the future. I also agree with Vanamonde that, if I'm wrong about this, the community will be able to deal with misuse of the privileges in the event of copyviolation. And I'm increasingly satisfied that this is someone with the right temperament for the responsibility, and that the opposition, while not unreasonable, suffers from some amount of pickiness and pile-on. My earlier reservations remain, but I do come out on the side of support. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

75. Support. A tireless contributor with a massive body of good work behind him. Done fantastic work on DYK. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
76. Support. I see nothing to give me pause about this editor's admin potential. bd2412 T 00:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
77. Support - Content creation is excellent! //nepaxt 01:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
78. Support. I'm sure Philafrenzy will do just fine as an admin. This is not rocket science: a longtime trusted contributor is unlikely to go wrong with the mop. Pichpich (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
79. Support no evidence that the Philafrenzy will abuse the tools. Great contributor to Wikipedia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    #Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

80. Support - I am going to set aside my qualms over the close paraphrasing incidents to support Philafrenzy's candidacy. The candidate's strong record of content creation outweighs their relatively sparse record of mistakes. And more eyes on the DYK queue is a net positive in my book. Altamel (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
81. Tentative support. My opinion here is quite similar to that of Tryptofish. I take close paraphrasing seriously, and I'm not entirely reassured by the answer to my question. It is true that it is often difficult to adequately paraphrase biographical detail; it is also true that the candidate could have done better in that case without too much effort. I'm also slightly concerned by their description of of the Earwig's tool result: the percentage similarity there is only a very rough indicator of the problem, as you can have problematic close paraphrasing with a very low similarity result (by using occasional synonyms) and a high percentage without any actual problems (since the tool flags even appropriately used quotes). On the credit side, we have an editor with tonnes of experience, no temperamental issues that I can see, a willingness to take criticism, and a willingness to use the tools in an area where they are required. I, too, am concerned that we've become far too demanding at RFA, to the point where we're rejecting candidates who may not be perfect but are a decided net positive. So I'm supporting in that spirit, and I hope that Philafrenzy will take concerns about close paraphrasing on board no matter what the outcome here. Finally I suspect (I don't have much evidence for this, I'm afraid) that it would be far easier to desysop someone for serial copyright violations than for most other bad behavior admins are guilty of, if it comes to that. Vanamonde (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    If I may clarify my thoughts on Earwig for you Vanamonde. I am fully aware it is not completely reliable. It doesn't filter out things that should match like names which inflates the reported similarity but it also doesn't search paywalled sites or anything that happens to be offline at the time and so may fail to pick up matches there. It is completely useless for articles relying on offline sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    Philafrenzy, I just read over your answer to q. 17, and I appreciate the clarification. The one thing I would like to hear from you--and pardon me if I missed it--is some comment more in general about paraphrasing. One can say you successfully countered some Earwiggy objections, but the fact remains that there are (by my count) 76 instances of the "paraph" string in this RfA. What I would like, and I haven't seen it though I can't claim to have read every comment, is some sort of general, overarching statement on "close paraphrasing" as an issue (TonyBallioni comes to mind as a commentator who spoke at some length about it, including about the responsibility of admins), for editors and esp. for admins, and its relation to copyvio and all that. As far as I'm concerned, there's some space for that right below "I accept". You might change some folks' minds. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

82. Support - After reading through the noms, questions and especially the various reasons given among the "support" comments, (and who those comments were from), I believe this cadiadate to be more than able to administer this project, and certainly deserving of the opportunity to prove themselves so. - wolf 06:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
83. Support. I did review the alleged instances of close paraphrasing, and I think that the concerns were overblown. I find it unlikely that the candidate will abuse the tools, and I'm satisfied enough (although not thrilled) with the answers to questions. No such user (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
84. Support. It seems that all the significant issues with this candidate have already been raised in the oppose section and I don't think those are big enough to make the candidate a bad admin. Deryck C. 10:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
85. Support. A collaborative, collegiate and level-headed editor, who will grow into an admin role. Cannot see any reason to suppose that they will misuse the tools. Edwardx (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
86. Support. Having read the opposers comments, I find there is nothing to convince me that he shouldn't be an admin. Nigej (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
87. Support - might not be the strongest admin candidates, but has a better content creation resume than far more other admin candidates who were actually successful. Philafrenzy also has a significant amount of experience in DYK, which is the area he would like to help out as an admin. All in all net positive. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
88. Weak Support per Vanamonde and Tryptofish. They said it better than I ever could. Per power~enwiki, Philafrenzy has the temperament and technical know-how to be an admin, which is far more important than quality of content creation in judging their suitability for the role. My only hesitation is the non-free file concerns brought up by SarekOfVulcan. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 21:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
89. Support No concerns that Philafrenzy would misuse the tools so don't see any problem giving them to him. Number 57 21:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
90. Weak Support - it's a mop, not a crown. I'm still very concerned about the close paraphrasings, but most of them fall under what is permitted per WP:LIMITED. Presumably the keelhauling here will discourage them from creating single-sourced articles that so closely follow the one source in the future. Based on their responses (particularly Q18 and Q19) I've decided they will be a WP:NETPOSITIVE as an admin. In response to some oppose arguments: the diff in Q13 is so bad (the lack of references and Wikipedia styling being so obvious as to not need be mentioned) it's not reasonable for the candidate to guess which specific flaw is concerning. Regarding Q11, while COI editing is not forbidden, whether those editors should be warned to stick to talk page requests or simply encouraged to do so is nit-picking that shouldn't justify an oppose. Regarding their temperament, their behavior at Template:Did you know nominations/Pinguipes brasilianus (where they added a quote to a DYK that was in a source, but not in the article) was admirable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
91. Support I just finished reading the really interesting Betty May article, where Philafrenzy appears to have contributed 94% of the text, and you can color me impressed, this is clearly an editor who cares about the content mission of the project. Add to that the general impression I get of an even-keeled editor (as also evidenced by their deportment in this difficult RfA) who is unlikely to get frazzled and go off the rails destroying the wiki in the process. So they're not perfect and there are some paraphrasing issues. And perhaps they don't have their understanding of policy down to a t. But, none of that is surprising when you consider the amount of content they've generated and the fact that they've focused entirely on mainspace in their 9 odd years on the en wiki (we're not likely to see paraphrasing issues with RfA candidates who spend all their time on AN or ANI, are we?). All in all, I think we can trust this well balanced prolific content editor to do the right thing by the encyclopedia where they can see what the right thing is and to move on without doing anything where they can't figure out what the right thing is. Can't ask for a lot more from an admin and I'm happy to throw in my support with no qualms whatsoever. --regentspark (comment) 01:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
92. Support Prolific content contributor. Even tempered, as demonstrated on this very page. Obviously holds the interests of the encyclopedia very much to heart. The close-paraphrasing issues are not the "big deal" they are being portrayed as - I take copyright as seriously as anyone, but what I could find are mainly very minor needles in a rather large haystack. I'm confident that any "lessons that need to be learned" will be. The candidate wants to help, in an area that needs help, and will not "break the wiki" or "abuse the tools". Satisfies my RFA criteria. -- Begoon 03:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
93. Support, even though it'll probably be moral at this point. I read all the opposes and believe that at least some are seizing on an issue of close paraphrasing & other copyright issues. I think the candidate has written far too many articles for this to matter. Philafrenzy seems like an overwhelming net positive. Also, everything Thewolfchild and Vanamonde said. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
94. Support The opposes are serious, but i believe the candidate understands the issues; i am not convinced it would not be a benefit to us to have the candidate made an admin. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
95. Support. Good contributions. I am unconcerned by the issues raised regarding the article "Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
96. Support Agree with points raised by Begoon. As others have said, a net positive. Excellent content creator. While issues of sourcing/copyvio and use of Fair Use images have been raised in this RfA, I believe the raising of these issues is enough to inform expectations of how Philafrenzy should continue henceforth rather than acting as a barrier to adminship. I believe Philafrenzy will take these points on board and be an excellent admin as a result. Stinglehammer (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
97. Support yes please, they've done a huge amount of great work and want to do something useful with their new permissions, the issues raised are not dealbreakers, no one is perfect.John Cummings (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
98. Support This is hard, perhaps the hardest RfA vote I have cast. Luckily, the fluency of Tryptofish's comments sum up my feelings exactly, so I find myself here. Irondome (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
99. Support per noms. Looks like a great choice for the mop. Icebob99 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
100. Support per User:Fish and karate Icarusgeek (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
101. Support - as a tireless contributor of new content and a pioneer in several unexplored biographical areas I feel that Philafrenzy is the ideal candidate for adminship. I want candidates who really understand the frustrations and tribulations of creating new articles to have the tools and the insight to close and streamline many vital processes. 78.26's statistic of Philafrenzy's 85% accuracy in discussions shows that he has the insight into what makes a suitable AFD debate. Philafrenzy has never been blocked and is an exemplar to new editors who are here to write and contribute quality content. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
102. Support, moved from oppose. The other supporters have swayed me. The issues are fairly minor and Philafrenzy is likely to learn from them going forward. I know this is kind of an old-school thing to say, but I still think adminship is no big deal. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
103. Support. After reading and considering all arguments, I think the candidate is a net positive. While the issues raised in the opposes are legit and notable enough to merit consideration before making a final choice, I do not see any one of these as serious enough when compared to the candidate's overall record so as for me to not support this. RfAs are a bitter pill to swallow, and I believe the candidate will learn from the pointed out issues now that those have been throughly pointed out to them. Further, their intent on working in underattended areas means they will only provide useful help. Impru20^talk 16:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

     Thank you Impru20. This is the greatest amount of feedback I have had on my editing since 2011! Everyone should run, if only for the advice. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

104. Support, wow! amount of content created/contributed incredible, and most, if not all is of "good" quality (has had some hiccups a long the way but who hasn't) that PF also wants to take up a mop now is fantastic (as a general observation of reading a few RFAs now, its funny that some applicants have been criticised for not enough article creation, even though they appear to be happy with doing "behind the scenes" stuff (btss), and when there are applicants who have created lots of articles/content they are criticised for not enough experience and/or being heavy handed/blase about btss}. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
105. Support. I have carefully considered the reasons given by the editors who oppose the nomination. While I think the concerns generally have merit, you will almost always find some issues with anyone with the quantity of contributions Philafrenzy has made. In proportion to his contributions, the concerns do not sway me that he will misuse the tools. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
106. Support. Clear net positive . Razer(talk) 17:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
107. Support - there is clearly a concern about close-paraphrasing, but like AfD or CSD judgements, they should be judged as a % of the candidate's actions. This candidate has a truly vast number of content additions, and thus it becomes very easy to point out a few examples. I am not concerned about those identified as showing any sort of actionable trend. Clearly their skillset seems well suited to DYK (one of the few areas content exp is actually directly helpful). One of the few areas the candidate has been blunt is when asked hypotheticals in areas they are well aware they aren't (yet) qualified to act. The basis of the only real opposition, coupled with this, indicates that there won't be any blowback from selecting him. Thus: we have pluses for making him an admin & no functional negatives for making him an admin - adding to the traditional net positive. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
108. Support—I would like to express my support for Philafrenzy with rationale echoing many of the above comments. I believe he has beyond a doubt established himself as a productive and level-headed contributor. Even in this request alone, he has shown a willingness to listen and improve. These characteristics make for a good administrator, in my opinion. Regardless of the outcome of this request, I know Philafrenzy will take both the positive and negative from this week-long public interview and become only better and stronger. Airplaneman ✈ 06:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
109. Support— Good luck.--Mona.N (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
110. Support Read through the opposes. Didn't find anything of concern. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 14:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
111. Support - While I do recognize the validity of those who oppose this RfA, I find that Philafrenzy's net positive, and overall contributions to wiki, have outweighed those concerns. Best of luck to you. Neovu79 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
112. Support Having read this page, looked at links, and thought about some things several days, willing to go with the noms. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
113. Support Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
114. Support, as the candidate will be a good admin. schetm (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
115. Support, primarily because good-faith editors (of which Philafrenzy is clearly one), who create content (which Philafrenzy does) and don't stir up drama (which Philafrenzy does not) should basically be given the tools upon request, not be required to submit to the proverbial colorectal exam that RFA has turned into. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 02:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
116. Support, High-level of content creation without much history of drama beyond a few copy-right issues.Zubin12 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
117. (edit conflict)Support This is a tough one. Although I'm unfamiliar with the candidate, I've studied this RfA as best I could on a semi-wikibreak and am willing to AGF that they are a net positive. Temperament is important in an admin, and Philafrenzy is handling a rough RfA well. Apart from temperament, almost all of the admin skill set can be learned; few successful candidates, IMO, hit the ground running. Miniapolis 02:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
118. Weak Support - Debated this a few days. First and foremost, copyright paranoia should be avoided. That aside, the biggest concern I see is edit summary usage, which the candidate has agreed to remedy. Their temperament seems good, and it seems like they will exercise caution with the mop while avoiding drama. I like the candidate's answer to 8, the latter half of their answer to 19, and especially their answer to 24. Everyone edits in his or her own way, and I do not find discrediting the candidate's editing style as "scatter-shot, slap-dash, [and] rapid-fire" to be appropriate or necessarily accurate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
119. Support. Temperament is important. Philafrenzy has a good temperament in dealing with others, and is vouched for by editors who know him personally as well as here. Helpful to many. Great contributor. A large number of successful DYK nominations. Net positive. I have confidence that Philafrenzy will be cautious and avoid drama; history of even temperament and work with others supports that confidence. Especially per User:Vanamonde93, who is active at DYK which is relevant to one of Philafrenzy's areas of interest, User:Tryptofish, User:MelanieN and User:Wbm1058. Donner60 (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
120. Support I know many editors find close paraphrasing to be a deal breaker, but it is relatively easy to do, especially if you are creating a lot of content. I don't see that as a reason in itself to sink this RFA. If it had been raised earlier and they still continued then maybe I would be more convinced, but as far as I can tell this is the first time it has been brought to their attention. Their demeanor here is positive and I don't think they will be a bad administrator. AIRcorn (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

     It was brought to their attention four years ago; see their rejected DYK nomination mentioned in the Oppose section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

     Thanks for that link. It does weaken my support somewhat. AIRcorn (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

121. Support Close paraphrasing has nothing to do with admin tools. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 13:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

     It most certainly does. See WP:RD1 and the ability to put update the main page. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

122. Support Up until now I doubted about supporting this from what I've read below. Nevertheless, I'm still holding my position of supporting anyone unless very solid evidence against this appears. I'm sure the nominee will take all the comments from the Oppose section into consideration in the future (whatever the result of this run be). Good luck!--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
123. Support One of the things we need from admins is a willingness to admit past mistakes and learn from them. I am reassured by Philafrenzy's additional comment (and thank Drmies for suggesting it). There is no doubt in my mind about his commitment to the encyclopedia, nor about his ability to take on the admin role. I simply can't see why we wouldn't want to give the tools to an obviously qualified candidate who would make good use of them. --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
124. Support I see nothing in the opposes to make me question this editor's ability to handle the mop. I think we have concretely proven that Philafrenzy is a human being who sometimes makes mistakes, but is willing to accept criticism when given in good faith.--Aervanath (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
125. Support – Tryptofish and Vanamonde said it better than I could. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
126. Support Close paraphrasing has nothing to do with admin rights. --Balabinrm (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
127. Support. I have read the opposes and find them generally unconvincing in the context of Philafrenzy's record. Philafrenzy will likely be a net positive. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
128. Support, I have internally debated this for a while, and originally had tentatively !voted in the oppose section below, but having read through the applicant's answers to the questions again (esp. #24), I am satisfied that they will be a new positive as an admin and have changed my opinion to support. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
129. Support DYK help is always needed and this adminship is a net positive. I'm not convinced by the argument of the opposes. Royalbroil 22:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
130. Support – Given the arguments for both sides I still believe that Philafrenzy will be a net benefit as an admin. My guess is that Philafrenzy might not be tempted to go through this process a second time, so it's now or never. We can't really tell them to come back after they gain more experience. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
131. Support-Clueful, productive but imperfect editor who is very willing to take the advice of others, on-board. I am certain he will be a net positive addition to the corps and will not abuse the tools.Whilst issues of close paraphrasing are significant, I think it won't be repeated.And, I'm surprised that Katie thinks that Philafrenzy's answer to Q11 is completely off the base, when for all practical purposes PAID-editors are not permitted to edit the concerned articles, without using edit-requests, except in extreme rarities (vandalism/libel revertion et al).I mean, nitpicking between very strongly discouraged and prohibited?!......∯WBG^converse 06:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

     "Very strongly discouraged" and "prohibited" are different enough in that one will get you advice on the rules of paid editing and one will get you blocked. That's an important distinction for an admin to be able to make. Also, one is very clearly policy while the other is not. Nihlus 06:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

     Nihlus, did Frenzy ever said that he is going to instantly block the editor? Or do you think that violation of anything that is prohibited (for an example, any sort of promotion/vandalism is prohibited!) leads to an immediate execution of block, without any minimal attempts at aware-ing the user about our policies? I guess there exists a series of warnings, integrated into the Twinkle module and you may wish to look at them, as to how we deal with those violations of prohibitions without blocking........And, practice is policy.Best,∯WBG^converse 06:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

     A misunderstanding of policy is more than enough for someone to oppose. Additionally, I know the warning process well enough, which is exactly my point. If it was prohibited then the user would be warned where it could eventually lead to a block depending on the wording of the policy (however it's not policy, so your concerns are hypothetical at best). I'd suggest focusing on your original point before trying to imply that I am not aware of said policies. Thanks. Nihlus 06:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

132. Weak Support There are some legitimate issues being raised in the section below this. But in the end this strikes me as a basically solid editor who has lots of clue and, very importantly for me, can recognize short comings and correct them. I don't expect admins to be omniscient. But I do expect them to know where to tread with care. A lot of cyber ink has been spilled on the subject of copyright. As it happens, it is not my particular strong suit either. Sure, I can figure out naked copy-vio's but when it comes to the legal nitty gritty I tend to back up and defer to more experienced editors. To borrow a line from one of my favorite Clint Eastwood movies "a man has got to know his limitations." I suspect this editor will proceed with caution, especially in areas where they are not sure footed or where concerns have been raised. However, in the end I trust the judgement of the nominating admins, both of whom I hold in high regard. And in closing, I am obliged to admit that in every case I can recall where I opposed what ended up being a successful RfA, they turned out to be just fine. In a few cases they turned out really good. I am thinking this one is going to be OK too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
133. Support. I don't dismiss the Oppose reasons, and they do concern me - to the extent that I've been firmly undecided and thought I was going to stay that way. But what it comes down to for me is whether Philafrenzy can be trusted with the admin tools and will put them to good use where they are needed, and I'm convinced that's a yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
134. Support I believe that during this Rfa the nominee has demonstrated their need for the tools and abilities sufficiently for me to give them my support. CV9933 (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
135. Weak Support I’m generally not in favor of prolific creators as I find that you get two things that you find with this user. A lot of articles that are of marginal quality that consist of a couple of sentences and maybe a temptation to cut corners. There’s no pressure to write as many articles as you can when there are so many articles that could use some work. Still I believe that Philafrenzy will be responsible with the tools. If granted, I strongly recommend that he stay in his lane so to speak and carry a light touch.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
136. Support - I'm really on the fence here. I don't see the close paraphrasing issue as one of admin conduct - several people have observed and I agree that close paraphrasing is not a bright line, and as editors we do have to balance accurately reflecting a source with not blatantly plagiarizing it. It's tricky, it's something where responsible editors constantly check themselves and nobody always gets it right, and it's one of those things that's only resolved through discussion, not by admins marching in and wrecking up the place. I have been impressed by Philafrenzy's approach to this, while I very highly respect many of the opposers whose opinions differ from mine on this aspect. I am however unimpressed with the candidate's response to Q11. On one hand I've asked this sort of question in several RfAs and Philafrenzy's is one of the only responses to address the abusive templating aspect, which impressed me. However they have also (inadvertently I assume) taken the opportunity to use their status as an administrator to enforce their opinion about paid editing which doesn't conform with the policy - paid editors are allowed to edit articles where they have a conflict of interest so long as they've made a proper disclosure. Of course I am aware that there are some editors who would prefer that paid editors never edit articles at all, but WP:PAY says "[paid editors] are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles" (emphasis in policy) and not "[paid editors] are forbidden from editing affected articles", and you will have a very rough time as an admin if you do not understand that there is a line between enforcing policy and challenging it, and that you can only ever admin on one side of that line. All that said, I think you'll do alright, just ask questions especially about policies you're not sure about, and be open to hearing answers you might not expect or agree with. We do need more admins around DYK and ERRORS, and so I think WP:NETPOSITIVE applies here. Good luck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
137. Weak support, essentially per Ivanvector above. I don’t love the copyright issues but I get the impression from the way the candidate has handled himself here that he will learn from mistakes and generally display good judgment. The opposes are understandable and compelling, but on the whole I think they’re outweighed by the positives, and so I think the candidate should meet the threshold for adminship. /wiae /tlk 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
138. Support The candidate displays the intellectual capacity and humbleness which gives me confidence that he will master admin tasks fine. His desire to specialize is fine with me. And what I find extraordinary is that he approaches text copyright issues with rational arguments rather than religiously, an approach that should have much more support among admins as well as Wikipedians in general. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
139. Support per 2A1ZA who said exactly what I would have liked to say. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC).
     

     That struck me as an argument for “oppose”, though. The reason why Wiki has a simplified version of copyright rules which it enforces rather strictly is parallel to the BLP rules. In both cases, you have laymen playing around at the edges of legal strictures -copyright and libel- that can have very expensive consequences. Arguments here can be logically impeccable, and yet wrong in practice. As I wrote elsewhere, I was going to sit this one out, but this issue is pushing me toward oppose. Qwirkle (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

     I am not a layman, but a legal professional. Sound legal arguments are sound because they work both in theory and in practice. And in both aspects soundness relies on rational arguments. As opposed to this, irrational religious zeal on the copyright issue dilutes the quality of the Wikipedia by effectively banning technically accurate terminology and language which happens to be used by quality sources for serious topic articles. And this is my last comment on the issue, I am old enough to know that there is no use in debating religion. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

     You misunderstand Wikipedia's copyright policy: it is stricter than the law, and it is that way intentionally. Most of us are laypeople, and while it is a policy with legal implications, the purpose is so that a confusing subject can be enforced by volunteers without the need for legal training.

     Additionally, a part of the reason that we don't allow it even if non-free text would not cause legal damages is because of what Wikipedia's mission is: we are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We want our text to be as free as possible so it can be reused and remixed off-wiki. Copyright on Wikipedia has legal implications, but the question is not what the solely law is: the question is what does our copyright policy say, and that policy does not like close paraphrasing except in limited circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Choosing to add a very last comment, I rather think you misunderstand what I am talking about. I am talking about using technically accurate terminology and language which all quality sources on a serious subject use, and which no jurisdiction on planet Earth would consider covered by copyright, so "legal damage" or the "free" character of the Wikipedia is not concerned at all. For the sake of the quality of the Wikipedia, I wish for admins who construe those "limited circumstances" exceptions broadly enough to cover such terminology and language. My impression is that this candidate here might do so, and for this reason he has my heartfelt support. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose because of the upload history. Wikipedia values the promotion of free content. We begrudgingly accept images used under a claim of fair use under rare cases, but only when we cannot reasonably expect to obtain a public domain or creative commons one. In the case of someone who was famous in the United States prior to 1978 or who lived in the digital camera age (e.g. File:Michael Peter Kaye.jpg), an effort should be made to obtain a freely licensed image rather than just declaring, "He's dead, Jim, let's upload a photo we found on the internet". An example I use sometimes is Jerry Falwell. After he died, I emailed his ministry and asked if they had a photo they would contribute under the GFDL. They did and we have a professional-quality freely licensed photo of him. But if we just declare he's dead, let's find a photo of him on the internet somewhere, we will NEVER get anything else. If someone was famous in the US prior to 1978 or they were famous in the digital camera age, we really shouldn't be settling for photos used under a claim of fair use because we can "reasonably expect" to receive a free one. You retouched File:Dawson Williams.png, which has the dubious claim of being public domain, "It iwas created before 1928 and is therefore in public domain." Okay, sure. It was published in the British Medical Journal in 1928 and is most likely NOT public domain. You uploaded File:Earnest Elmo Calkins.jpg. In 30 seconds of searching, I found [2], which is from a 1905 publication and clearly public domain. In File:C. Stowe Myers.jpg, you give [3] as the source and say the "Author or Copyright holder" is unknown, but the book says "C. Stowe Myers, ca. 1950s (courtesy Industrial Designers Society of America)". Technically, we don't know that they are the copyright holder, but that's information that you didn't give on the image description page. I see a lot of your uploads where you give the website you found it on as the original publication and original source and say unknown for the author. Maybe for some of them we can't easily figure out what the original source is (unless you were to do something truly unthinkable like asking) but others give a source and adding that source would be better than not having it. --B (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for finding the free image of Calkins. I see you have already uploaded it to Commons. I will nominate the fair use file for deletion. The free one was either not around at the time I searched or I missed it. If the later, I apologise. Note I did not upload the Dawson Williams image or place it in the article. On C. Stowe Myers, the Industrial Designers Society of America supplied the photograph. We have no idea who owns it or took it, hence "unknown". Philafrenzy (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   Without trying to derail this too much, Peter Kaye was an 82 year old notable surgeon who had very little/no publicity in the last decade of his life. Certainly he was not going to be near the top of the list for having free photos available alive or dead. Jerry Falwell was a televangelist preacher constantly in the public eye, speaking at public events, activism etc. The comparison between the two is incredibly biased. Like it or not, the WMF and ENWP NFCC policy has been interpreted to (for deceased subjects) be "not reasonably likely". Its reasonably likely a recently deceased high profile individual in the public eye will have a free picture available. Its not reasonably likely an obscure surgeon not in the public eye will have such media available. Its also not required for editors to actively contact deceased subjects relatives or close acquaintances in order to solicit a photo in their time of grief just to illustrate an article. Not to mention incredibly insensitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   That was me that uploaded the image of Dawson Williams, not User:Philafrenzy. Half your oppose rationale is based on my mistake and not on User:Philafrenzy. Philafrenzy probably never checked the meta data on it, before cleaning it. I suggest you withdraw it. scope_creep (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Umm ... no ... two sentences in a long comment are about his or her retouch of your image. I clearly said he or she retouched it, not that he or she was the uploader of the original uploader. Philafrenzy has a substantial number of uploads of recently deceased people under a claim of fair use and that's part of the whole problem with the current fair use culture here. WP:FUC#1 is being used as permission to upload a copyrighted photo of anyone who is dead, as opposed to what it really is - a bright line against uploading one of a living person. --B (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Utterly disappointing answer to question 6. At the moment you have an article with probably incorrect information (an article about two different persons mixed up), no actual indication of notability, and no sources to suggest such notability. "I haven't had a chance yet to go back and develop it. " You have created 5 other (unrelated) articles since you abandoned this one. Coupled with your use in other recent articles of unreliable sources like familysearch, and external links to be avoided at all costs like findagrave, I don't think you have the right priorities to be an admin, especially for DYK and the main page in general. Never mind what you did at Chicago Milk Commission (also from this week), where the first line, "The Chicago Milk Commission (CMC) was established in 1908 to combat the consumption of unpasteurized milk [...]" is rather too similar to this, "The Chicago Milk Commission was established in 1908 to combat the consumption of unpasteurIzed milk". Fram (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   "Rather too similar" is putting it nicely. I checked a dozen other of their creations though and couldn't find any pattern of such copyvios. Do you have more evidence that suggests a pattern of copying sources verbatim? Regards SoWhy 15:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   It's not recent, but the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/The Pheasantry is relevant to that question. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   Personally I found the answer to your question 6 solid. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, it was a solid answer. Philafrenzy has successfully started ~4600 articles, and has a great experience with Notability. I actually found it excessive that this article needed to be brought back to draft when GNG is easily demonstrable, but I feel that it was done exactly so that it would not interfere with the voting process, and it shouldn't. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   Other copyvio/plagiarism issue (apart from the case that you don't solve this by changing one word[4]): Académie nationale de chirurgie is a straight translation of the French article on the same subject, but this hasn't been acknowledged on the page, in an edit summary, or on the talk page. And Arnold Dohmen is an utter disgrace. A Google translate created page, abandoned with an "under construction" tag in May 2018, should never have been placed in the mainspace. And even the machine translation patr doesn't explain why all the good sources and most relevant categories were stripped from the article. I'll move it to Draft:Arnold Dohmen instead. Fram (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   From July 2018: Society for the Study of Addiction. Philafrenzy version (whole article): "The Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and other Drugs, originally The Society for the Study and Cure of Inebriety was founded in 1884 in response to the inadequacies of the Habitual Drunkards Act of 1879. The word "Cure" was dropped from the society's title soon after it was formed and in 1946 it changed its name to its current form" Source[5]: "The Society for the Study and Cure of Inebriety was founded in 1884 as a pressure group in response to the inadequacy of the Habitual Drunkards Act of 1879. The words "and Cure" were dropped from the title early in the Society's existence, and the title was changed to its present style in 1946. " While the source is CC-By-4, this requires clear attribution, which is lacking here. Changing "inadequacy" to "inadequacies" or "and cure" to "cure" may be enough to fool Earwig, but that doesn't mean it is no longer plagiarism. Fram (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per deletion action related to of one of his recent article,Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat[6] and lack of participation in Administrator boards (ANI, AN, SPI, AIV). शिव साहिल (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat wasn't deleted, it was moved to Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat (which you know, as you linked to the move). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

4. Oppose even granting the content creation, which I'm not completely convinced about, I still have worries about this editor's ability to be an effective admin in the areas they have identified. I don't think the candidate really addressed #3 in a meaningful way, I find the whiff of a response to what I considered a fairly easy question in #5 disappointing, but these are perhaps not surprising given the admission of lack of experience in the conflict resolution of Wikipedia admitted to by the answer to question 8. I started off as a neutral given my respect for the nominators and several of the supporters above, but then couldn't find the positives beyond the content creation (of which I also have questions). The lack of experience in dispute resolution wouldn't bother me so much if there were really great answers to questions. Since I have big question marks about what his approach would be, and don't think even he knows, I guess I'm not neutral and am really an oppose. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Do you mind spelling out what the big question marks are? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   My big question marks are his ability to handle dispute resolution as an admin at ERRORS and DYK given the answers to questions 3, 5, and 8. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   @Barkeep49: I think Mr Ernie was asking about the "big questions" you have in regard to "content creation" (as you mentioned it twice), not "DR @ errors and dyk". I'm also curious about the "questions" and the "lack of being convinced" you mentioned, in reference to content creation. Thanks - wolf 01:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Given the questions raised on this page, most convincingly for me by Randykitty, I am not convinced. I'm not saying there's something wrong, just not convinced. But even if I were convinced my oppose would remain given my concerns about how he would handle conflict as an admin in his chosen areas of ERRORS and DYK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   After close to 300(correcting per discussion in Neutral section) 100-odd reviews conducted, hasn't there been ample opportunity to see whether Philafrenzy has handled contention at DYK successfully? This RfA's only been open like 36 hours so we'll see, but if there's one thing this forum does... uh let's say, consistently, it's surface anyone with a grievance. Absent that, 300100 reviews is pretty solid track record of managing interactions there without inflaming things. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   I found a few complaints about delays in old DYK QPQ-reviews; as I note below there aren't many of those in the past year to evaluate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Thanks for having a look into examples. If that's the worst of it, indeed I'm quite reassured; none of those are the kind of conflagration that would make me worry about people skills. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   I did some sampling of his DYK work as well but neither what I saw nor the examples above show any sort of conflict. Instead they show the relative aptitude at nominating DYKs and I would certainly say he does good work at DYK. But despite how prolific he is there (and elsewhere) the lack of experience handling conflict, combined with what I felt were less than satisfactory answers here, is why I felt that this project-positive contributor is not ready to be an admin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Upon Fram's observation above of the paraphrasing, I looked through Philafrenzy's other contributions and found that this is a troubling pattern. From Lisa Littman: "Littman received her undergraduate degree from Brandeis University and her MD from UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, now Rutgers Medical School. She completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology at the Women and Infants Hospital of Brown University. She completed a residency in general preventive medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital from where she also obtained a master's degree in public health."; compare to [7]: "She received her undergraduate degree from Brandeis University, her MD degree from UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (now Rutgers Medical School) and completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Women and Infants Hospital/Brown University. She also completed a residency in General Preventive Medicine and Public Health and obtained a Master’s in Public Health...". From José Eugenio Olavide: "He found himself in charge of the 120 beds of the San Juan de Dios Hospital and had to teach himself dermatology..."; compare to [8]: ""Back in Madrid, he found himself in 1860 in charge of the 120 beds in the San Juan de Dios Hospital... and he began the difficult task of teaching himself dermatology on the job". From Alisa LaGamma: "In 2012 she received the Iris Award for Outstanding Scholarship of the Bard Graduate Center in recognition of her contribution to rethinking the history of sub-Saharan African art and culture."; compare to [9]: " In 2012, the Bard Graduate Center recognized her contribution to rethinking the history of sub-Saharan African art and culture with its Iris Award for Outstanding Scholarship." This contributor created over 4,000 articles? ℯxplicit 01:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   I invite you to possibly reconsider your vote, Explicit: Cardinal Richelieu said "Show me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough therein to hang him". Philafrenzy has written not six, but hundreds of thousands of lines, and actually the examples you brought above do have paraphrasing, and even Richelieu would be scratching his head in finding any solid proof to hang anybody. This is proven by the Earwig's copyvio detector for all three examples that you brought: Lisa Littman is an unlikely violation. José Eugenio Olavide is an unlikely violation, and Alisa LaGamma is also unlikely violation. The Earwig tool is very used in the DYK process by many reviewers. Yes, the paraphrasing of Lisa Littman may be a further improved, but from there to saying that there is a "troubling pattern" or even mention plagiarism, such as @Audacity: is doing, below, I believe is far fetched. Such words cannot be thrown so easily. --1l2l3k (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Note that I just edited Lisa Littman to remove the copyvio (though using Philafrenzy's version only increases the score slightly). Regardless, this tool seems to be intended to detect straightforward copy-and-paste copyvios, whereas the issue here is Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which is in fact still plagiarism. Λυδαcιτγ 04:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   If the concern is now WP:CLOP, I believe that it is mostly the result of physicians' long titles, which, if changed and paraphrased, would no longer be correct. Further, bringing an article which the creator just composed three days ago, in the middle of his RFA should take in consideration that he may not have had the time in the last three days to refine the article. Some AGF? --1l2l3k (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Close paraphrase IS a copyright issue, not just some nice thing to avoid. If it is substantial, we revdel it. Our license does not allow for copyright violations to exist, for even an instant, on our pages. So no, AGF doesn’t apply to copyright issues and we don’t give people time to fix them. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni:, @Audacity:, @Hijiri88: I never said that close paraphrase isn't a copyright issue. I just said that, in general, long titles of physicians and long names of institutions, although switched and moved around in sentences to avoid close paraphrasing, still need to be correctly stated, otherwise someone will accuse you of not being faithful to the source. Also, if you read closely WP:LIMITED, within WP:CLOP, when there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing, close paraphrasing is permitted. The policy is very clear in saying that This may be the case when there is no reasonable way to avoid using technical terms, and may also be the case with simple statements of fact. The policy goes on saying Names or titles of people, organizations, books, films and so on may be given in full – there is no creative expression in a name or title, which is often the only way to identify the subject. It is ironic as the example at WP:LIMITED, of John Smith having pursued studies in medicine, include a very similar situation to that brought above for Lisa Littman, i.e. graduation from a medical school. Sometimes when one brings a policy, it's worthy reading it from head to bottom, rather than using it to persecute a user that has given much to this project with heavy accusations that are not fully substantiated. --1l2l3k (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   I'm not seeing how "long titles of physicians and long names of institutions" are relevant here. You've mentioned "long titles" twice now, but the closest Audacity's edit to the Littman article came to this was removing "now Rutgers Medical School" (redundant because Wikipedia has wikilinks and redirects; anyone who claims this is needed or else we are misrepresenting sources is wrong) and replacing "UMDNJ-" with the clearer synonym "then part of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey". I have never seen an argument over long titles of physicians that hinged on "close paraphrase vs. misrepresentation of sources", but I suspect if such a dispute existed it was mostly a result of some users claiming that removing a long and unnecessary title and replacing it with a prose description of the subject's educational history was misrepresenting sources, even though (assuming that all the content of that prose description was based on an accurate reading of sources) it wasn't that; and I can't possibly imagine "close paraphrasing" being a concern in such a dispute to begin with. The problem here is whole sentences being copied outright from the source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   @1l2l3k: Sorry if I seem to be "persecuting" Philafrenzy, whose massive content contributions I greatly appreciate. I don't mean to attack the candidate; however, I still think close paraphrasing is a significant issue of concern for them as a potential admin. As noted by Nikkimaria above, their DYK nomination of The Pheasantry failed because of "Persistent close paraphrasing". In the discussion, they were warned that "you've shown not only an inability to recognize it while you're writing, but a stubborn reluctance to check thoroughly for it afterward". Have they improved since? Their recent creation of Lisa Littman and their answer to Q17 above suggest to me that it's still an issue. For example, as discussed by Hijiri88 above, their version of Lisa Littman copied the phrase "her MD from UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, now Rutgers Medical School" verbatim from the source. While it's true that this is a bunch of titles, that doesn't mean that there's no way to rephrase it! I changed it to "her MD from Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, then part of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey", which both accords better with the article titles we have and gets rid of the potential copyvio. I think it's important to do this wikifying and de-copyvioing from the very beginning, and hope that Philafrenzy will incorporate it into their future work regardless of the outcome of this RFA. Λυδαcιτγ 02:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

   "her MD from [name of institute], now [name of institute]" comes nowhere near any sort of creative threshold required for text to be copyrightable. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

   The article The Pheasantry was in 2014 and I might have to look into it, but is it worth it? That was 4 years ago! 4 years later, thousands of articles created later, and hundreds of DYK nominations and reviews later, see Philafrenzy with a huge improvement of his skills. I still continue to strongly think that the example of Lisa Littman, started a couple of days before the RFA, in good faith, falls under WP:LIMITED and the close paraphrasing is explicitly permitted. On top of that, Philaphrenzy was careful enough in that article to still put a tag in his second edit there, within the same minute of the first, to show that the article was still under construction, thereby informing every reader that the article was being built. I think that shows due care and diligence and awareness that the article is not complete yet. Yes, one can start them in a draft mode rather than directly in mainspace, but that's why the tags are for, for experienced contributors, and on top of that, the close paraphrasing is permitted by WP:LIMITED. I really see nothing here, just a zeal to see flaws within some thousands of articles created and developed, and I'm not talking about you in particular, but about several opposes which are really not well thought. Again, with all due respect, as everyone is entitled to their opinions. --1l2l3k (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

   The Google Books link didn't work for me. Here's a possibly better one. I also noticed the phrase "having previously taken no special interest in it" that Earwig's tool identifies, but the match there seems to be an article about something entirely different. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 19:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

6. Oppose I simply can not support a candidate who wants to work in a high stress, high conflict environment who neither has experience dealing with managing conflict nor can articulate a conflict management strategy beyond mouthing a short platitude. (Answer to question #8 ) Administrators are more than just button pushers and lots of content creation, without demonstrated judgement and people skills, is not adequate experience and is likely to result in situations which are worse than not having an admin at all. The answers given in the other questions do not immediately inspire confidence either. They lack detail and specificity which raises concerns re, at least, the ability to communicate and support their reasoning in cases of ADMINACCT. Jbh ^Talk 01:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Jbh, I think that is a wee bit disingenuous. I don't believe in the born hard mentality. Most people aren't born into being able to manage conflict, it is learned experience starting in primary school, as you grown older you learn what's what and you end up here. Would it not be the case e.g. that User:Philafrenzy could take some Mentorship lessons from other members of the administrations corps, as you would any learning environment, in their initial few weeks, and perhaps take an online conflict management course, of which there is literally 10'000's of them out there. That would prepare for the first few weeks and some kind of mentorship by the corps would do the rest in specific situations. I don't see any evidence by Philafrenzy of shying away from managing conflict and disputes, so the rest can be learned like everything else, and with learning comes experience. scope_creep (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   @Scope creep: Considering that all of those possibilities are what-ifism I do not see the point of your comment since none of those things have any chance of occurring. Are you suggesting we can somehow require a candidate be trained? How? By whom? We require candidates to have demonstrated ability in article creation, AfD etc before they become admins. I feel they should also prove they are able to manage conflict and demonstrate that they have an adequate temperament to deal with the interpersonal challenges they will meet as an admin. Writers write stuff, admins on the other hand deal with conflict and when they are crap at they make the environment worse for everyone. Jbh ^Talk 21:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

7. Oppose concerns with unsatisfactory answers to questions and a general lack of experience with administrative matters. I'm also troubled by the candidate's lax approach towards files/copyright policy; since your RfA might pass, please take great care with files or avoid them completely. -FASTILY 03:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Whatever happened to "Why not?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Will not support an admin who's not putting in the effort to make sure their references actually refer to the subject - and who paraphrased Women and Infants into a division of Brown, as seen in Explicit's oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   I just noticed while reviewing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 23 that Philafrenzy often reverted attempts to make his non-free uploads comply with our guidelines. When it made text illegible, that made sense. When it involved artwork for artists' articles, it was less justifiable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

   And using the edit summary "CE" for a straight revert is not impressive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

9. Oppose With regret, as I'm generally in awe of content creators with 200,000+ edits. However, significant copyvio concerns noted in oppose 5 above (e.g. Lisa Littman vs. [10]) make prolific content creation as much an area of concern as a good thing. I hope that, as with Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat, Philafrenzy was planning to improve/rewrite this article, but plagiarism shouldn't be left in the main space for any amount of time. Just too much of a red flag for me. Λυδαcιτγ 04:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
10. Spotting copyvio problems is an incredibly important part of an administrator's job, for which we have been given a special tool. That we'd have someone with thousands of article creations is great, but that such an editor would still paraphrase too closely, to put it diplomatically, is not a good sign. I oppose reluctantly, since I know Philafrenzy has done a lot of good work, and I also greatly value the work and opinion of their nominator, but I don't have a choice right now. (We have online training for this in the WikiEdu department...I just did it to see what my students will have to have learned by tomorrow.) Drmies (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
11. Oppose moved here from support, essentially per Drmies. I’ll note that having issues with text copyvio is especially concerning for an admin that wants to help out on the main page. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I see a lack of sustained or consistent focus in many administrative areas. It's not that editing and writing articles is bad; I just don't see how becoming an administrator will further enhance Phil's contributions. EclipseDude (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Given that the nominee lacks both a convincing need for the tools as well as anything resembling the wide breadth of qualifying experience most candidates are held to, I would expect to see an exceptional level of competence in the content space and in the answers to the questions to be comfortable supporting. I'm pretty disappointed with the answers to most of the questions, and the great mass of articles are almost all stubs, many of which are just single sentences. I agree with the "quantity over quality" points raised in the Neutral section. So, from the gate, I'm not convinced. I'm not much of a hardliner as far as fair use files go, but even I find the lack of conviction or even understanding in the reply to that oppose worrying. Then there's some minor concerns such as the fact that the candidate never enabled email until earlier this year when running an RfA was discussed, they keep their talk page absurdly long in spite of having an archive, and a low rate of edit summary usage, all of which are minor but quite simply not be issues to begin with. Then there's the lack of experience in non-content areas; the admin toolkit is very broad and admins should be experienced and demonstrably competent in a variety of project-space areas; I see no substantial experience in admin areas, not even in terms of making AIV reports, which is as basic as it gets. Likewise, as Jbh gets at, being an admin is a social position as well and candidates should demonstrate an ability to stay above conflict and help work through and resolve it as well, because mediating disputes and moderating discussions and managing conflict comes with the job as well, and the candidate simply can't come up with any experience in dispute resolution. I find that hard to believe. Then there's the actual problems, which are in the content space, namely issues with sourcing and copyright violations, which are quite simply serious enough issues on their own to oppose even the most qualified candidate. Sorry, it's a reluctant but firm oppose from me as well. Swarm ♠ 06:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
14. Oppose Per the copyright issues raised by a number of editors, but especially per 1l2l3k's arguing that they aren't copyright issues. We have enough trouble with so-called "close paraphrasing" all over this project without editors being granted admin status while they are actively writing articles that include plagiarized text (Lisa Littman was created three days ago) and editors supporting said nomination based on the claim that close paraphrasing is not plagiarism. I know a lot of the other supporters are actually very good on copyvio issues and may not have even been aware of this issue, but I won't ping them to ask if they'd reconsider like Tony did as that would probably be "canvassing" if I only did it with editors who are my "friends", and going through all of them to find all the supporters who didn't explicitly mention copyright/plagiarism/etc. would be a bit too much work for me at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
15. Oppose The whole kerkuffle at Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat, though serious, could be forgiven as a one-off among many article creations, but the threads above turned up many examples of close paraphrasing (aka copy-pasting with a dictionary of synonyms). I also give a small but positive weight to the "does not search long enough for free files" argument. For the longer term, I also am concerned about their stance to paid editing. The answer to Q11 states that direct editing of article by paid editors is contrary to our policies, but it is not (it is "strongly discouraged", not forbidden). In Q3, they said they declined a request for mediation from a paid editor (which is fine) but I don't see how they can ever approach mediation in good faith with a neutral point of view seems out of line assuming "they" refers to paid editors in general (and not that one in particular for specific reasons) - in content dispute resolution, by definition at least one dispute participant does not have a "neutral point of view", the aim of mediation is precisely to compromise on what the NPOV is; and, of course, assuming no paid editor ever is in good faith or willing to compromise would be contrary to WP:AGF. For the record, I see two oppose arguments as meritless: (1) the idea that the candidate is an industrial stub-churner (bad!) rather than a GA artisan (good!) (not only does it not match my perception of the record, but even if true, creating decent stubs on notable topics is a worthy task); (2) the idea that having mostly avoided disputes in their numerous edits disqualifies them for the job on account of lacking dispute resolution skills (if anything, avoiding disputes is a good thing). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    @Tigraan: copy-pasting with a dictionary of synonyms is an unusual definition of close paraphrasing; in this case, the close paraphrasing does not appear to have included replacement by synonyms, but rather simply removing unnecessary conjunctions and switching clauses around. I would say subbing out X number of words with synonyms would probably be acceptable (obviously depending on the circumstances), but what happened here was not that, and actually the problem with the phrase "close paraphrasing" that I've observed here and elsewhere is the opposite, where text has been lifted directly with only minor cosmetic alterations, and folks try to claim it's not plagiarism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    @Hijiri88: struck that. As you point out, as it stood, it is incorrect in multiple regards; fixing it would take far more bytes that deserved, but since I tried: What I wanted to demonstrate with the "synonym dictionary" thing, which was more an example/parallel than a description of the situation at hand is what follows (keep is mind IANAL). Argumentative texts (essays, manuals, etc.) copyright applies to published ideas, not only to text: it protects the expressed line of reasoning and its logical structures. Hence, merely replacing some words by synonyms, or translating in another language, makes a copyvio (if published without authorization), even if 99.9% of copyvios are blatant copy-pastes. The text match percentage matters little, the test is rather about the logical structure. Now, short excerpts (e.g. a single sentence) can hardly, on their own, be copyvios, because they do not contain enough ideas to protect, so "the feline devours the rodent" would not be a copyvio of "the cat eats the mouse" except in conjunction with other instances; arguably, there could be an amount of text such that copy-pasting it would barely be seen as a copyvio by a Reasonable Person (tm), but running it through a dictionary of synonyms would barely not be. However, if you get into arguing whether a short excerpt is or is not a copyvio, it matters little in the grand scheme of things on Wikipedia, because in any case it is plagiarism, which we should not do for ethical reasons. In any case, all this is fairly offtopic on the RfA page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

16. Oppose - too many concerns raised above, I'm afraid. Take the comments as constructive, learn from your errors, and come back in the future for another run. GiantSnowman 08:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
17. Oppose Issues with close paraphrasing are concerning for any potential admin. But it is more concerning when specifically working in DYK/ERRORS, where making sure that content is not a copyright violation is part of the job. Problems with sourcing and notability of the articles they create, and the answer to Q13 showing an inability to spot promotionalism further shows that they wouldn't particularly be helpful keeping DYK quality high, and would likely only create further clashes in the area, especially due to their lack of experience in dealing with conflicts. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    I don't want to reply to every vote Galobtter, but I clearly said above that the whole thing was self-evidently promotional. Anyone can see it is a PR puff piece. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Clarifying, Philafrenzy, I'm concerned about how you still haven't identified (correctly) how exactly it is promotional - what words would you remove to make it less promotional? What phrases or sentences are promotional, and why? Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    I'll just point out that the question specifically asks about evidence of possible self-promotion, not just promotion. It's not about how to rewrite it to not be promotional (the obvious answer to that would be to rewrite it as the current version is written), but whether there's anything suspicious that suggests self-promotion. I agree such questions are tricky and judging too harshly based on the answer can be unfair, as something that one person can see as obvious can go unnoticed by another without any personal failing - it can be hit and miss whether one person sees the same thing as another. But I see one thing that would raise my suspicions, though I think what I have spotted is quite subtle. Oh, and I'm really only commenting here because I can't resist a detective challenge ;-) How about you, Galobtter, can you see anything that would raise suspicions specifically of self-promotion? (If you can, I suggest not posting a spoiler, as I'm not going to do - at least not until the RfA is over). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Even "rewrite it as the current version" isn't really fully correct - I'd say "Her work has run in more than fifty publications, including The New York Times, Vanity Fair, Harper's, The Wall Street Journal, Allure (where she served as Contributing Editor) and Vogue." smacks of coming straight from her own blurb, and a lot of it is still too much based on the old promotional version (though much better formatted)

    I do understand different people seeing different things, and maybe specifically spotting self-promotion they may not, but giving what is promotional they should be able to (I think I may have an idea of what would raise specific self-promotional issues) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Noting that even if they are fine on spotting promotional issues, that it'd still be an oppose - issues with close paraphrasing and in general with quantity over quality don't give any any confidence of them working well in the areas they do want to work (DYK/ERRORS) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Sure, but you *are* missing the point of the question, and I think it is unfair to criticize the candidate for not answering it in accordance with your misunderstanding of it - the question is *not* asking what is promotional about the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Q13 is about the article Judith Newman. What the discussion seems to be missing is that the candidate actually nominated this article for deletion. The result was a snow keep so it's puzzling that the complaint is now that the candidate is soft on promotion rather than being over-zealous. The subject seems to be something of a special case though, as a result of the NYT article Wikipedia-Mania.   Andrew D. (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Note the article contains spoilers for the question. wumbolo ^^^ 11:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    @Wumbolo: What is the correct answer to the question? I'm still confused. Λυδαcιτγ 03:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    @Andrew Davidson: I'm not entirely sure how your comment relates to Galobtter's vote. Phil's AFD comment made no reference to promotionalism so it's not like he's being gone after for being "soft on promotionalism" when he in fact has a proven record of being hard on it; it could arguably be said that since both the draft at mainspacing and the article at AFD nomination included some of the same problems, Phil's not mentioning it shows a lack of sensitivity to it. The fact that a bunch of other editors also didn't notice it and the AFD was snow-closed is even more tangential. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    My point was to clarify the counter-factual nature of Q13 which failed to recognise that the candidate had already engaged quite closely with the article in question. It seems better to look at what the candidate has actually done than to read too much into such a trick question. Andrew D. (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

18. Oppose per GiantSnowman. Double sharp (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
19. Oppose See question 6: his initial action and his weak-kneed response. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
20. Reluctant oppose per Drmies, and the complete misunderstanding of WP:PAID in Q11. Katie^talk 15:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    What did I get wrong please Katie? I was replying from the point of view of COI. A COI editor should not be editing the page on which they have a COI. Please explain. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Not quite Phil. Our policy does not prohibit paid editing (unfortunately). You're incorrect in equating "strongly discouraged" with "prohibition". Or maybe I'm reading your view wrongly. Lourdes 16:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Philafrenzy - in short, a COI editor is "strongly discouraged" from directly editing pages on which they have a COI, but there is no prohibition against it. You might choose to advise them to use the talk page to make edit requests in the future, however, given the provided example is of a reasonable edit, you should not be warning them to stick to the talk page. Moreover, the other editor is abusing their rollback tool to revert non-vandalizing edits. They should either be warned that further infractions will result in the loss of their rollback privileges, or if the case is severe enough, simply remove the privilege. I wouldn't say "complete misunderstanding", but rather an incomplete one. Refer to Tigraan's !vote for basically the same response. (edit conflicted with Lourdes). Mr rnddude (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    I did know that paid editing is not banned but was wrong about COI editing being discouraged rather than prohibited. It has to be good practice to use the talk page though and I did pick up on the bit about the rollback being inappropriate. I didn't mention it but I was aware that rollback can be removed for abuse. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Having re-read that answer, I'm not actually sure you did pick up on the rollback point. You stated that 'reverting' an edit that is not vandalism was wrong, however per H:RV that's not strictly true - 'reverting' an edit simply means undoing it, either manually or using the standard undo tool, and this doesn't have to be due to vandalism. Rollback, on the other hand, has much more specific and rigid rules about when it can be used, and misuse of it is more serious. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my point is that in my opinion you didn't, in fact, properly recognise the significance of some of the question details or identify the policies at stake.Korruski^Talk 07:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    I said "The reporting editor should be warned not to revert the COI's attempts to engage on the talk page as they were doing the right thing." ie Rollback was not appropriate because the edit was in good faith, in the right place, and not vandalism. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    If you think "The reporting editor should be warned not to revert the COI's attempts to engage on the talk page as they were doing the right thing." Is the same thing as "Rollback was not appropriate because the edit was in good faith, in the right place, and not vandalism" then I am not going to argue the point with you, but it does help me make up my mind about your understanding of WP policies.Korruski^Talk 12:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    Weak oppose, unfortunately. I think Philafrenzy has potential, but his understanding of copyright policy could use some work. Explicit cites three examples of close paraphrasing above; José Eugenio Olavide and Alisa LaGamma are close enough to be concerning, but Lisa Littman is way too similar to the source for comfort. The images B lists may or may not be public domain, but "published before 1926" is insufficient as an image rationale. Different countries have different copyright laws – we need to know which country it comes from, and why it is in the public domain. These issues are common good faith mistakes, easily fixable, and should not preclude a successful RfA in the not-too-distant future. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Kurtis do you mean Dawson Williams, 1928? That image was uploaded by someone else. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Oh, okay. Thank you for correcting me. I've stricken that part out of my rationale. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Switching to support. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

21. Oppose - The concerns raised by Drmies and Katie were enough to sway me to this camp for now. If these issues are addressed, I could see supporting a future run. -- Dane ^talk 17:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
22. Oppose I am concerned that placing Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat in the main space without ascertaining the subject's notability is problematic at best, and if the subject were a living person, may violate WP:BLP. While the first version on any article is never complete, in this case, the initial version was three sentences long, and assumed notability partially relied on one line in someone else's obituary. The second edit was a construction tag followed by some category tags. Then he left for two hours, then added details about the subject's family before adding a couple more sentences. Again, the problem is not with the thought (or research) process of the nominee, because I think to a degree that is how we edit, but the problem was this was occurring in the main space, where there is less room for error (and while I am not saying that article creations must be perfect, I would recommend to the nominee that he do more work in draft space). --Enos733 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    The nominee's response to Q6 makes it even harder to understand why the article was created in the main space. "In policy terms it is GNG as JPs and DL's aren't automatically deemed notable." However, the article as created, only has two references, one newspaper article and one line in an online obituary of another individual. To me, if a subject is going to need to pass WP:GNG (and it is not obvious why the person is [or might be] notable) we should expect more substance in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Five refs within two hours of creation and a clear assertion of notability in the very first version "a justice of the peace and deputy lieutenant of Kirkcudbrightshire" with an unimpeachable source (London Gazette) to prove it. It's not a BLP is it? Died in the 19th century. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    If this were an AfD, I may argue that of the sources in the article, only one (the London Gazette article) may contain substantive information. From what I saw in the books, the only information about the subject were one line mentions. However, my concern is not about the one article, but that an experienced editor would be ok with creating a three sentence stub and adding a construction tag on any article they were working on. --Enos733 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC) I would add that in the neutral comments there are more examples of short low-notability stub articles created "for the sake of completeness." --Enos733 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

    Five refs, where the first one is about his father, the third one is about the family crest and doesn't mention him, the fourth one is about his brother, not his son, and shows that even more information in the article is wrong, and it is so far impossible to verify whether the fifth is about his daughter (no evidence that he had one by that name) or his sister (he certainly had a sister by that name). Which leaves us with a very short mention in the London Gazette (a primary source) that he became then a DL (page 1704 top left). That source does not prove that he was a Justice of the Peace, so why do you claim it does? Oh, and it doesn't look as if he "died before 1882" either. Basically, only one thing in the article (that he was a DL) is actually verified by the source, and no notability at all is implied by any of them. Still, you "have sufficient sources to say definitely that the subject was a justice of the peace and deputy lieutenant of Kirkcudbrightshire and a notable figure in his part of Scotland." so it shouldn't be too hard to set this straight surely? Fram (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    Philafrenzy, are you sure you want to die on this hill? B's previous comment is spot on: notability is a red herring, really. Personally I think it is poor judgment to use mainspace to store incomplete drafts by using "in construction" tag and making sure A7 does not apply, but that is not the crucial point. The real problem is that you put in mainspace refs purported to be about X when they actually are about Y. I do not really see what you can say about that apart from "yeah, my bad, sorry". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

23. Oppose - this RfA is another example for why the recent Term Limit discussion on Jimbo’s TP needs serious consideration. Until trial periods are in place and accountability issues have been properly addressed, I’d much rather err on the side of caution. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
24. Oppose Per the issues brought up by other opposes, especially Drmies, B, and Explicit. While the content creation is impressive and the candidate is looking to help out in one of the few admin areas where content creation experience is meaningful on its own, the copyright and NFC issues can not be overlooked, in my book. If this RfA does not pass, take some time to show that you know what the "free" part of "Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" means. If you do, I'll gladly be able to support. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
25. Strong Oppose per Swarm and the candidates refusal to answer my question. Answers provided for other questions don't really answer the question being asked and merely deflect and, as a whole, are underwhelming. There is no demonstrable need for the tools, and the candidate has zero experience in almost every administrative area of the site. I would not feel comfortable with him showing us how he would handle such tasks after he got the bit. You don't need the admin bit to be a content creator, and you shouldn't get it if you "plan" on using it for mainly one thing. Further, his inability to discern copyright issues for both articles and files is very concerning. Nihlus 00:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Expanding to a strong oppose in light of the candidate mainly wanting to get the bit for the sole purpose of fixing errors on the main page. Sorry, but I will never feel comfortable giving someone so many rights where they have failed to establish any administrative capability when they only want or could possibly make use of one minor tool of the entire set of rights that would be given to them. I didn't like it before, and I don't like it now. Nihlus 03:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

    Your question was answered fine. The "main DYK process" doesn't end just because the hook has been handed off to the main page, it ends when the hook has completed its time and is replaced. Having more people familiar with the DYK process handling ERRORS is absolutely something we need. You're entitled to pull up the candidate on copyvio issues and the other things you mention, but to say he has no demonstrable need for the tools is objectively untrue.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC).

    @Amakuru: It's my question, and I was not provided a satisfying answer about the DYK process and how it has been impacted by his inability to currently use any administrative tools. I didn't ask about the errors process. He refused to answer the question, and, therefore, I do not see any demonstrable need for the tools. It's rather simple. At this point, though, it wouldn't matter because that is not enough to show a demonstrable need it my eyes (there's nothing "objectively untrue" about it). Nihlus 14:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    A question for you Nihlus. Would you be prepared to do more work at DYK, including building preps and queues? If you don't want Philafrenzy to do it, somebody still has to. For the record, I don't want to do it because I find the work dull and unrewarding. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

    Ritchie333, if you want to badger opposes, please do some research first before adding fuel to the fire. "Building preps" is something Philafrenzy can already do, just like every editor; but he has never done this. Your argument "If you don't want Philafrenzy to do it, somebody still has to." is completely meaningless (or fallacious), since he can do this without any problems, but has chosen not to. Fram (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

    Ritchie333, I'm afraid I fail to see the relevance of your question as to whether or not the candidate is suitable to the role. If you wish to make this RfA personal or about other editors, then I kindly ask that you take it to the talk page or my talk page even, as it is doing nothing but disrupting the process here. Thanks. Nihlus 11:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

26. Oppose. Sloppy sourcing, copyvio problems, creation of unexpandable one- or two-line stubs, etc., etc. This all smacks of article creation just for article count, or editcountitis. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about carefully sourced, carefully written, encyclopedicly notable and noteworthy information. This scatter-shot, slap-dash, rapid-fire approach to editing is very disappointing. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
27. Oppose. I'm late to this RfA and unusually, I haven't done my own research. However, many well established RfA voters have done theirs and fully described their concerns. So as per Drmies, Explicit, Swarm and others, whose concerns are very real and valid, I am unable to support this bid for the mop. Even if the actual rate of close paraphrasing were low in comparison to the sheer amount of contributions, it's a disqualifier for adminship, and the issues over images also give me pause. Notwithstanding, Philafrenzy is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia and will learn from the issues highlighted in this RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    Just gonna pile on without doing research, eh? The lesson to be learned, which I presume the nominee has absorbed, is that the RFA process is defective, that it is a social club in which a 30% minority holds veto power (which they enjoy using), and that it makes absolutely no sense for content people to become embroiled in the mean-spirited circus, in which every ember is fanned into a blaze by those in need of entertainment. There is no shortage of administrators as long as this sick game is being played. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    Carrite, sorry to have to respond , but this is becoming to be a pattern of yours. Why don't you go and pester some of the other admin pilers-on? It's precisely 'mean spirited' comments like yours that fan the flames and turn RfA into a drama and the 'sick game' and the circus that it is.(FYI: Drmies). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

    Carrite is a good editor and content contributor and I'd support him at RfA (although I don't think he'll ever pass for reasons that are not worth going into here). I think he makes a valid point - you have spent years and years trying to get people to do proper research and not pile on, and then you turn around and do it yourself! And after criticising somebody else for doing it! I don't doubt that Philafrenzy has got some useful feedback from several editors, but all he's like to get from this is "you don't need to practice what you preach". And I didn't run his nomination past you because I noticed you seem to have retired and handed in your admin tools; if I had done, you might have said "hang on, there's a problem with", I'd have turned down a nomination and I wouldn't have subjected him to this Chinese water torture. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

    Oh, please, don't act like every single participant is expected to perform their own full and independent evaluation and it's totally unreasonable to "oppose per" concerns that other people have raised. Not having a chance to do your own research yet seeing sufficient reason to oppose coming from other established editors is entirely normal and reasonable. The fact that you'd both falsely equivocate that to "piling on with no research" and use it as a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit a perfectly valid oppose is disappointing. But attacking who is arguably the most long-term and serious advocate for RfA reform as if they're part of the problem is...actually kind of humorous. I mean, it's asinine. Perhaps next time you can civilly enlighten us as to why you don't share the concerns of the opposers, rather than making outright personal attacks and blaming The Cabal™ for nuking an RfA, when we're literally looking at this supposedly-great content creator who introduces literal copyvios to the project. Your comment here is far more indicative of the toxic atmosphere at RfA than Kudpung's; just because you're directing it at someone you disagree with as opposed to the candidate does not make it okay. Swarm ♠ 17:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

    This system doesn't need to be "reformed," it needs to be completely eradicated and replaced with a serious system that actually works. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

    Absolutely, we need a new system that doesn't allow for the ad hominem harassment of civil, policy-based opposition. Swarm ♠ 19:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

    ...like, calling someone "asinine ", for example? - wolf 09:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

    Oh, please, anyone can read that diff and see I was referring to the baseless attack on Kudpung and did not call anyone asinine. This is quite obviously a thinly-veiled attempt at harassment, given the context of the current unpleasant exchange we’re having on my talk page. Swarm ♠ 11:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

28. Oppose. Several reasons, including a lot of 'per aboves' around copyvio and sloppy content creation, but also the discussion above at Oppose 20. Maybe it's me that's being obtuse, but in my opinion the candidate has missed a key part of the question, then failed to understand what he missed when it was explained to him, and then failed to understand my attempt to draw attention to the distinction. Either that or he does understand the mistake but isn't willing to simply acknowledge it. Either way, it bothers me just enough to make me oppose on an RFA that I was simply going to ignore. Korruski^Talk 12:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
29. Oppose (Moved from support) - The close paraphrasing is obviously my major concern here, As I've technically never written an article in the 5-6 years of being here maybe I don't really have a say on it as such .... But anymay admins are expected to delete copyvios not really create them. –Davey2010^Talk 12:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
30. Oppose - per the close paraphrasing concerns brought up above. I also have concerns about their article creations and sourcing. For someone who's being praised for article creations, there's some serious sourcing issues. Take Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat. The sources given are "Scotland, Highland and Agricultural Society of (21 August 2018). "Transactions of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland". W. Blackwood – via Google Books." which is actually this source which is from 1851. It's wrong to say the source is from 2018, when it's a scan on Google books of an 1851 work. The second source is the London Gazette from 1866. The third source is "Fairbairn, James (21 August 2018). "Fairbairn's book of crests of the families of Great Britain and Ireland". London : T. C. & E. C. Jack – via Internet Archive." which is this source which plainly says 1905 for the date on the title page. Fourth source is "Weir, Robert W. (21 August 1877). "A History of the Scottish Borderers Militia". Herald Office – via Google Books." - hey, wow... it's got the right publication date! The fifth source is " "Munks Roll Details for Dawson (Sir) Williams". munksroll.rcplondon.ac.uk. Retrieved 18 August 2018." which at least doesn't try to claim a publication date. As others have noted, only the first three sources actually discuss the father, the rest of the sources are about his children. But there's another issue here - the first two sentences of the article are sourced to the Transactions of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland source - but that source does not actually support anything in the first sentence. All that source supports is that someone named Robert Kirkpatrick Howat was a member of the society and admitted in 1841. While it's probable that this is the same Robert Howat that is the subject of the article, it's not for sure because there is no other identifying information in the source beyond the location of the member. Given gentry naming patterns, it's possible that the member was actually a cousin or other relative of the subject of the article - we can't be sure. And of course, putting this source on the first two sentences implies that the source ALSO supports "Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat (died before 1882) of Mabie, in the parish of Troqueer, Kirkcudbrightshire, was a Scottish land-owner." ... which it doesn't. Maybe this is a one off - so I picked an article at random - W. H. Porter. It's a two sentence stub sourced to this obit notice from 1861. "William H. Porter was professor of surgery in the school of the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland from 1836. He was noted for his writing on the larynx and the trachea." is the entirety of the article - but looking at the source, there isn't anything in there that says "He was noted for his writing on the larynx and the trachea", which appears to be OR from the fact that some of his writings were about those subjects. Another issue is that the source used actually has a lot more information in it that could be in the article, but isn't. Why write an article and omit information andleave the article as a two sentence stub? So lets look at a longer article W. H. Prior. Here we have more issues with sourcing - the three sentences "William Prior was born in Bloomsbury, London, in 1812. He married Amelia and they had two sons and two daughters. At the time of the 1871 census he was described as an Artist and living in Hammersmith." are sourced to the 1871 England and Wales census. That's a primary source, first of all. How do we know that's the correct Prior? And second - does it really support that first sentence? And if it does - it's still a primary source and not reliable. Then the 1881 England and Wales Census is used to support a further sentence - again, census interpretation is something we should rightly leave to the historians - we should NOT be using it as a source because its easy to get the wrong person. Then "Prior was a follower of Thomas Bewick's pupil William Harvey." is sourced to a mention in a diary, basically. It's not awful, but not exactly a great source. Then there's "The Magazine of Art, Vol. 13, p. 335." as a source - year? Article? Author? That's not really enough of a citation to be able to easily verify the information. And the last source is again a primary source - the probate record. We really really really need to be using secondary sources - we're not historians, we're encyclopedists. There's a difference. I have to say I don't find the article contributions that impressive, and there are some sloppy sourcing issues to go with the close paraphrasing concerns brought above. At this point, I can't support and must oppose based on the problems with copyright and paraphrasing. (sorry for the wall of text) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    Ealdgyth, would it be possible to condense this comment a bit or move most of it to the talk page? It's very long. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    Come on, this is not an AE court case, no-one is obliged to read a given comment if they don't want to. – Uanfala (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

    It makes the RfA a pain to scroll through. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

    As a general tip for the room: we can use {{pb}} to insert paragraph breaks inline without breaking the vote numbering. Mz7 (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

    Just a note Ealdgyth to say that those Google books refs with the wrong years weren't done by me. They were by someone else who shall remain nameless. I think you will find that the ones you noted were correct were mine. You are absolutely right about the need not to take Google books auto-generated details at face value. They are often completely wrong. I check every single Google books ref I do against the underlying scan. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

31. Oppose. I'm ok with an admin candidate who is not widely familiar with all of the admin areas and a niche desire for the tools if they have a good content creation track record and provide good answers to questions. I don't see that as the case here, particularly with the answers to questions raised - there are too many causes for concern. I also agree with the other points raised in the oppose section, particularly the points raised by Swarm. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
32. Oppose - In addition to concerns about copyright issues and inexperience dealing with conflict, I have concerns about what seems to me to be a "shoot first, ask questions later" editing style the candidate displays in their answer to question 6. I can understand someone knowing about additional (sourceable) information and not adding it right away for whatever reason, but I have a hard time understanding someone putting claims into an article and stating that they had additional sources but didn't insert them at the time. Apologies if I misunderstood that bit of the candidate's answer. I also have a hard time seeing how the subject of the article in question was considered notable unless he is far more notable in sources that the candidate has not yet added. I think an admin should have a better sense of notability and should have known that that article was not ready to be moved to the main page space. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
33. Oppose concerns with close paraphrasing. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
34. Oppose because of the close paraphrasing issues and seeming lack of understanding of policy in their answers. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 16:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
35. Oppose I'm not really convinced of this candidate yet for the reasons that have been mentioned above in this section. Close paraphrasing, question No. 6 and being unwilling to work admimistratively outside his comfort zone (re AIV) are only some of points I object to. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
36. Oppose, based on review and per Drmies and others, does not seem ready for the mop. Kierzek (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
37. Oppose. Too many loose ends, too much "Yeah, I'll fix that later", not enough work in admin-related areas. Yintan  18:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
38. Oppose COI is an important policy that all administrators must understand clearly whether they are working in content, COIN, or other administrative areas. RFA questions are essentially an open-book test and the answer to Q11 was a bit concerning. There is no doubt this candidate is a net positive and I hope they decide to keep editing, but I do not think they are ready for adminship at this time. Mkdw ^talk 18:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
39. Oppose Looks to be a one-hit-wonder, just wants tools for a limited area in the whole wide world. The Banner talk 21:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
40. Oppose As per Drmies, Katie, and Mkdw. I don't think the candidate is ready for the mop yet, until they gain some more experience in the admin areas - especially the copyright issue is a deal-breaker. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
41. Oppose Too many problems, as mentioned by others. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

    Reluctant opposemoved to Neutral I would be excited to see more content creators get the mop, and the lack of experience on noticeboards isn't of much concern to me. I do think there is a demonstrated need: content creation and DYK. But, like Swarm said above, I would expect excellence. Close paraphrasing issues are obviously concerning (working in content areas, that would be a big task), the issue of the draftified article Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat is troubling (see Ealdgyth above), and AFD issues raised by NorthAmerica in the Neutral section. It feels like a million tiny papercuts, each one bearable alone, but together make it hard to trust the bit will be used with the necessary clue. With over 4000 articles created, there's been no FAs and what seems to be only two GAs. Creating stubs and DYKs is not easy work and I am not trying to diminish that, but I would like to see more follow through especially since it would temper my concerns about knowledge of policy. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

42. Oppose very regretfully. I appreciate all the work, a lot. I am very well aware, even if it is an article like Charles Chute, it does take time, and efforts. I dont mind just a little paraphrasing. Sometimes it happens naturally. One creates a sentence in their own word, but later turns out it exists on some other source. Swarm stole rest of my thoughts and put them in words, in his oppose. But on the other side, I hope you answer/resolve the issues presented, and run another RfA in future. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
43. Regretful oppose per Drmies. --John (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
44. Oppose because of the close paraphrasing issues. Also opposing as per the reasons Softlavender gave. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 09:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
45. The close paraphrasing issue is an automatic no from me. --Rschen7754 16:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
46. Reluctant oppose. I have been on the fence for this one for several days now. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support this RFA. Two main problems have been brought forward up till now: the creation of one- or two-line stubs without adequate sourcing and the close paraphrasing problems signaled by Drmies. If you think about it, both could be avoided with spending just a few more minutes (re-phrasing a sentence so that it is not a close paraphrase any more does not even take that long) on these new articles. I feel that both issues might actually reflect an underlying tendency of simply going too fast. Whether it's because of editcountitis as surmised by Softlavender or something else, it is not a characteristic that I like to see in an admin. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
47. Oppose - I thought i could possibly stay out of this one, but reading the comments, and the evidence presented, I'm afraid I cannot. It could be considered a borderline case, and I respect many of the "support" !voters, but significant issues have been raised, and not been answered to my satisfaction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
48. Oppose (weak Oppose, changed from Neutral). The candidate shows a stable temperament, which is a huge plus. I am not impressed by the large content creation; some of it is poorly sourced with a tendency to prioritise quantity above quality. I am disturbed by what seems to be a not yet mature grasp of the strategy of policy and its implementation. Wikipedia needs more administrators, so I would like to give the benefit of the doubt, but cannot quite do that for this case now. I could support a second run later if a clearer understanding of policy strategy is demonstrated then. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC).
49. Oppose with regret. The close paraphrasing issue is a significant one, and there have been DYK nominations in the past where I have been unhappy with where their line has been drawn; I wish it weren't still an issue. Of equal importance is that Philafrenzy hasn't been involved with the nuts and bolts of running DYK beyond nominating articles and doing quid pro quo reviews (and those only because they are required): the key experience I would expect of anyone wishing to be a DYK admin is building prep sets, because the sort of checking done while assembling a prep set and rechecking each nomination, which doesn't require an administrator, is directly applicable to promoting a prep set to queue, which does require admin privileges. Fixing prep sets—missing credits, problematic hook grammar, etc.—is the sort of work done by anyone, but that only admins can do to queues. The statement in answer to Question 19, Only an administrator can place a DYK hook (the sentence with the interesting fact in it) on the main page and only an admin can change if it is found to be wrong. shows an incomplete understanding of the actual DYK process, and one that I find concerning: it is typically a bot that places DYK hooks on the main page by copying the next available queue to the main page DYK template; admins are concerned with making sure a queue is ready for the bot, and for correcting any issues in the queue and on the main DYK page. I would want to see at least a couple of months of successful work in the DYK trenches before the mop is considered, especially since this is their primary reason for wanting it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
50. Oppose. I'm not super concerned about the close paraphrasing. It is hard to find the right balance in biographical articles with limited sources. More importantly, it seems to be a mistake made in good faith; it's not that Philafrenzy doesn't understand or care about close paraphrasing. On the other hand, if someone is asking for the tools primarily on the back of their content creation, and proposes to use them in a highly visible content area like DYK, then their content creation should be 100% squeaky clean. But unfortunately, I don't see anything else in the nomination, statement or questions that indicates competence in maintenance areas. AfD is mentioned, but in fact Philafrenzy is not very active there, and you don't have to go back far to find worrying nominations like this and this. Fram's observation above, that he can already help prepare DYK queues and has not done so is also a good point. Similarly, I have been watching WP:ERRORS for several months (after someone posted to WP:AN complaining about the lack of admin participation there) and found nothing to do there in that time. Sorry Philafrenzy, but I don't know why you would want to start getting into maintenance tasks anyway. You are much more valuable to the project as a content creator. – Joe (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

    A small point, but FWIW, when I look in on DYK, it most often seems to be the queues (admin-only) that are empty or nearly so and need more hands, not the preps (where a good number of regular editors usually seem pretty eager to promote hooks). The these rather alarming notices drive home the point for me--without wanting to knock anyone doing the hard work now (thank you!), it can't be good for quality that it semi-regularly comes down to "clock's ticking, you have two hours to check a prepped set of hooks and move to the queue!" Would think more hands and more breathing room would be a good thing, at least in principle (I realize you had other concerns, just to address the "why would a content creator want to do this?" aspect--I'm not even a DYK regular and seeing those alerts makes me think, "Yikes I should be doing something about that!") Innisfree987 (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

51. Oppose. I have no doubts as to their commitment to the project but I don't like the possibility that they will be asked to act as an admin and make the wrong decision regarding copyright violations. It appears this is a long-standing issue. Ifnord (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
52. Oppose: Reading all this list of opposes, there are just too many concerns. Athough I am not fond of DYKs, it is an area where mistakes end on the front page and the queues should be good safeguards. I will echo Fram's concern early on, as well as the entire statement of Softlavendar, Drmies, the answer to question 6. and per GiantSnowman, Katie (her entire oppose #20) and Dane. I dip my hands into some COI editing for a few paid editors I respect and trust their work, so I am not stabbing in the dark.. Close paraphrasing, limited sourcing...the list goes on. Definately oppose although for once I have no problems with temperament. This is an editor who should remain out of the ring of admins. Sorry. Fylbecatulous talk 22:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
53. Oppose. When it comes time for my work to be adjudged, I don't want it to be in the hands of an admin who throws material up without taking basic essential steps, shrugging, leaving them for later, and moving on to creating the next page, building page count, not quality. sirlanz 09:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
54. Oppose Having reviewed the evidence presented with regards to close paraphrasing and possibly copyright violations, and problematic sourcing in at least one instance, I find myself unable to support the candidate this time around. I also did a cursory review of Philafrenzy's deleted contributions, and found a recent instance where they created an article in mainspace[11], did a few edits, then blanked the page and (incorrectly) tagged it for deletion under criterion A3. Besides the incorrect tagging, it seems to me that the article should not have been put in main space in the first place. This coincides with some concerns raised that the candidate may be a bit too "trigger-happy" when it comes to page creation. decltype (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

    Well, that he tagged it with A3 rather than {{Db-g7}} seems a bit splitting hairs to me, though perhaps part of a pattern of lack of attention to details. wbm1058 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

55. Oppose with regret, per Drmies, Fram, Bluemoonset and others. Regret because beyond the correctable issues identified above, Philafrenzy has good intentions and has been a valuable contributor as Kudpung and others rightly state. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
56. Oppose. I am unconvinced by most of the oppose rationales given above, with one exception. Copyright is a "big deal", and plagiarism has no place on Wikipedia. Either restate in your own words, or use a direct quote. Kablammo (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
57. Oppose Close paraphrasing is an issue. Furthermore I really don't see enough activity in administrative areas and therefore I don't see any need for tools. desmay (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
58. Oppose per Drmies, Fram and others. Also this edit, which ignores WP:PRESERVE, and the followup conversation leave me of the opinion that the nominee should not have the tools. This could change in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 14:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

    Formatting refs using an automated tool and accepting whatever it produces, however, useless, is not the way to go Marnette. We need to apply human intelligence to the use of these tools. You said "They are formatted by refill so they are fine" but that's not true. They mostly lack author, publication, date, and date retrieved. If a tool doesn't work well on a particular occasion we should do them by hand. I tried as nicely as I could to get that across to you. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

    You were presented with several options in how to proceed with things including improving the refs yourself. Instead you chose to make a unfounded competence claims. Add your response here to that and it confirms my opinion that you do not have the temperament needed to be an admin. MarnetteD|Talk 17:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

59. per above Hhkohh (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
60. Oppose per copyright concerns. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
61. Oppose because of the lackluster responses to copyright concerns. Close paraphrasing is a complex issue, and I'm not convinced that a verbal commitment to be more careful is sufficient to ensure that there won't be issues going forward. I would like to see a year without issues, thereby demonstrating an understanding of the issue and an ability to actually avoid it in the future, before supporting. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

    I'll elaborate on my rationale to address some points made elsewhere. I don't find the argument that "close paraphrasing isn't an admin issue" to be convincing. It is a legal issue, and being an administrator is a position of trust: not just within the community, but for the public as a whole. People both outside of Wikipedia and within trust that those people running and maintaining it represent the project's aims and modi operandi, and so I find it unacceptable for an admin to be skirting and/or violating not just core policies but ones with legal implications. The assertion that some of these cases are nuanced is more cogent, but I don't find it sufficiently convincing. For one thing, my experience is that experienced editors and especially administrators get extra leeway with some of the more nuanced policies, and I do worry that granting him the bit could allow him to wiggle out of some less glaring but nevertheless present problems in the future. The other is that a general pattern of sloppiness (with the refs about two different people in one article, for example) imply many of these cases probably aren't just issues of unrefactorable terms, but rather situations where at least a slightly better option could have been found if a little more effort was put in. As someone terrible at content creation, I thank Philafrenzy for doing it, but cutting corners is not best approach to content creation, and certainly has caused many an editor problems while administrating. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

1. On the fence waiting for the responses to a few more questions. I'd like to know more about the WP:DYK queue, as this seems to be the crux of the request. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Neutral for the time being. I am very impressed with the numerous article creations and DYK contributions, but I am less than impressed with some of the users past AfD nominations that were based upon two or three words (e.g. "not notable") and appeared to possibly lack any WP:BEFORE searching to ascertain notability. Some of these nominations also may have simply been based upon the state of sourcing in articles, which is not a true indicator of notability, as per WP:NEXIST. To illustrate my concerns, here are some past AfD nominations that I found to be troubling: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   The only thing troubling about your example no. 1 (Becky's Diner — a "historic diner" first opened in 1991!) is that the first deletion debate didn't close Delete, which was the fairly strong consensus, but rather closed No Consensus. Not quite sure why redoing a No Consensus (strongly tending to Delete) was "troubling." Baffling. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   I thought I was clear that I am concerned about past nominations with little rationale for deletion provided. For example, in example #1 in my !vote above, the entire basis for the nomination was "Non notable restaurant", with no further clarification qualifying said opinion. Also, my !vote herein is not intended to be a notability discussion about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   Reassuringly, only one of those examples is more recent than...2014. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   (edit conflict × a lot) Most of these AfDs are from 2014 or prior; unless I'm mistaken, this is the only "recent" one and it's from June 2016. Do you have any evidence of WP:BEFORE omissions made by the candidate in the past year or so? (Of course you can apply whatever criteria you want – I'm just asking because it affects my opinion.) I see that some of their nominations are still lacking detail, but can't find any specific !votes or noms that are clearly misjudged (though I can't see deleted pages). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   @Bilorv: In this AfD discussion, the user's !vote, placed on 15 March 2018 (UTC), is entirely based upon the state of sourcing in the article, "Delete Article at present does not have a single reference." Regardless of the actual notability or lack thereof for the topic, this goes entirely against the grain of WP:NEXIST, a significant part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page. As such, I'm not convinced that the user has a sufficient grasp of notability guidelines. Since the user opined for deletion using this non-qualifying rationale for a non-BLP article, I am concerned that they may incorrectly apply weight to said non-qualifying rationales when closing deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   I've seen that type of voting often enough from many editors I think well of, as much as I agree with NA1000 on how poor a rationale it is. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

3. Neutral - For the time being at least. Reading through the first three answers, I uh, felt the answers were rather tepid overall. Without going into full analysis mode, I'll just pick on one thing that... well..: o.0? I am mainly a content creator and so would say my 300+ Did You Knows, most of them joint. Working in a team to expand an article from almost nothing to complete enough to appear on the front page is something I enjoy. Ok, so you're heavily involved in creating start-up articles for the encyclopaedia. 300 DYKs is also very impressive. That second sentence bugs me though, because getting an article to be "complete enough to appear on the front page" is a rather low bar: new article, 1,500+ characters of written prose, hook must be cited, and the article must comply with the core policies. This is a couple hours of work at most. Now one may say 300 DYKs by 3 manhours each is 600 manhours dedicated to the project. I am, however, a quality over quantity person. One detailed, comprehensive and well written article matters more to me than even a thousand Start-class ones. I also feel that the encyclopaedia has moved well away from creation to maintenance. Sure, there are articles to create, but there's so many more articles to improve. I did see the two GAs, and they are both short articles at around 9k bytes in length. Now, I've supported candidates with much less content creation under their belt. Moreover you're planning on working DYK and ERRORS, which you do seem qualified for. So why the fuss? In a word? seem. Your answer to Fram's question was weak. You suggest that you have many sources at the ready for the article. So why aren't they in the article? You've created a further five articles since then, and they're either stubs or very early start class articles. I will wait for a few days before I decide whether that seem is an is or not. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   NeutralMoved to oppose. Basically for the same reasons as Mr rnddude. Content creation seems to prioritize quantity over quality. At best, creating bad stubs like Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat and leave them for others to deal with is bad form. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   If I may reply to Mr rnddude and Randykitty jointly about Howat - It had an under construction tag on it because I was still working on it. It was not abandoned, just unfinished. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   [12], [13], [14]. --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   It is okay for an article (in article space) to be "incomplete" or a stub. It is not okay for an article in article space to be wrong (such as conflating two different people with the same name). Nor is it a great idea for it to be in article space if there is little/no evidence of notability. --B (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   What I see is a pattern: quantity/speed over quality. The examples I gave above: one was changed to a redirect by Philafrenzy when it was tagged for notability, the other two were expanded with little effort by others, adding content and independent references demonstrating notability. These are just three examples that I was personally involved with because of my interest in academic journals, so I'm reasonably confident that these three are more or less random examples, indicative of a pattern. --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   That might be a fair criticism of the overall quality of their content work, but how it is relvant to their fitness for adminship is a bit obscure to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   This may be a bit in the eye of the beholder; I also did a spot check and saw a good number of entries begun as stubs that attracted the interest of others who had something to add, and grew into nice entries (page histories to see these trajectories: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc.) I'd be more worried if a larger number had been shown to be non-notable, but with a deletion rate below 1% and responsiveness when a specific notability standard is raised (Q3), to me it seems like the method of beginning stubs to allow for easier addition of content is working to the benefit of the encyclopedia. And folks who don't want to work on developing the stubs don't have to, of course. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral Moved to oppose while I await further details and consider the issues already raised. As of now I'm fairly unimpressed by the content creation or answers to questions and am not seeing anything else this user is bringing to the table apart from being a warm body for DYK, certainly not impressed enough to participate in the an early-game pileon. I can be swayed either way at this point. Swarm ♠ 21:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

4. Neutral I'm a bit concerned about low edit summary usage, and would like to see an answer to Q8. TeraTIX 23:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   Answer is fairly vague and not exactly filling me with confidence. Q5 is also worrying. TeraTIX 02:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning oppose. I'm concerned about the general creation of low-notability articles and close paraphrasings. Several articles sourced only to a Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists document appear to be too-close paraphrases (Gordon Fitzgerald, Archibald Donald). José Eugenio Olavide is another article that feels problematic. With the sheer volume of articles created, having a few issues like this is both inevitable and acceptable, but from a spot check it feels to me that it may be 5% of creations (especially if you discount stubs like Edmund Bray), which is a lot. As a result, I'm not yet convinced that his presence at DYK as an admin would be beneficial to the project. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   I may be missing something, but I don't see the expected WP:QPQ reviews of other DYKs. Most of Philafrenzy's nominations are co-nominations with Whispyhistory, who does have plenty of these. I don't see how they can expect to be an admin in this area if they haven't done reviews. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Whispyistory wanted experience at reviewing and so has been doing them recently on joint nominations. You can find mine further down the list Power~enwiki. I don't know how many I have done but it must be over 100. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   moved to support power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

5. Will wait for the answers for the concerns related to AfDs, raised by Northamerica1000. Kraose (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
6. Neutral As what everyone has said, most of the "articles" created by Phila in the past few years consist of just one or two liners, stubs which probably have no hope of ever being expanded. Think WP:PERMASTUB. Look at Charles Chute, there isn't much coverage of it online (web searches give ancestry or art pic results, indicating low notability). This can be said for many of his other permastub articles, showing quantity over quality articles. Thus his point of being a "top article creator" doesn't really apply since a majority of the texts have low purpose. Being an admin means more than creating 4000 of these articles, so I hope to see him talk more about the technical side of Wikipedia instead. aNode (discuss) 09:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Try William_Lyde_Wiggett_Chute, aNode. Charles was a spin-off for the sake of completeness. You can find the long ones on the right of my user page. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

7. Neutral I have concerns about the close paraphrasing, and some of the weak AfD rationales highlighted by Northamerica1000, which make me wonder whether Philafrenzy has a firm grasp of policy in these important areas. While it is true that we need admins in DYK/ERRORS, I am unsure whether Philafrenzy has sufficient experience in the administrative rather than content side of DYK, and I await his answer to Cwmhiraeth's question on that subject.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. Change to Oppose. The most important quality of an administrator is mental stability, so that the person doesn't run amok with megalomania as a result of the authority they hold on Wikipedia, that is denied to them in real life by their temperament, going to their head. I do not think that the candidate shows signs of this shortcoming. I am, though, not so impressed by the large number of article created, some of which seems to be trivial and derivative. From his answers to the questions I have doubts that the candidate has the street smarts needed for what can be a tough job in dispute resolution. Would he be a liability to Wikipedia? I doubt it, but he might need a lot of guidance. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC).

8. Neutral Clue issues re: close paraphrasing and nonfree images, but not enough to oppose. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral I commend this user for having and extensive edit history. It is concerning to me that Philafrenzy has participated in over 500 AfDs, for I am more of a fan of trying to save articles through expansion than I am of deletion. However, a total of 84.2% of their votes end up matching the results, so at least this shows me that their vote aligns with the general view of most of their participating AfDs. The user’s lack of admin experience is a yellow flag, but it’s not a major concern, since the user can gain that experience as an admin. I also recognize the concerns of those who have already opposed your RfA. Your history of copyediting is concerning but my hope that you would refrain or limit it as much as possible if you were to become an admin. You have so many start pages that it depresses me that many of them will probably never be worked on. Your lack of summary usage doesn’t really concern me, because I’m very guilty of not using it and it would be hypocritical of me to hold that against you. The main thing I am trying to comprehend is why you need admin rights for DYK. I am still awaiting a more concrete answer to Nihlus’s question number 5. Moving to Support Neovu79 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

   You need admin rights to move a hook set from the preps to the queues, and to modify erroneous hooks (or just make a suggested improvement) once the hooks are in the queue or on the main page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

9. While I don't believe that granting the mop here would be a net negative, there are some valid concerns raised by those in the opposition. I'm a reluctant neutral on this one. I greatly appreciate the content creation work, but just can't put myself into the supporting column right now. Strikerforce^Talk 21:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
10. Neutral - I generally support RfAs but the copyright/close paraphrasing issue is too big. However, I agree that we need more admins at DYK, so Ill vote neutral. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
11. Neutral since I appreciate the candidate's work and also deeply disturbed by substantial issues raised in the Oppose section. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
12. Neutral - Sorry, I just wanted to throw my hat in here in case this concludes before I have a chance to comb over all of these oppose votes and evaluate you more depth. Based on the answers to my questions, you've passed the {{schoolblock}}/{{anonblock}}/{{rangeblock}} test for access to the nuclear codes; I'm not concerned about you nuking England over a snide comment made by the Queen anonblocking the entire United States Army or schoolblocking the county school district or the Chritsian college whose edits I've been monitoring (and seen nothing worthy of a rangeblock at). That said, there's more to my votes WP:RFA than that, and with this weekend being the conclusion of the summer semester at Liberty University Online, I just don't have the time to evaluate everything in depth until I finish these last few assignments. If this hasn't concluded when I get those assignments finished, and I see no reason to oppose, I will support you. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
13. Neutral After some more thought and reading some recent supports, I think oppose doesn't accurately reflect my opinions. I don't think the candidate would be a bad admin, I do think they'd be a net positive, but there are enough things that give me pause to give my support. I do hope they'll learn from these comments, and if given the mop be better than we're giving credit here, but that's not something I can hang my hat on. I don't think I can support right now, but I don't think giving them the mop would necessarily be a net negative, so I will be neutral. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
14. Neutral still on the fence and likely to remain that way for the duration. Lepricavark (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
15. Neutral Prolific content creator, but if there seem to be copyright issues being raised and not being answered properly, I couldn't convince myself to vote a support. While one can argue that the problems raised in oppose can be fixed with efforts and experience, the fact that this has not already been done, concerns me. I will keep myself trenched here, With intention to vote support in this users next RfA should they come back stronger after learning from the oppose suggestions. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
16. Neutral considered this RFA for six days now, reading and re-reading all comments and there are a number of very good points made by those opposing, including issues of close paraphrasing and concerns over lack of experience in administrative areas as well as misunderstandings of policy. I changed my mind multiple times in the last days, from supporting to opposing to neutral. I was actually in the process of writing a support !vote but what I wrote failed to be able to convince myself and if I can't convince myself who can I convince? After everything I've read I came to the conclusion that it might be a slight net positive for the project to give the candidate the tools, seeing as they apparently are able to take feedback into account and act accordingly. Unfortunately, they exhibited too many mistakes during this RFA after issues were raised, such as the answers to Q11 and Q12, that I do not feel comfortable supporting at this point. I hope the candidate will take the feedback into account regardless of whether the request succeeds or fails. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
17. Neutral I find myself in the same situation as SoWhy above. The candidate impresses me, but there are enough question marks that I don't feel comfortable adding my support. However, I don't feel that there are enough negatives to end up in the oppose camp. CThomas³ (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

General comments

• Duplicated first line - I feel the issue in Q12 seems a little OTT. A single line near-duplicate is both an excessive obligation towards paraphrasing and in some circumstances near-necessary by the line's topic and purpose. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• @PCHS-NJROTC: Questions 20 and 21 are pretty specialist; does your support / oppose of the candidate rest on the answer/s you get to them? Just that, range blocks (apart from being something the candidate has expressed absolutely no interest in whatsoever) are something that even some seasoned admins are uncomfortable with doing themselves. Q21 is certainly—interesting, although does the answer really have to be found in the minutiae of a ~70,000byte talk page?! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually commend an RfA candidate for having the hutzpah to admit their lack of specific knowledge and interest rather than giving a poor answer Nosebagbear (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No, but if their answer is bad enough it is an autofail. I have to evaluate further into this one before voting, but based on the answers alone he would get a support. I just happen to be busy at the moment. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

---

When I looked at Philafrenzy's contributions, I thought "gosh, that's an awful lot of stubs". I looked to see if his talk page contained evidence of : AfD notifications that then closed as "delete", CSD notifications (especially G12), any other Twinkle warnings, or "You may be blocked next time you do 'x'" messages. I found a few AfD notifications that closed as "keep" aside from one WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, a few notes about the sizes of FUR files (which a number of other experienced users are now getting too) and that was about it. You can't pull the wool over the eyes of everyone working at DYK and ERRORS and if his nominations were problematic, somebody would have proposed sanctions at WT:DYK. As far as I know, this has not happened. The conclusion I reached from this corpus of evidence is that the community has decided that Philafrenzy does not violate policy and does not need sanctioning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You are aware that opposing someone's RfA is not the same as sanctioning them, right? And that no(?) policy violations had been noted before his RfA is hardly evidence that he doesn't violate policy. He was warned for way too often having problems with close paraphrasing in 2014, and while it seems that the actual number of issues has been reduced, it clearly hasn't disappeared (see e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Spooner Churchill, where again issues of close paraphrasing were raised, which you dismissed out of hand. The two articles I moved to draft space may not be policy violations (although this is debatable), the article I noted which was an unattributed translation of the French Wikipedia article definitely is a policy violation. "the community has decided that Philafrenzy does not violate policy" is a nonsense statement in its own right, and even more so after evidence to the contrary has been unearthed. You really aren't helping your nominee with such an ill thought-out statement, but that is something we shouldn't hold against them of course. Fram (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood my point - I added this comment in the "general" section because it was not a critique or comment on anything else anyone has said. Rather I see people in the "oppose" section that I like as admins, have nominated for RfA, or who I would like to nominate at RfA but for various issues. So I was attempting to justify the nomination for those I respect who may be confused about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

How is it relevant, midway through an RfA, to give an out-of-the-blue comment about your reasons to nominate the person which don't address the issues raised during the RfA? This is a page to discuss the suitability of Philafrenzy for RfA, not a page for you to add some self-justification. This belongs at the RfA talk page, or even better at your own talk page. The motives, qualities, judgment, ... of the nominator have no come into play in this RfA, let's keep it that way please. Fram (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to add as a final word to my oppose vote, that I had fully explained why I did not, exceptionally, find it necessary to my own research. There are so many statements of research from users and admins for whom I have the utmost respect that I can rely on their comments and those of other admins who have 'piled on'. I completely understand Ritchie333's disappointment at the result as it stands at the moment, but there is no need for anyone to add to the drama with borderline PA. No nominator needs to run a possible candidature through me; I may be a loud voice on things RfA, done a lot of research for it, and written some advice pages, and nominated our most successful candidate ever (which would have passed with flying colours whoever had been the nominator), but I'm not its gatekeeper. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is in my opinion totally unhelpful that nominators find the need to "ride shotgun" over their nominee's RFA. It is unnecessary and does the candidate no benefit. It is a not an infrequent cause of disruption and needs to end. As for the lack of research - I do not see any research at all in many support !votes and opposes for that matter. Using respected colleagues research as a short cut is entirely acceptable - seen in many, many times. Personal research before !vote is not a requirement here. Leaky Caldron 07:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Ritchie's actual point, and Philafrenzy's updated statement where he astutely observes that regular editors receive little feedback on their work: I think part of the problem is that Philafrenzy has had autopatrolled for years. In my experience DYK is extremely hit-and-miss when it comes to reviewing content. People doing their QPQ run down the checklist but often miss glaring problems that aren't on the list. New page patrollers are much better at screening for copyvios, and I can't help thinking that had Philafrenzy's creations had that extra pair of eyes, this issue could have been brought up earlier and addressed rather than potentially sinking his RfA. – Joe (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, that was precisely the point I was making. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Using a respected colleague’s research as a shortcut isn’t, per se, the problem, if the research is good. It’s piggybacking on the research when it’s tendentious. Sometimes this means borrowing someone else’s prejudices.

My feelings on DYK being what they are, I’m not going to weigh in here beyond that. Qwirkle (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)