Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philosopher

Philosopher

Voice your opinion (talk page) (42/10/0); Scheduled to end 09:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher (talk · contribs) - Philosopher, formerly known as Tim4christ17, has had been around the encyclopedia since 2005 and has over 6,000 edits to his name, including over 2,000 edits to the Mainspace. He focuses primarily on improving articles related to WikiProject Iowa, focusing especially on the articles of Iowa legislators. Other focuses on Wikipedia include reverting vandalism (including WP:SPEEDY'ing articles), dealing with copyright violations, and working with templates. In case anyone cares, the reason my activity has been somewhat sporadic in the past is because I tend to have significantly more time to edit during breaks from college; note that it is currently dead week where I am, so replies may not be as swift as I would like. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; self-nom. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Most of my work on Wikipedia deals with the "small things" that don't earn a great deal of attention. As an administrator, I intend continue that practice by focusing primarily on speedy deletions of articles and with copyright problems. If/when these backlogs are taken care of, I plan to work on dealing with other areas of the Administrative backlog as needed, as well as granting non-controversial {{editprotected}} requests. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

A: There are a few exceptions to the "small things" rule I noted above. Particularly, I am proud of creating WikiProject Iowa as a place to coordinate activity related to the state, and of creating the vast majority of the articles of current Iowa legislators. Other notable contributions include creating Iowa Senate elections, 2006 and Iowa House of Representatives elections, 2006. In the template space, contributions include {{NarniaColor}}, {{Project Iowa}}, and the now depreciated {{Narnia character}}. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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: My most recent conflict was at CfD and is recorded here. I believe it ended in a friendly manner - the Civility Award I awarded User:Good Olfactory is still on his userpage, at any rate. I believe I've learned quite a bit since my first "real" dispute in 2006 (link1 link2).

When disputes arise in the future, and they almost certainly will, I intend to a) listen to what the other person has to say, b) review relevant information (article, policy, etc.) even if I think I already know everything about the disputed issue, c) remain WP:CIVIL, and d) respect consensus, regardless of whether it agrees with me. This doesn't mean that I'll ignore policy or let, for instance, WP:BLP violations go without remedy, but it does mean I intend to continue to conduct myself on Wikipedia in a respectful manner. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

4. (Optional) Please choose a question from User:Filll/AGF Challenge, and give an answer, including your reasoning, below. Thanks, and good luck. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A. I chose the first question - "My wife is not a coauthor", my response is that I would first attempt to verify that the complaint and threat of a lawsuit we had received had actually come from the author in question. Presumably if the author is so annoyed that he is threatening Wikipedia, and if he is so "famous" that he is giving interviews, it is possible to contact him in some way outside of e-mail and therefore ensure that it is actually the author filing the complaint and not someone trying to play a prank on Wikipedia. Second, I would double-check the interviews records that the question stipulated, to ensure that the author himself had claimed that he and his wife co-authored the books. Finally, if the e-mail was confirmed to be legitimate (saying there was just one author) and the interviews said what we thought they said (that there were two co-authors), I would edit the article to reflect that the author had stated in the interviews that he and his wife coauthored the books, but that he now disputed that fact and claimed sole ownership of the work in question, sourcing both statements. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Which claim (author wrote himself vs. author co-wrote) should be given more weight, or presented as the "correct one"? (Not suggesting that we violate NPOV, but obviously, the one that's mentioned first is more likely to be read as the "correct" version by the innocent reader...) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would attempt to present them equally in the article - but would mention the "co-wrote" option first, as it was chronologically the first claim we have a source for. The quote would be in the form mentioned above - that the first claim was that the book was co-written and that the author later disputed that claim and said that it was written by one person. I would probably leave fields in an Infobox blank until/unless I could verify what the disputed book itself said about authorship, at which time that would be given the "weight". And would be, of course, mentioned in the article (as a source) as well.--Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Keepscases

5. Can you explain the number one entry in this Wikipedia list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages

A.Could you be more precise? What is it you want to know about the entry? The first entry at Special:LongPages is currently William Hopkins, which the special page purports to be 531,560 bytes. This length was the result of vandalism, which has since been reverted by User:213.89.143.7. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional Questions from ArcAngel

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A. A banned user is told, in effect, that he is not welcome in Wikipedia, or in the part of Wikipedia he is banned from. A blocked user is no longer to actually edit and, in some cases, may not be able to create an account; this is a "technical change" that occurs when an administrator hits the "block" button. Among other things, a block is one of the methods available to enforce a ban. The purpose of a block is different from the purpose of a ban as well; a ban will usually result following an WP:ARBCOM decision, while a block can be instituted by any administrator in order to prevent damage to the project, in accordance with the blocking policy. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

7. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A. Never, per WP:CDB. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

8. Do you feel that blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?

A. Probably not in a technical sense, but it's better to be safe than sorry. What I'd do - I'd protect my userpage (only in the case of a very persistent vandal), warn the user, and if he kept vandalizing, would report it at WP:AIV or to another administrator. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from WilliamH

9. Why did you decide to setup this RfA in the runup to your final exams?

A. With the summer coming up, I know I'll have time to work on Wikipedia, including working on the administrative backlogs I mentioned in Q1. So it seemed like an appropriate time to request the necessary tools. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Malinaccier

10. In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator on Wikipedia? How will your actions reflect this?

A.Considering that adminship is no big deal, I would consider that generally the role of administrators is to use the additional tools they have access to responsibly. Granted, there are a few cases where access to the tools will make a difference - for WP:AfD's to be closed as "delete" by administrators would make sense b/c only they can actually carry out the decision, while a "keep" decision can be made and "carried out" by any non-involved party - but for the most part, they are just editors with a larger toolbelt. I believe my answer to Q1 addresses how this philosophy will impact my actions as an administrator on Wikipedia. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from The Transhumanist   

11. Have you read Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools, Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide, Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, and the pages listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list? The Transhumanist    23:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A. I have now.  ;-) Well, except for the reading list, which is a list of articles (policies, guidelines, and essays) that should be read if/when the administrator encounters a particular issue(s) addressed in the list. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I have read most of the articles on the reading list just through my normal work on Wikipedia. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Monobi (talk)

11. Are optional questions really optional?

A. I feel compelled to say they are voluntary, but would note that (A -> A). On a more serious note, most questions should be answered. But apparently they don't have to be answered. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Philosopher: Philosopher (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Philosopher before commenting.

Discussion

• And this is just my opinion, those AGF challenge questions/scenarios are terrible and have no place in RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about all of them, but the particular question he chose to answer I previously said was a very bad question to use in RfAs. It is a very big trap question, but I cannot ignore the response. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nor can I. Sigh, a shame really. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm curious as to how people would react if an RFA candidate refused to answer one of those questions. --Sharkface^T/_C 19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Out of interest - how would you have answered that question if asked? Dan Beale-Cocks 21:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • • • There are a couple of questions on this RfA that I don't care about. So I wouldn't change my answer if they get answered or not. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Honestly, some of the questions drew huge blanks from me. If I were ever in that position with admin tools, I'd thoroughly research solutions, but then bring it to the attention of somebody who may have more experience in the matter. --Sharkface^T/_C 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to express, first of all, an apology to Philosopher if my asking Q4 should fail this RfA. It would be a great shame if it did, for the reasons outlined in my support.
  I have a few people to respond to, so I'll leave them here. Firstly, this candidate was not a "guinea pig"—these questions have been asked in and out of RfA before, the challenge has been popular outside of RfA, and they are realistic situations. The attitude that RfA should be made ridiculously easy so candidates aren't forced to back away slowly (Keeper, apologies for quoting you so much on this...) is a bad one—it simply makes stock questions seem more favourable, when the whole purpose of this question was to avoid that junk. I asked the question here because I didn't know if I should support or oppose, and was interested in how the candidate worked...plus, with such a username, how could I not. ;) I think the candidate's answer was spot on. Leaving it for another admin is not the sort of thing we want to be promoting... especially if experienced admins have that attitude. In response to arguments that the candidate should just leave it for OTRS; sure, yeah, but what if an OTRS guy leaves a note at AN or similar outlining the threat, etc. I suppose some admins would just leave it for someone else, but I'd rather someone proactive who will take a stand in such cases. Philosopher has clue, has good judgement, and will be one of the best admins we've seen in recent times; it will be a great shame if this RfA should fail because he was willing to do voluntary work. Again, to him, I apologise, and to others, I urge them to reconsider the attitude we should be promoting.
  Sincerely, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm being quoted here, from two of my different threads regarding this "AGF challenge", I'll respond. I very much like the AGF challenge. Filll has put together (I assume alone, apologies if there is a co-writer, oh the irony), terrificly terrifying scenarios that need to be trodded through, most skillfully, and in my opinion, in the hands of those experienced with a. the subject, b. BLP, c. the admin tools, d. our policies. An admin candidate can of course be experienced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with a, b, and d. But by simple definition, as much as they can know about admin tools, and as much as they can work in admin related areas, they don't have experience with admin tools. I put myself in this category. I've had admin tools for 3 months. I'm inexperienced with admin tools. If that particular scenario, as posed by Filll and asked here by Dihydromonoxygenide, were to ever cross my talkpage, my first post will be to a more experienced admin. It's the smart thing to do to understand that when you are drowning, you shouldn't flail your arms around madly trying to save yourself. Leads to quicker drowning everytime. It isn't "passing the buck" to say I need help from someone with a life board. That being said, and IMHO, the right answer to any of Filll's scenarios is "Get Help^TM. (AKA "Back away slowly"). Find someone with experience. I find this question therefore to be a trap on an RFA simply because Philosopher honestly doesn't have a way to answer correctly. If he ignores the question, he gets a "refuses to answer questions" group of opposes. If he says "ask for help", he gets an "unwilling to deal with controversial situations" group of opposes. If he takes a stab at it, knowing full well its hypothetical, hasn't happened, he gets opposes based on nuances in his answer (I say nuances because some agree with his answer, some disagree). It is a trap, because had he answered in a manner that those that are opposing felt he should answer, others would oppose instead. If a question can garner opposes based on any answer given, it is by definition a trap. Simply an unfair treatment of an editor in good standing that is brave enough to shine the light in his eyes. I will add, I personally don't think RfA should be easy either. However, show me a thread anywhere on Wiki that says RFAs are too easy to pass at the moment, and I'll show you a hundred threads that say the opposite, without hypothetical trap questions. I'll also show you dozens of terrific editors that got blasted in RFA for some good reasons, some bad reasons, some minutia, some majutia. I'll finish with an assertion that yes, Philosopher is a guinea pig. A test RFA. I realize that Filll's questions have been asked before at RFA, but they are, by every definition of a test, being "tried out" in RFA. There is no consensus on any of the answers to the questions, there is no consensus that they are appropriate for a new admin, or an RFA, and therefore, they are being used in live situations to "test their (the questions) merits" Simply unfairly brutal. Sorry for being so longwinded once again....Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A few issues...firstly, guinea pig; I don't know how it appears now, in retrospect, but all I can and will say is that I did NOT intend for this RfA to be a guinea pig. Nor do I intend to ask the AGF question as a regular thing...I asked it because I wasn't sure—that's it. In answer to your a.b.c.d. point...again, I'll have to disagree that leaving it for someone else is the best port of call. I also disagree that the questions are only for seasoned admins. I've answered all of them, without hesitation, and I'm not an admin. My answers are visible in the multiple choice version of the test. If Philosopher refused to answer the question, I would have accepted that...as you say, you aren't required to do something if this should come up on your talk page. If he said ask for help, same thing...I'd accept that. What I won't accept is the idea that doing nothing, or passing it off, should be seen as better then taking action yourself. That's my prerogative. I will also note that he probably did choose a bad question, simply because of the OTRS issues bringing in confusion...I'll try to talk to Filll about that at some stage. Finally, I don't think that we shouldn't ask a question because its answer doesn't have consensus—that just reverts us back to the stock question, and cheatsheet, debacle. I prefer it this way, I understand if others don't. Again, it's my prerogative. I'll try to say no more on this RfA; I hope I've gotten my point across. It's in the community's hands now. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Said Keeper. <----- see that? that's called brevity that is :) Pedro :  Chat  15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Brevity? What does that mean? -- Avi (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Seems very sane, which is all we need really. I would suggest, though, that you leave the infobox as-is—if it listed the wife as a co-author, especially (otherwise, consider changing to that, but no harm in status quo). Simply because every other source should take precedence over a self published source. But seriously, answers like that to the AGF challenge question are more than many admins consider themselves capable of. Good luck. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm gently worried that the editor lists SPEEDY so prominently, but I haven't seen anything to suggest this editor would be harmful if they get the bit. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Reasonable editor, no reason to doubt capability of user. Seen him here and there frequently. Rudget 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Support, we certainly need help at CAT:SPEEDY. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
5. -- Naerii 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   I can't find fault with the answer to Q4 - so someone disputes a claim and we, being a neutral encyclopedia and all that, report that the claim is disputed and leave it at that. Editors do the same thing thousands of times every day on the wiki. It's not the answer I personally would have chosen (mine was, "go with the sources") but it seems clear to me that the opposers are forgetting that we work in a 'consensus' driven environment and if people disagreed with Philosopher's edits it would discussed, improved, etc. What's important to me is whether Philosopher would bitch and whine about it, or if he'd work it out civilly and there's no reason to believe he wouldn't do that. The fact that he attempted the question at all when quite a large number of admins admitted that they were too stupid and/or lazy to be able to answer any of the questions is also pretty impressive to me. -- Naerii 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   (Removed further discussion per agreement with Naerii, I was taking up too much space over a single specific. Can be read in history if needed). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

6. Support because you went ahead and answered Q4, and for all the shit you're getting for it.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   That has to be the best support I've ever read. Seriously. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

7. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Support per Naerii, per Wisdom, and per the asking of Q4, despite the answer. You've unwittingly been guinea-pigged, which is a shame, not on you, but on those that have made you the guinea pig. There are many many experienced admins that would botch any one of Filll's "scenarios", and I personally think they are excellent exercises in the intricacies of what comes up for admins on a daily basis. The correct answer by the way, for any of Filll's questions, is "I'll ask a more experienced admin before I take any direct action". We have WP:AN for a reason. An RFA is not the right place for the AGF challenge. That issue aside, your contribs are terrific, your talkpage is clean and civil, you seem balanced in your work and seem to have a good level of WP:CLUE, all very desirable traits in an admin. Support without hesitation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Support due to no memorable negative intereactions or other major concerns of mine. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have reviewed the opposers' concerns, including those concerning the candidate's answer to a highly unlikely hypothetical scenario, and find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Support (2 edit conflicts) Ok, maybe I don't understand the process...but what does Question #4 have to do with admin-ing (or even AGF)? Don't OTRS emails go to the OTRS volunteers and not random admins? And then, isn't it the OTRS volunteer's prerogative to pass the legal threat to WMF? And isn't the content of that email covered by access to nonpublic data? In other words, this seems like a reasonable question for OTRS volunteers or during an interview for Super-Burocrat-Protector-in-charge-of-all-of-Wikimedia...but for an admin, I don't see how this is relevant. Also, I forgot to add that I am supporting because I liked that he tried to reason through the question. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Support: Seems to be qualified to be an administrator, and I applaud you for taking on Question 4. seicer | talk | contribs 18:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Support The answer to Q4, while a bit unsettling, presents such a ridiculously unlikely scenario that the author should not be opposed simply because of his answer. He has stated that he wouldn't want to work in OTRS, and I respect that. In fact, if it weren't so aptly named the Assume Good Faith Challenge, I'd question whether or not those situations were designed as "gotcha!" questions. I will assume good faith. --Sharkface^T/_C 19:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - Changed from oppose below based on question 4 mostly. The itching to be involved so heavily at WP:SPEEDY is minute at this point. Per Keeper and Naerii, I find it completely unfair to oppose this candidate on what I consider to be a horrendous conundrum of a problem/puzzle, especially since I don't find the AGF challenge to be appropriate for RfA at all. I will not use this against the candidate. I do, however, maintain that the answer was strange and does not reflect the duties of an admin, but the candidate's contributions are solid nonetheless. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - seems like a sensible person. Unlikely to abuse the tools. The Transhumanist    20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Good answers to my questions, but mainly to offset Q4, which wasn't a fair question to the candidate, but who handled it just fine, IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Strong support I believe this wikipedian is living proof that one does not need to have 10000 + edits, 3 fancy conominations or to have taken part in coaching to become a successfull admin. This user has worked in a wide range of areas and seems a sensible wikipedian. If only there were more users like this one! Best of luck!!! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - (ignoring Q4 per Keeper [1]) Solid contribs, long term commitment, and I don't see any evidence that tools will be abused. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. No evidence of potential abuse or misuse of the tools. A self nom is evidence of boldness and need not be viewed otherwise especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. -JodyB _talk 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - good editor. Admittedly the answer to Q4 was not perfect, but his other contributions strongly outweigh it. The userbox issue does not concern me - indeed a user with the same userbox passed an RfA two months ago and appears to have been an effective admin. EJF (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Support believe has learned from Q4. No one knows everything. Go slow, ask questions. Look before leaping. This was not essential knowledge for area for tools. I've no problem with self noms. All due respect to Kurt, et al, I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable. While article building is important, it need not be an essential prerequisite to adminship. A janitor admin can mop up leaving the builders more time to build. Dlohcierekim 04:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Support when I usually see this many opposes, I expect to see something opposable. Here I don't.Balloonman (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Absolutely. Q4 has no bearing on this RfA. GlassCobra 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Support But is 6000 edits in 3 years too less for an administrator ? - Tinucherian (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Support. Sensible person. Won't abuse the tools. --Abrech (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
26. Support An honest attempt at Q4, and nothing in the contribution history leads me to think you will be anything but a net positive with the tools. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not super admin, but I know my limits. Some things I gladly avoid-- I find plenty to do at CSD. Some admins relish the challenge of sorting through and fixing the horror stories that come up. Too each his/her own. The question is not whether or not a nominee can handle everything that comes up. It is will the nominee use the tools without harming the constructively. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    Dloh, is that a support or a comment you wanted me to repsond to? Pedro :  Chat  15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

27. Support Do not believe user will abuse the tools and tried Q4. (also anyone who creates election articles must be good!) Davewild (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Support SexySeaShark 16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. Thanks for answering my question. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - 0% concerned about this editor. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
31. Support Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do.-- Barkjon  20:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
32. Support with a slight concern regarding what the end of summer may look like per Q9 Tiggerjay (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Seems fine. Epbr123 (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
34. Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
35. Support per George The Dragon. Monobi (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    Could you elaborate? I don't really understand why you're supporting... Not that I'm trying to be a jerk, I'm just confused and have nothing else to do.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    Opposing on the basis of religious beliefs and afflictions without considering the candidate as an individual is foolish. Monobi (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

36. Support Seems perfectly fine to me. Captain panda 00:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Cheers to the candidate for taking on Q4; it's a much more difficult question that I often see on RFAs. Good luck, you'll make a fine admin! --Liempt (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Chimeric Glider (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. I cant see a problem. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
40. Support - best of luck. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
41. Slipped on Q4, who cares? At least he won't soon forget. · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
42. Support, self-nom. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

    You do realise that this is just as weak as a support rationale? Do you, as an admin, think it's useful to spread the habit of such pointy votes? Dorftrottel (canvass) 13:27, April 30, 2008

Oppose

Oppose - Per the answer to question 4, in addition to SPEEDY reference. Very uncomfortable feeling. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC). Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The SPEEDY reference? -- Naerii 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See support #2 Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? You're opposing him partly because he wants to work in CSD? -- Naerii 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, I'm worried about the prominence that was alluded to in said support. My main concern is with the answer to question 4 though, which, completely (and maybe unfairly) trapped the candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose - Changed from neutral, per Q4, reason given below. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose - Almost purely on the answer to Q4. Sorry!
   (I have mentioned to Keeper that if this user were to come to RfA again, I might support based on WP:WTHN. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   All the discussion about this has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Philosopher#Moved prima facie discussion. Please continue the discussion there, not here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Concerned I do not think the candidate would intentionally abuse the tools, but I am worried that they could slip up, based on the answer to Q4. Yes, in a sense, it was a trick question, but many wikipedia situations can potentially be just as tricky. In this sort of situation I ask: Does the candidate know when to make a decision on their own initiative and when to seek advice? Do they know enough about policy to resolve the issue? If not, are they aware of gaps in their knowledge, and do they know where to go for information or advice? I think that the candidate's answer indicates ignorance of WP:LEGAL, WP:OFFICE, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, each critical in its own way. I'm also concerned by religous issues - not necessarily COI, but a userbox featuring a "Jesus fish" is surely going to alienate some editors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not convinced that an ichthys on a userpage is particularly offensive - having a crucifix, the star and crescent, the star of David or even the flying spaghetti monster could also "alienate some editors". The userbox does not appear to be a polemic or disparaging of anyone's beliefs or lack thereof. EJF (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   Most of your reasoning, Shef, is valid, but opposing for a religious stance? Yikes. Imagine you typing the same sentence as above, but instead saying, "I'm also concerned by the religous (sic) issues....a userbox featuring a <insert any religious symbolism here, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Spaghetti, atheist, whatever>..."is surely going to alienate some editors.". Yikes. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   It'd be the same answer for any symbol, including the Darwin fish or the Science rocket-fish. Religion is one of those areas where many people tend to believe that there is "one correct answer", and that any person choosing a different answer is necessarily opposed to their own belief. In that sense I see religous userboxes as inherently divisive. That said, I'll happily strike that part of my oppose because this section is long enough already; it really was an afterthought. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks Shef, again I'll state, the rest of your oppose seems valid and in good faith. i personally would also like to see 'all "religious" userboxes obliterated, but that is here nor there, and is not part of this particular RfA. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   You're quite right: I should not be opposing based on the candidate taking a different position on the question of religious userboxes. This is not the place to decide that issue.SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose - per Q4. X Marx The Spot (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - self-nom. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   Is such a thing bad? If you never put your best foot forward and do what you want to do, then that is something which I would certainly mark an admin down for. I think I support him all the more for him nominating himself. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 05:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   Anyone who's been editing for long enough to be an administrator who can't find someone to place their name in nomination probably doesn't have the people skills to be an admin. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   Making assumptions like that is a negative trait in a Wikipedia user. You shouldn't have waited to explain your position more clearly, you should've elaborated straight away. The 'crats also look upon these "types" of opposes unfavourably as it doesn't deal with whether candidate is suitable or not. Thanks for playing. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose as user has not fully demonstrated his commitment to article building. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose - have you perhaps misunderstood Q4? At the moment, your answer is almost entirely wrong. PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   To reply to your e-mail (I assume you're the Phil that e-mailed me?), how I would handle an e-mail sent to Wikipedia is irrelevant, since I'm not applying to volunteer at OTRS, which has its own application process. With respect to your other comment, I believe you've misunderstood my answer to Q4 rather badly - I never claimed that it would be defamatory to use a book's cover as a source when attempting to determine the book's author. Obviously, one of the best places to find out who wrote a book is by looking at the cover. :S --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   That isn't what I said, and your answer indicates a misunderstanding of several policies. PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   Then what did you say? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   I requested that you rethink your Q4 answer. I agree with SheffieldSteel that your current answer indicates you don't understand WP:LEGAL, WP:OFFICE, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. If you aren't prepared to accept your answer is wrong, then ok, but I'm not going to change my 'vote'. PhilKnight (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   Ah. My reply was with respect to your e-mail, not to your comment here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

9. Several minor concerns accumulate to give me an uneasy feeling. (i) I don't think heavily addicted power users are better admins, quite to the contrary. But this user has been basically inactive for over half a year, then returned in March. I think admins must be in touch with current policy, and six months are a long time on Wikipedia. (ii) Say what you want about religious freedom, I personally don't appreciate displays of religious affiliation on Wikipedia (very minor point, yes, so please don't bother to bother me). (iii) Commitment to article building is another minor concern. (iv) Underwhelming project space participation. (v) Q4. So there, no total deal-breakers. Should this RfA succeed, so be it. However, I for one would prefer some more activity to have more material to reliably judge this user's trustability. Dorftrottel (complain) 16:22, April 29, 2008
10. Oppose per declaration of faith on userpage. I find such declarations potentially divisive. Sure, it's a personal reason and one that will be criticised and probably ignored by the closing 'crat, but I feel I'm entitled to it. George The Dragon (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    Amazing... - auburnpilot talk 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    To answer the question in your edit summary, no, I am not opposing the user because they are Christian. I have no concerns whether anyone believes in Jesus, Mohammed or Harry Potter if they so wish, but the declaration of beliefs on userpages sits uneasily with me - a concern the opposer above appears to share George The Dragon (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    An interesting reason from someone whose username invokes this religious story. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    Deacon is allowed to oppose based on whatever criteria he sees fit, however, I'm somewhat confused. Why oppose on such a reason if you realize it will be dismissed by the deciding crat? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    You meant George right? Not Deacon? I'm getting confused Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    Whoops, yep George. I Just saw Deacon's name when I was scrolling down and I typed it out without thinking, all the while knowing I was speaking to George. Weird. : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - Per the answer of the question you were able to choose for Q4. I'm really not sure how to go with this one. The question is sort of posed on a theoretical level, but at the same time it implies it's asking what you would do as an admin in said situation. I am bothered that you may think a wikipedia admin should have this level of involvement in a potential real legal situation. You really think we should look for non-email ways to contact the author? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The question posed was a somewhat ... unusual ... hypothetical. I have no interest in working in OTRS, and no interest in contacting people. But in such a situation, the e-mail would have to be verified somehow... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No interest to contacting people? Seriously? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was serious, WBOSITG. I have no interest in OTRS and "contacting people" via that medium either. So what? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess I should clarify. I meant I'm not interested in contacting people via that medium (phone, etc.), as Keeper suggested. A quick glance at my talk page and/or my recent contributions should demonstrate that I have no problem contacting people through normal Wikipedia channels. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry, thought you meant contacting people full stop. =D Apologies. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem.  :) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)