Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JustPhil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] JustPhil

Final (1/16/0) ended 21:00, 18 June (UTC)

JustPhil (talk · contribs) – This user has edited wikipedia for over two years and is long overdue for adiminship. Myrtone13:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do accept this nomination to be an administrator.
An entire year and one day ago (as of this writing), I was denied my second self-nomination while my name was "B-101". I do keep an eye on some Wikipedians when they make edits of hatred and do edits which are very strange. I carefully watched as one Wikipedian listed every episode of Family Guy's fourth season for deletion. I hope you use your best judgment in my third nomination.- JustPhil 14:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support Of course, as above. Myrtone15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    Self-noms are no longer silly! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    Irrational!?--Andeh 20:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Answers show inexperience & lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. Also isn't convincing about why he needs admin tools. Your mainspace contributions are great, but gain a little more experience in wikipedia-space & you will get through soon. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 14:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose Answers to question one are worrisome, display a lack of knowledge and lack of need of admin tools. Yanksox (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Answers to questions seem vague and show lack of knowledge on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, the discuss link is broken, but I suppose that's the nominators fault and not the candidate, so I won't hold that against him. — FireFox 15:13, 18 June '06
  4. Oppose "welcoming new users to Wikipedia" does not require administrator tools. Nor does "observ[ing] votes for deletion carefully" - only the closing of the debates does. "If I become an administrator, I will be no different than the other users." I understand the sentiment, but this nomination displays a misunderstanding of what it means to be an administrator. If you want to be "no different than the other users," why do you want to be an administrator? This question needs to be thoroughly answered, and so far it has been barely answered at all. Also, this vote displays lack of understanding of Template space. Λυδαcιτγ 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    Can you show me a policy where it actually says that template space is for encyclopaedic content only? That "vote" is valid. --Rory096 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose it isn't "votes for deletion", as above answer to (1) doesn't inspire confidence. Answer to question (2) "I have a knack for memorizing things", does that mean your additions are original research rather than cited from reliable sources? --pgk(talk) 16:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. The answers to the questions do concern me. For example, welcoming newcomers does not require adminship to perform. G.He 16:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Answers to questions are very poor indeed. Not knowing that VfD is no longer used is a concern. --Wisden17 17:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    To be fair, he said "votes for deletion" rather than "Votes for Deletion" or "VfD". The name is the major change. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    Though it indicates either a belief that it is the name, or that it is a simple voting process. Neither is correct. --pgk(talk) 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    That is the precise point. The whole point of changing the name from VfD was to move away from this idea of it being a simple vote. As an administrator he seems to suggest an interest in closing deletion pages, so an understanding of the process is key. I should point out that it was not simply the fact that the phrase' votes for deletion' was used that lead to my oppose vote. --Wisden17 17:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think it was ever supposed to be a simple vote, was it? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry I see how you've misunderstood what I've said (well it was badly written)! I meant that the name change helped removed the idea that there was a simple voting procedure related to deletion, not that the deletion process was a simple vote. Of course the name change has helped streamline the process now with the widerange of 'xfD's meaning that in that new scheme of deletion pages VfD would no longer have a useful place. --Wisden17 18:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per original research concerns above. I wasn't going to oppose because I realized I never talked to him about it before, but after leaving a message on his talk page about inaccuracies he acknowledged being inaccurate a few times, and didn't offer to start using a source (when I wrote on Simpsons episodes I often used The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family.) CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 17:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Srikeit --Deville (Talk) 17:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Like others, I'm unimpressed with the answers to the questions below, but perhaps more than anything else -- and I hate to say this, but I'm gonna be honest here -- I have to say that the nomination by User:Myrtone doesn't inspire confidence. That's possibly unfair of me and I realize that I should probably try and assume good faith a little harder, but I have a lot of trouble accepting this as a serious nomination (which, I readily admit, is very likely not JustPhil's fault). In any case, for someone who says that he intends to be involved in the AfD process, I find it a little less than impressive that JustPhil has only made three AfD contributions this year, and the last one was almost three months ago. -- Captain Disdain 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose The answers to the questions demonstrate no understanding of Wikipedia process or policy, something that all admins must have in order to do their job effectively. This user requires far more experience before assuming the mantle of admin.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. You're doing a great job as an editor. If you want to be an admin, then get involved with the janitorial side - make constructive comments on *fDs, do some vandal fighting, and generally get busy at the Wikipedia:Community Portal. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Hugh Parker. Roy A.A. 20:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose not a huge amount of user talk edits, you don't need admin to welcome new users or observe AfDs for socks like I do. So I don't actually know why you want admin, doing great as an editor.--Andeh 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Meets some of my criteria, but the answers to the questions worry me. SushiGeek 20:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
Username JustPhil
Total edits 5157
Distinct pages edited 1571
Average edits/page 3.283
First edit 22:08, August 8, 2004

(main) 4241
Talk 263
User 259
User talk 98
Image 41
Image talk 1
Template 96
Template talk 10
Category 5
Wikipedia 129
Wikipedia talk 14
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will observe votes for deletion carefully.
B: I also plan on continuing welcoming new users to Wikipedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am very pleased with my contributions to the Simpsons articles, as it is one of my all-time favorite shows and I have a knack for memorizing things.
B: I am also very delighted with the userboxes. I like how we have boxes covering such a wide range of media, music, politics, etc.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I do not really get stressed about anything. But the deletion of images and userboxes can sometimes push me a little bit.
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.