Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/P.B. Pilhet

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] P.B. Pilhet

Final (2/10/12) Ended Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:41:53 UTC

P.B. Pilhet (talk · contribs) – I (P.B. Pilhet) am a committed Wikipedian (Wikiholic) who would like to better serve the Wiki community by becoming a sysop. I would have waited for a few more months, allowing me time to write more articles and gain a better edit count, but I decided to try for adminship now. I know the standards are very srict (and rightfully so), and I won't be discouraged to not pass. I've actually edited on Wikipedia sporadically for more than a year, under different user names. In the 2-3 months that I've been really active (since I took the name "P.B. Pilhet"), I've created several articles and have an edit count above 600 (more than 200 of which are in user talk space). The brunt of what I've done on Wiki is patrol newpages to help clear up vandalism, hence I have a good knowledge of Wikipedia's deletion, blocking, protecting, and undeletion policies (to name just a few). I realize that I don't have a good percentage of edit summaries, but I'm correcting that. If any of my fellow Wikipedians feel I should not be granted sysop access yet (which I fear will probably be many), I would greatly appreciate an explanation as to why, so I can work to improve that area for a future RfA attempt. If I don't pass, I'll still continue to help Wikipedia as best I can. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 22:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 22:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would help to close deletion debates, as well as help new users get off on the right foot through Esperanza's Admin Coaching program. Really, I would do any task that was required of me.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Yes, I'm particularly pleased with the Taliesin Orchestra article, as I feel it is the best article I've written so far (with the exception maybe being the Colorado State Patrol).
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've had several users leave angry comments on my talk page expressing concern over articles that I've proposed for deletion. I've tried my hardest to assume good faith and keep cool, and I will continue to hold to that standard. I'm a firm believer in WikiLove, and will work as hard as I can to avoid having to block someone.
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --Mcginnly | Natter 10:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
A Only if I was required to under Wikipedia's policies, such as a repeated vandalism where the offending user disregarded multiple warnings. -- P.B. Pilhet 15:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Moral Support Suggest withdrawl, however. I recently had an RfA that didn't pass and most oppose comments were that I didn't have enough edits, and I have over 2,000. You're a good user and I'm happy to support, but I doubt that this nomination will pass. -  Mike | trick or treat  00:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. I have interacted with this user and have faith they would not abuse the tools; however, I urge them to withdrawal and try in a couple of months and 1000 more edits or so. Jcam 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, Malformed nomination. Naconkantari 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    I was just going to fix that :-) -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Less than three months and 600 edits is not enough. Michael 23:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Sorry, you appear to have good intentions but you need more experience.--Húsönd 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose candidate lacks sufficient experience. Pete.Hurd 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose—Not personal, but 674 edits is just not enough experience. Williamborg (Bill) 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC) move to neutral
  5. Oppose—Sorry, I'm not one for edit counts but 600 is not enough to gain the insight needed. As for the two articles you listed that you wrote, I would have like them to be a little more in depth. —MJCdetroit 04:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose, purely due to low edit count. I see no reason why this editor wouldn't make a fine admin after a few months' more experience. --Aaron 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I think more experience is needed. While I like the enthusiasm, I think trying for the adminship now is poor judgment because the results are predictable given the standards/expectations people have. Nephron  T|C 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I suggest the nom take a look at WP:RFA/ST to get an idea of what most RFA !voters are looking for in terms of basic edit levels. Themindset 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Not quite yet. That the user admits to frequently changing usernames is troubling. Stick to one username and come back in six months. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    I do stick to one username, Malber. The only reason I've had different names in the past is because since the time between my edits was often so long, I sometimes forgot my password :-) -- P.B. Pilhet 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Opposeper above and insufficient answers to questions. --Mcginnly | Natter 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - It takes guts to go up for an RfA, and i dont want to turn this into a blood bath, 600 edits is just not enugh yet, and you are to new [on this account?] for me to consider supporting you, you're on the right track come back in say 2000 edits and around Feburary time and i'll likely support you if you keep up your good work, in the meantime however I really strongly suggest withdrawal to avoid a bloodbath. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, ditto what Matthew said. Please consider a withdrawal. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Matthew. Please consider withdrawal due to possible WP:SNOW. Hello32020 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, you seem to have the potential of becoming a future admin, but not for now it's too early. Try again when you have more edits and exprience in the Wiki proccess. --Terence Ong (T | C) 01:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, echoing what Mike1 and Matthew have said. Keep working hard, and you should make a fine one later. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 02:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. Could be a very solid candidate in a few months, just needs more experience in general. You could also pursue editor review. Great attitude, though! Grandmasterka 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Please do not be discouraged with this nomination and I offer my deep respects for your sincerity in wanting to help out with admin chores. But with less than three months of experience and less than a thousand edits, I suggest you withdraw from this nomination as soon as possible. In the meantime, look through and analyse past successful as well as unsuccessful nominations and get a clear idea of what adminship is all about. Be more pro-active in maintainence-related tasks and improve the quality of your edits. I have no doubt that in the next couple of months, if you follow all these guidelines, you would be a fine admin. In the meantime, best of luck for the future! --Siva1979Talk to me 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral Normally would oppose in this situation, but you seem like my kind of admin and others have gone with Neutral rather than Oppose †he Bread 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral per above. Also try to get involved in Articles for deletion and other areas which administators are usually involved in. T REXspeak 03:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral—Not personal, but 674 edits is just not enough experience. Williamborg (Bill) 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral Lack of experience would be a handicap. Withdraw, get an editor review and work on participation in XfD debates and vandalfighting. Getting involved in Wikiprojects would be a good idea, as would assisting in the featured article/good article reviews. Try again in three-four months and ~3000 edits time. You would be a good admin in the future, hence the neutral vote.(aeropagitica) 04:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral Doctor Bruno  16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Neutral I suggest that you withdraw and try again in a few months when you have sufficient experience, though I like your attitude. - TewfikTalk 02:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
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.