Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PHDrillSergeant 3

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] PHDrillSergeant

Final (7/26/8) Ended 04:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

PHDrillSergeant (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nom based on various users who have suggested that I again make an attempt. I am a very kind and compassionate person, and I strive to help people on Wikipedia as much as I can. I have been noted for anti-vandalism, page cleanup, Recent change watching, and nominating innapproprite (as in violation of notability and verifiablity policies) articles for speedy deletion. Users such as Matt Fenton and Phaedriel have suggested that I nominate myself for adminship. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:03, 17 September 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, if any, would 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: There are many chores I would love to be able to do. Among these are speedy-deleting articles, deleting images that are unused, redundant and/or violate copyright, banning vandals according to the banning policy, protecting pages which are under attack, and attempting to settle disputes between users and groups.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am very pleased by articles that I have helped clean up, and there are too many to list. But in a way, I am pleased about every article I edit, because I know that it has contributed to a better article on the whole. Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what I'm doing.
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: One of the best things about Wikipedia's community is that it is easy to get rid of stress. Another user might frustrate me, but before I reply or revert, I take a moment to think: How might they be right? How could I compromise? How could I help the user understand what I found to be wrong and still let them feel as though I haven't gotten angry at them? If all else fails, I can always spend ten or so minutes killing things indiscriminately to let off steam before I chose my course of action!

Questions from JoshuaZ As always all additional questions are completely optional.

1 Please expand on your answer to question 2 above if possible with reference to specific articles.
Absolutely. Most recently, I did a HUGE cleanup of All That, removing refernces from titles, combining redundant refernces, and all the while being humorous with the edit summaries. Over a course of 31 consecutive edits, I cleaned up quite a bit of the article. Many articles have this problem, and they need to be tended to.
2 Please expand on your answer to question 3 above with specific examples of conflicts you have been in if possible.
One recent example was that of Porphyric Hemophilia. I had done research on the subject before, mostly using an old medical reference book I had which had a long article on the subject. It did not occur to me until it was pointed out that the reference I was using was beyond outdated, and the term "Porphyric Hemophilia" was no longer in use as a reference to Porphyria. After a short debate with the other user, we compromised and the pege became a disambiguation page. It's like in tug-of-war...a short slack can keep you both from falling into the mud.
3 Regarding [1] [2], why did you use all caps? Could you also explain in more detail why you objected Slim's statement?
Slim's statement was this:
"If the Arbitration Committee hears appeals from every racist, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic account that's blocked after 20 edits for trying to insert bigotry into Wikipedia, it's going to be very busy."
To call any user, even one who has done wrong, any names like "racist, anti-semitic and Islamaophobic" is a direct violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I had hoped that a short sentence (as opposed to a whole paragraph) in all caps would come off, not as a shout, but as more of a 'stern growl', trying to keep both sides from losing their heads. And it worked!
4 Related to question 3 do you think it is always unacceptable to observe that an editor is engaging in repeated POV-pushing when they are doing so?
If an editor is POV-pushing, then there are several ways to approach the problem. The best, I have found, is to let the person know on their talk page, and suggesting ways for the user to approach the article from a different point of view. In fact, I have found that if you support side A of an argument, and end up pushing side A's POV, you can remedy the problem by spending time researching side B's side. Heck, you might even learn something you didn't know.
5 Why was this placed at WP:AIV instead of WP:AN or WP:ANI?
Hmmm...I'm not sure. I might have just put it in the wrong place.
Further question. You wrote that you intended to fight vandalism by issuing blocks, which assumes some experience in fighting vandalism in the first place. Knowing that the vast majority of AntiVandalBot's reverts are triggered by actual vandalism, why on earth would you request it to be blocked in the first place ? As a casual RC patroller and vandal hunter, I find it very odd. Equendil Talk 06:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
6 Question from McGinnly: Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I would be reluctant, I would still follow proper blocking procedures and the Blocking Policy. As nice as I'd like to be, procedures still come first. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 16:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
In other words, Although I may have a fondness for, or respect a user a great deal, That respect would not cause me to slack or be lenient, but I would attempt to find out why they have done whatever they have done. Procedure comes first. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 01:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments

PHDrillSergeant's editcount stats as of 21:20, September 18 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm probably being overly critical, but I don't like it when users' signatures are so different from their user id's that I can't find their edits on a page using "CTRL + F" and the user id, e.g., PHDrillSergeant vs Porphyric Hemophiliac.Dlohcierekim 14:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I also concur, it is confusing. I suggest using the current name or changing the username. feydey 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I have never had anyone mention this before...But I see your point. I've changed it. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps listing out pseudonyms somewhere, (in nom or in Q's) is a good idea for all RfA's --Roninbk 03:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: I notice that many people are opposing for not enough article experience. At 647 distict pages, for a little over a year of work, averages out to about an article and a half A DAY, for a whole year. I fail to see how that is a lack of experience. That also does not count deleted pages or speedy deleted pages. Please consider this. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - I trust user and believe he would make a good administrator. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Should be able to do a good job. --Alex (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    Support JoshuaZ 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Michael 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Seems to be a sincere and hardworking editor who could only do more good if made an admin. Sound and Fury 21:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Although the edit count is small, the length of time is long. Looking through his contributions, I see no reason admin tools would be abused by this user. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 22:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Doctor BrunoTalk 19:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. support, I like nice admins. But change either the sig or the username to avoid confusion. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 21:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak Support per the first part of Crazytales and WP:SNOW. Keep your chin up. People Powered 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Tentative oppose. 619 distinct pages edited suggests that the candidate has not yet explored enough of this site. —freak(talk) 21:40, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for not enough experience. 645 edits into the article space is simply not enough by all counts. abakharev 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Partially because of their lack of experience in main space, and partially because of edits like this [3]. Does not seem to be the right temperament for an admin. Ansell 23:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    So making off-color jokes now makes someone not acceptable as an admin? JoshuaZ 23:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    I did not see why that, and the edit summary showed that they took the process seriously enough to be an admin, no. Ansell 00:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose the candidate is to be commended for willing to take on a bit of extra responsibility to help Wikipedia, but a distinct lack of experience in the areas in which he/she wishes to use the tools suggests that this RfA is premature and that the candidate might want to try admin coaching. With some experience in administrative areas, I can't see myself not heartily supporting another request at a later date. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I do not think Sam is ready for adminship yet. I feel that his answers to several of the questions, whilst revealing his good nature, show him to be probably too trusting of other editors - simply put, I do not think he would be prepared to jump on a clear bad faith account when he sees it. Being nice is a wonderful trait to have, and it has earned Sam many Wikifriends, but sometimes one has to accept that there are some editors who will not be won round with words. I think Sam will be a good admin in the future, but I think he has to take the time to learn the skills that only come with experience. Rje 23:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose very little in article writing Jaranda wat's sup 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Jaranda and Freakofnurture. Rama's arrow 01:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. No way, I have seen some very bad judgement from this user. For one, he filed an arbitration case on me claiming that I was using a sockpuppet account to get duplicate "votes" at TFD, and only desisted when a CheckUser was performed that showed that the other account was coming from 2,000 miles away in a state I've never even been to. I really don't like citing WP:AGF, but ... it absolutely floored me that he accused me of sockpuppetry like that. I'm an administrator and I do not take my role lightly. I'm very serious about the ethical sides of it, and I would never use a sockpuppet. Sure, I get into disagreements over various stuff, but never has anyone impugned my integrity so much as to suggest I was gaming the system by using alternate accounts. I do not trust his judgement. --Cyde Weys 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Cyde, can you show a diff for this? That sounds rather severe. He could have just asked for a checkuser like anyone else. People Powered 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Except for the fact that back then, I didn't know that you could do a checkuser. This was a past event. Cyde has every right to mention it here, but I ask that it be left alone, not debated. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, WP:RFCU I believe, but i'll respect your wishes, PHD. Thank you for your civil answer here, I was only curious as to what happened, the curiousity has been slaked. People Powered 13:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Much appreciated. *bow* ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per my philosophy at User:Blnguyen/RfA. I feel rather disappointed that administrators and writers are drifting into separate disjoint camps with excessive administration not related to the improvement of content or removal of bad content, so I feel that being an avid and highly enthusiastic writer is important. Not necessarily high quality, but the intent must be there. I've been impressed most by the administrative behaviours of administrators who are article writers at heart; they never seem to suffer post-RfA letdown or change negatively IMHO. Article writing is the most backlogged thing on Wikipedia - it's surprising how many prominent people/things never get their article improved despite the availability of people who do know stuff about them. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. – Chacor 02:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I find it troubling that a potential admin with designs on article deletion duties would makes posts such as in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 12 that conflict with established guidelines such as WP:NOVOTE --Roninbk 02:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose While Wikipedia is always in need of compassionate administrators, there just isn't enough experience writing an encyclopedia evident here. TewfikTalk 04:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per above, especially Jaranda and Freakofnurture. 1ne 05:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - Terence Ong (T | C) 10:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Cyde. I have noted editor's failure to AGF elsewhere as well. Xoloz 17:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose concerned about lack of edit experience, but not willing to trust with tools following Cyde & Xoloz. Pete.Hurd 17:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Blnguyen. - Mailer Diablo 21:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose as per Jaranda and Freakofnurture. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  19. Superlatively Strong Oppose per Blnguyen and Cyde. Moreschi 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per freakofnurture. All the other opposing arguments are beside the point, IMHO, if you only have 645 mainspace edits. It's just not enough. Nothing personal. --Aaron 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Failed to answer my question. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Attitude to blocking. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't realize it was there. I answered it. Next time, please let me know on my Talk Page. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry but I was looking for your interpretation of the policy, not a direction to it. --Mcginnly | Natter 20:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    In all fairness, Mcginnly, it's a very vague question whose answer is (or should be) entirely situationally dependent. What length of answer were you looking for? Mis-remembered the question. carry on. sorry. --Storkk 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, I have elaborated. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 01:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Cyde's comment is very, very worrying. Also reporting AVB to AIV (and the language used) isn't that great of a sign. Without these, I would be neutral, per Blnguyen. --Storkk 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment... Respectfully suggest candidate's early withdrawal, per WP:SNOW. The process should not be demoralizing to a good editor (in an ideal world), but it seems it might be on the verge. Keep the spirits up, and remember this is not a judge of you, or your character. :-) --Storkk 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Not enough project wide experience or use of edit summaries at the moment.. Looks like the editor could be in the right track though, so please consider another request in the future and just chalk this one up to experience. Rockpocket 07:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  24. Absolutely not. This user has little to no article experience. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 20:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Encourage the nom to look at WP:RFA/ST to get an idea of what RFA voters are looking for in an admin. Also, could a bureaucrat please delist this nom? Themindset 18:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    I would rather let this play out than end it early, never know what could happen.~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 02:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose: you would block an established editor because procedures come first. Blocking often just pospones a problem and can inflame a situation; I would like to see more creativity applied to resolving any underlying issues. Stephen B Streater 09:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral—Overall I rather like much of your application—your sense of humor is a plus. I'm going to abstain, primarily due to lack of experience. One of the indictors, a small one, but a telling one none-the-less, is that your edit summary usage is 63% for major edits and 17% for minor edits. Not a fatal flaw by itself, but a tip off that your still inexperienced, even though you've been around for over a year. Come on back when you've got a little more time on the pond (say over 1200 main space edits) & you'll have my support ... Williamborg (Bill) 01:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    For future reference, the candidate can click on "automatically prompt for edit summary" in Preferences, which alleviates the problem of accidentally forgetting to include a summary. Newyorkbrad 11:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Due to concerns raised by Cyde and a few other issues. JoshuaZ 02:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. per Cyde. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral To avoid the pile-ons of oppose votes. Personally, I feel that this user would not abuse admin tools. However, the low edit counts in main namespace is a concern for me. I suggest you gain more editing experience and try again after three months. In the meantime, do not give up hope and look at other successful RfAs as well as unsuccessful RfAs on their reasons for failure or success. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I'd like to see more edits before I could support this nomination. Better edit summary usage could help a future nomination. Please continue with the quality of your work and you'll have a support in the future. Canadian-Bacon t c e 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Although candidate meets my standards, the concerns raised by Cyde are still to disconcerting. I would rather you spend several more months, use edit summaries, and not rub any more people the wrong way.-- danntm T C 03:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral per siva1979. --Ageo020 18:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral to avoid piling on the opposes – due to concerns raised by Cyde and Blnguyen, among others. Sorry, and all the best. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 03:41, 24 September 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.