Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philosopher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Philosopher

Final (92/20/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 09:52, 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)

[edit] 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 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 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 Legoktm'

13. Will you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why?
A. Probably not. Since being an admin is no big deal, the only reason for removing the tools is if they are misused, in which case there is already an established procedure to handle the situation. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Editorofthewiki:

  • 14. How would you determine admin abuse and, if you encountered it, how would you deal with it?
  • A: This question is quite broad – as it's written, I don't see an obvious connection to this RfA, as the obvious dispute resolution steps are relevant (and accessible) to all editors of the Wikipedia. Clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

Relgion based discussion moved to talk, for the betterment of the candidate and for all those partaking in the RfA discussion.

[edit] Discussion

Extended discussion related to question 4 moved to talk page

[edit] 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)
    I'm reiterating this now - I'm also supporting per Keeper. Q4 is a terrible question and has no place at RfA. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:47, 4 May 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. --Siva1979Talk 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 CitrouillesTally-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. --SharkfaceT/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. κaτaʟavenoTC 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)
    Not impressed by the despicable religious bigotry and prejudice on the talk page. My support for Philosopher is strengthened due to his conduct on this RfA and not responding to the spurious "concerns". EJF (talk) 19:15, 2 May 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. Weak 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)
    Dorftrottel raises some concerns, but not enough on their own to warrant an oppose.Balloonman (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Absolutely. Q4 has no bearing on this RfA. GlassCobra 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    I would like to further comment on the opposes and neutrals based on this user's declaration of faith on his userpage. It is an extremely negative reflection on the users subscribing to this path that rather than take the time to search this user's contributions and find anything that might actually prove their point, they have simply taken the lazy route and are opposing/neutraling over a hypothetical situation. I, for one, have no problem with having admins from all walks of life; further, I have done a bit of searching, and find myself impressed not only by this user's composure, but willingness to listen to others' opinions. It is highly unfair for this candidate to be denied support by users that will not invest the time to at least attempt to back up their statements. GlassCobra 02:17, 2 May 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
    (Boldly butting in) I view self noms as prima facie evidence of having the self confidence needed for the tools. Dlohcierekim 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support Seems like a stable candidate that will make good use of the tools. --Charitwo talk 13:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support It was me who kicked off the criticism of that one guy's atheist userbox recently...but I felt and feel that that userbox was *intentionally disrespectful*. No such issue here. Keepscases (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support reasonably good understanding of policy. Q6 Q4 is deliberately tricky, and opinion can vary on whether or not to contact the author. DGG (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    How is Q6 'deliberately' tricky? It's the same exact question as used on other Rfa's, even before I was asking it. ArcAngel (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    DGG may have meant Q4. Not to put words in his mouth, just a possibility. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC) (right, Q4 DGG (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean wrt to Q4 (I'll go with Keeper's assumption). What is deliberate about it other than it was the candidate's choice? He could've picked any other of the AGFC scenarios, some of which are considerably less tricky. Taking a challenge you're not quite up to is the main aspect striking me as suboptimal as far as desirable traits in admins go. Dorftrottel (canvass) 20:29, April 30, 2008
  46. Support per diving into Q4 (and the benefits of the discussion generated from the answer) and being bold enough to self-nom given the automatic oppose votes that come with with it. --Gwguffey (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support per the ridiculousness of Q4 and those that are so hung up on it. Trusilver 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support per Q4 and the need for more evangelical Christian admins...Seriously, though. I see no problem with Philosopher and don't expect to see any abuse here. Should make a great admin. - auburnpilot talk 23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support. Can be trusted. Doesn't seem like he will act on any delicate task without thorough policy knowledge or help from a more seasoned admin. Tan | 39 23:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support. For being Bold. Spinach Dip 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  51. No issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  52. Weak Support. Userboxes are perfectly acceptable, people who oppose on that basis aren't assuming good faith and seem to be rehashing things better left in the past. As for Q4, I admire his desire to answer an open-ended question like that in a nuanced way, but would urge him to review the core principles of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV is clear in that while we don't present a single viewpoint, we don't give minority viewpoints undue weight. While we always assume good faith and try to work with the subject in an amicable manner, we do not sacrifice core principles in order to do so. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support Sane, trustworthy editor, unafraid to be WP:BOLD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support, seems fine. Neıl ☎ 09:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support. Appears to be dedicated to helping improve the project. Cla68 (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 13:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support I have seen nothing that raises any red flags with me. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support - An OK set of contribs, nothing too serious. But, I think the opposes per Q4 are a bit harsh. We cannot expect a single user to know everything there is to know on Wikipedia, so one slip up on a question he gave his very best shot shouldn't be enough to shoot him down in flames. I bet many current admins would've found that difficult. Lradrama 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support - good editor. The Q4 was pretty complicated and I think most of us not involved with day to day OTRS would fumble it somehow. I guess I would have preferred an answer more along the lines of "run to WP:ANI and ask for help." No admin is expected to know all the rules, but it is reasonable for them to expect most of the rules and then go for community help when tricky situations crop up. I would have written "weak support" instead of "support" but then I was put off by the the opposition involving Philosopher's acknowledgement of his/her faith so I guess I gave him some points as compensation. Some of us like myself choose to give no details about our points of view but we should respect those who do. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support -- good editor, good attempts at answers to difficult questions. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support I like his answers to the questions and I also think that as an admin he would have no problem being BOLD. --Mifter (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support I was impressed by your answers, and none of the objections raised below seemed particularly bad to me. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support per KojiDude (number 4 or so). Otherwise, Philosopher is a great editor. SpencerT♦C 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support - Great trustworthy user, terrific canidate for receiving the tools. Hello32020 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  65. Weak Support - Overall a good candidate but the answer to Q4 could have been answered in a different way. PookeyMaster (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support My acute Meda-sense almost went off, but I'm assuming it was because of heartburn. Good user, 99.9% chance we won't abuse the tools. RC-0722 247.5/1 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  67. --Jacina (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support because of exposing where one may unwittingly express some bias, but more so the responses about the answering of optional questions shows sufficient cynicisms to demonstrate an understanding of the communities requirements. Gnangarra 11:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  69. Support, user appears to have a very calm and civil attitude towards editing, seems very reasonable, and has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. -- Natalya 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  70. 'Support Seems ready for the tools. Jhfireboy Talk 14:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  71. Full Support Simply because I have no idea what self-noms and creation of new articles (or lack thereof) tells you about how well an editor will use his/her admin tools. As for Q4, admins are human beings and as such make mistakes too - and though the answer may be wrong to some, again, it doesn't show inappropriate use of admin tools. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support Seems honest and civil in their work and worthy of our trust. Dean B (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  73. Support - Agree with Dean above. User does seem honest and reliable. And I must also note that this user is holding his composure well under all of the stress of some "weightless" opposes. Kudos! ScarianCall me Pat! 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  74. Weak Support - I still have issues about lack of activity in past six months, but it appears I misread how big he is in speedy deletes, plus I like to stand up for those who face religious bigotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedford (talk • contribs) (moved from neutral)
  75. Support - Everything indicates this is a mature user who will no doubt handle the tools well. Deli nk (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  76. Weak support. Not the strongest candidate, but I think that Philosopher can be a capable admin. I recommend admin school. Majoreditor (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  77. Weak support per Majoreditor. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  20:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  78. Support. We need help at new page patrol, the answers are intelligent and show not only an awareness but an appreciation of the finer points of policy, everything I read seems honest and polite, and my sampling of the edit history showed nothing untoward. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support because it's a self-nom, which I think displays that Philosopher has a good level of confidence, which is often needed in an administrator. Oh, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the candidate. That too. —Alex.Muller 22:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  80. Support Unlikely to abuse tools, good luck. Roadrunnerz45 (talk 2 me) 08:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  81. Support No evidence that admin tools will be abused. Slideshow Bob (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  82. Support, no concerns. —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  83. Support. Well answered the questions. Seems honest, and will be a help. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 15:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  84. Support. minor quibbles not deal-breakers for me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  85. Support, the concerns brought up here are not dealbreakers for me, more like the minor imperfections we all have. As to Q4, there's no one right answer to those scenarios, and I'm impressed that the candidate clearly put thought into the answer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  86. Support - I'm sure he will be a great administrator. No concerns, even after reading the Opposes and Neutrals below; absolutely none of the "arguments against" will prevent Philosopher from doing a good job. ◄Zahakiel► 23:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  87. Support ZsinjTalk 02:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  88. Support - After reading Philosopher's answers to the above questions, I believe he will do a fine job as an admin. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  89. Support TimBuck2 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  90. Support Requests for adminship are, at their core, the opportunity for the members of the wikipedia project to opine as to whether or not each one of them believes that the candidate in question demonstrates the qualities that each one of the project members believes is important for the proper maintenance of the project, and whether or not the candidate has exhibited past behavior and judgment sufficient to be trusted with the tools that accompany the janitorial process. After looking through Philosopher's contributions, I feel that he does exhibit the overall tendencies and character traits that are important in my opinion. Investigating his inter-editor interactions, I do not see anything that would require me to withhold a support. He has sufficient edits to the mainspace to indicate an understanding of wiki policies and guidelines. As for the Question 4 issue, that is a difficult situation which is better handled through the OTRS system. I applaud Philosopher for attempting to answer that question here in the context of an RfA, but I would counsel him, should such a situation actually occur, to use WP:ANI, or in matters such as this where there may be privacy and legal issues involved, to submit the issue to Cary or the OTRS list. Either way, there is no shame in asking for help and/or advice from fellow wikipedians on WP:AN, WP:ANI, or elsewhere. -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  91. Support Good answers to questions 1 to 3, and I could care less about question 4. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  92. Support I'm quite sure that he won't misuse the tools. Although the answer to Q4 wasn't perfect, I don't think that it will affect him as an admin. — Wenli (reply here) 04:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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 Oppose 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 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.SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 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. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    So Ed, being bold doesn't count in your book? ArcAngel (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    You can't judge a user based on this, please look at the contributions and provide some hard evidence that this user is not suitable to be an admin. You said he "probably" isn't suitable, meaning he might actually be worthy. Also, this oppose is extremely insulting to Philosopher, as you are generalising all self noms rather than considering each cases own merits. Please either add some evidence to your comment that the user doesn't have the skills to be an admin, or remove it. Deacon's, below, is an example of a proper oppose.--Phoenix-wiki 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    As I regularly say, I nominated myself, and I don't think people would consider me as lacking the skills (social or otherwise) to be an administrator. Additionally, I'd imagine more people would be mad if Philosopher had actively sought someone out to nominate him rather than doing it himself. Isn't that a bit of a strange thing to do, when the instructions say you can nominate yourself? --Deskana (talk) 17:46, 1 May 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)
    Something strikes as very discordant here - would you also oppose someone who declares on their user page that they are a "scientist," based on the assumption that they may possibly stand biased and divisively on issues of religion? And would you oppose someone who declares on their user page that they are a "monogamist," because they may unconsciously have bias towards people of polygamous persuasion? For that matter, would you oppose someone who declares on their user page that they love cats, because you assume they will be biased towards all articles concerning dogs? Very odd answer of opposition... --Ishmayl (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hey! Don't you dare bring cats into this. They didn't start this! They're innocent!--KojiDude (Contributions) 19:58, 4 May 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)
    I agree wholeheartedly with George... that kind of declaration doesnt sit well with me either. I've never understood why people wear their religions on their sleves. I couldnt have cared less if the user had simply had a userbox saying, "Im a Christian". But to say that they're an Evangelical Christian is bothersome. While many evangelicals dont subscribe to the belief that everyone must convert and they will do all they can to "help" people... most do. And I am bothered by the thought that perhaps with the status that comes with being an admin, this user will try to influence people or an article's POV. I cant oppose due to this one factor, I feel that that would be shortsighted of me especially seeing all the work that he's done and the contributions to the project, but I cant support either with that nagging feeling. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 10:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Not the first time someone's accused me of bias without thinking to check my contributions first. It really annoys me when people assume bad faith. Please remember to assume good faith. Please don't assume bad faith. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    I assumed good faith... I didnt oppose. Also, I stated that that single factor compared with everything else was the reason I couldnt oppose. It is my personal interactions with others that lends to my nagging feeling that maybe you might be predisposed to this. This type of interaction and your response now leads me to believe that you are confrontational. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry if I came off as being a bit snappish, but your saying that I may be "predisposed" to violate WP:NPOV because of my religious beliefs felt like a personal attack, even if you didn't mean it that way - particularly because I consider (and my edits reflect) NPOV to be one of the most important policies we've got on Wikipedia. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    And I applaud you for going out of your way to do ensure that your NPOV stance is utmost... but then why, in the opening statement on your user page place, "I am an Evangelical Christian"? That seems to be the #1 issue in your life, and if it is, and it brings you happiness, more power to you. I just dont see how that has anything to do with adding to an encyclopedia. You state later on that you dont subscribe to the editcountitis way of thinking, and yet you have a ubx with your # of edits. You try to ensure that your personal beliefs dont reflect your editing, however should the case come up where an article that deal with your religion comes under fire or becomes a hot topic of discussion... I dont believe you would be able to seperate your heartfelt ideas and that of the encyclopedia. I have the same hiccup with regards to very personal issues of my life and dont think that anyone would be able to seperate the personal from the betterment of wikikind, however I am not the person putting themselves up for community scrutiny and discussion. You are. I think we both need to just agree to disagree. I thank you whole heartedly for adding much needed content to the project. I do. But I just dont trust you with the tools. I'm sorry. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Question - Not to stir things up again, since you've agreed to disagree and all, but I'm curious about this statement: "I have the same hiccup with regards to very personal issues of my life and dont think that anyone would be able to seperate the personal from the betterment of wikikind (...) I just dont trust you with the tools." Based on that set of statements, can you support anyone for adminship, or is it the case that anyone except for evangelical Christians will be able to keep their faith down to a low enough buzz that it doesn't wreck Wikipedia? Again, I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I don't think just "agreeing to disagree" quite justifies what you're very clearly implying. ◄Zahakiel► 12:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Dorftrottel puts it better than I could. I know not everyone agrees, but, while I don't support the "must have written 3 FAs" school of thinking (I've yet to work on a single FA), I do think admins — especially those who want to work in deletions — need enough project-space work to appreciate the sheer effort that's gone into the material they're deleting. And to echo the two above me, while it wouldn't be a deal-breaker, I also loathe declarations of religious and/or political affiliations. I'm distinctly unimpressed with the editcountitis (the statement on your userpage that "This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia" would be a bit more convincing if it wasn't right underneath one of those ridiculous "service badges" and a list of your 1000th, 2000th etc edits). No doubt the closing crat will discount all of this, but there you go... FWIW, I don't have a problem with the answer to Q4, which - while technically wrong - has at least had some thought go into it. — iridescent 16:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Q4 response (lack of policy understanding) and self-nom. Paradoxsociety (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Q4 response and per Dorftrottel. I wish you luck in the future! Razorflame 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - low level of Wikipedia namespace edits and poor answers to questions indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Weak Oppose: Obviously well-intentioned but the arguments above and below make me uneasy. Maybe in another month or so and some more wiki-space contributions? Sorry...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Sorry. You seem a nice guy, I just don't think you're really admin material. Yes, your answers to various questions bother me a little, your lack of article writing bothers me a little, your lack of Wikipedia space edits bothers me a little and I just can't see you being a great admin. The 'faith on your sleeve' thing bothers me a tad too, though I'm not sure where I stand on that being an issue over which I/anyone can oppose. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose Per Kurt... among other mentioned issues. Jmlk17 06:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Struck per side issues... can explain elsewhere if necessary. Jmlk17 07:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Regretfully Q4 is a dealbreaker for me. MBisanz talk 08:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. Reluctant oppose I think criticism is a good thing as long as it's constructive. I find, however, that a large portion of criticism directed at the candidate (I speak of criticism about candidate's answer to Q4, the religious statement made on the user page and the self-nomination) has nothing constructive about it and I find it just shameful at how many people have taken the opportunity to take a jab at you without telling you what it is that you could have done in order to avoid such scrutiny. Some criticism has been constructive but a large portion of it seems to boil down to I don't like you and that bothers me quite a bit. For that reason I abstained from voting here until now because I didn't want my vote to look as another insult/injury directed at you due to a belief that if you do something differently than I would, you're wrong and you need to be punished. Having said that, I oppose your nomination at this time strictly due to your lack of recent activity. Prior to March of 2008, you only made 80 edits to Wikpedia within the last 7 consecutive months. I don't think you're a terrible candidate for an administrator at all and I actually commend you for nominating yourself for adminship especially if you had any kind of an idea as to how ideologically opposed some people are to that and you still had the nerve to go ahead and nominate yourself. Given a few more months of the level of activity you had during March and April, I would vote support on your next attempt at adminship, especially if you're brave enough to nominate yourself again. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose For the most part Dorftrottel makes some decent points, no deal breakers, but as an aggregate enough to have some concerns. (Although I completely disagree with those who think having a neutral declaration of faith is a problem---Eg the declaration of faith is simply a statement of fact, no big deal. It helps to know people's personal biases.) But what changed my stance was SWik78. While he has made more than 80 edits in the past seven months, I am disturbed by the extended and unexplained disappearance. On a whole, I am changing my vote from support to oppose.Balloonman (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    It was explained in my "nomination speech". --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Missed that... changing back to weak support... I know, I'm waffling on this candidate.Balloonman (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per responses to Q4, Q8, and Q13. Took the "adminship is no big deal" thing in entirely the wrong direction. Antelantalk 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Why wrong direction? Please elaborate on what ground do you oppose him regarding Question 13. The editor believes that the current procedure is sufficient to remove admins from their post, and you have not stated your reason why he is wrong. Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I say that "Since being an admin is no big deal, the only reason for removing the tools is if they are misused, in which case there is already an established procedure to handle the situation." is the wrong direction because of the following: if being an admin is no big deal, then being open to recall should be no big deal. In my opinion, he subverts the phrase 'no big deal', taking it to mean that the community should think it's no big deal if someone is an admin. To the contrary: it should be no big deal to the admin, and to that extent, he should be willing to let the community recall his adminship if it so desires. Antelantalk 23:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Intriguing, but you still haven't stated why the current process is insufficient. As for my comment - it was meant to reflect the statement at Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal that "There is very little extra decision-making ability that goes along with adminship, and it does not add any extra voice in consensus decisions. In that sense, whether a person is an administrator is not, in and of itself, important." Since the only benefits gained by being an administrator are related to the tools, abuse of the tools should be the criterion for removal of access. Additionally, the current process for removal of the tools appears to be sufficient - if you can demonstrate how it is currently insufficient, I would certainly be willing to reconsider. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The current process is sufficient (admin recall). You have stated that you refuse to be party to that process, which is one of the reasons I oppose awarding you with the admin bit. Antelantalk 00:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The recall process is voluntary and is not established as a formal institution by the consensus. Philosopher may have reasons to oppose this, because of its resemblence to democracy. It is a valid reason based on our values. Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    That's all well and good, but it's your reason, not his. I happen to value informal processes. They keep this place from feeling like an oligarchy. Antelantalk 02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    (outdent)Chimeric Glider: That is not the reason, but thanks anyway. I simply feel that establishing an additional process is unnecessary, especially when the current process is sufficient. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  20. Switching from neutral to oppose. During the time I !voted in neutral, I was weighting between Q4 and your overall useful contributions. But since one admin mistake could chase away an editor forever, I have no choice but to oppose. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    That seems a very strange reason to oppose. Any admin can make a mistake, anytime, anywhere. I've certainly made my share. GlassCobra 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    OhanaUnited, you've made more than one admin mistake in the past. Are you willing to hand in your tools, on the off chance that you could have driven off an editor? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I can think of plenty of mistakes that your average editor can make that could just as easily scare off an editor forever. Not trying to jump on your case, but really, I don't think this is a good reason to oppose a candidate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    While I think Q4 was somewhat a trap, I have to say, that simple mistakes is often what garner's opposes.Balloonman (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I know this is a tough decision. That's why it took me 2 days to think over it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Obviously it's a tough decision, but could we have some insights on how you came to it, and what your response to the above commentary is? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
  1. Neutral Cannot support due to the "evangelical" part of the user page. However, cannot oppose with just that one factor. See my reply to George's oppose above. That lays out my thinking. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 10:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    I happen to notice the "Things I care about" and "Things I don't care about" section on your userpage. Um... pot...kettle...black? Trusilver 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, what about that list is hypocritcal? The "I dont like close minded persons" bit? Because I'm not saying I dont like Phil... nor am I saying that I dont acknowledge his right to believe anything he wants to... I'm saying I dont trust him if he wears his religion on his sleve. Also, the whole "pot, kettle, black" is a reference to "the pot calling the kettle black" which is racially insensitive, and generally not used in socieity. See here. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ahem, let's see... your comment on "Alternative Music (or Angry White Person Music)" is a racist statement and offensive. (see I can spin your comments too!) I just find it interesting that you are allowed to be a bigot on your userpage but the candidate is flogged for disclosing his beliefs. Trusilver 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Pot calling the kettle black is not a racial term. Please don't insinuate that it is. It's very simple to understand where the phrase came from, and it isn't racial. Enigma message 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    See, now you're entering the NPA realm. I dont appreciate it, and hope others comment on your calling me a bigot. I didnt say you were, I was saying that that common idiom is today seen as something that was used as disparaging comment towards African Americans. Comment on the content, not me. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Once again, I also bring your attention to the fact that this is not an oppose. It is a neutral, as I cannot oppose due to his beliefs alone. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm just saying is all. You are failing to assume good faith. You are suggesting that the candidate has a bias based on something on his userpage without any evidence that there has every been a problem in the past. I am pointing out that by that exact same token, I can find any number of things on your own user page to make the same (probably false) assumption. How about commenting on what the candidate has done rather than what you are unfounded worrying he might do. Trusilver 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    First, I am not the person being discussed. I am not, nor do I ever plan to be, an Administrator. Second, most of the RFA discussions I've seen thus far deal with what the candidate might do in the future with the tools based on the information that we have today. This is what I am doing. I direct your attention to any number of supports that state, "I believe the user will not abuse the tools". Hence, they are making a assumption of the future. I am assuming good faith by not opposing. Please understand that. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    This brings me back around to the point. Wikipedia is a very pluralist community, and rightly so. When we begin to judge others by their own beliefs (as George has done above), then we start shaping wikipedia's culture into what "we think" or what 'we believe". I've been to Conservapedia and I don't like the end result of that line of thinking. I personally despise the "I support the right for iraqis to resist occupation" (or whatever it says...) userbox. Having fought in the first Gulf War, I find the implied suggestion to kill American soldiers offensive. However, I would never even bring such a userbox into consideration at an RfA. I don't want us to reach a point where we only want administrators that believe in what we believe or share the opinions that we share. When we reach that point, we are going to see the death of the project or at the very least we will see its descent into irrelevance. I'm not impugning you for being neutral, just for lending credence to a flawed argument. Trusilver 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    (undent) I personally would hold that ubx accountable in an RFA. That kind of "all or nothing" feeling is very devisive. In the end, we agree to disagree. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, deal. Trusilver 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    I like the way I am being held up as the "religious opposer" when the religious issue was held up by the oppose above me :-D ! George The Dragon (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    I count at least 4 (including me) so it's hardly a lone voice in the wilderness — iridescent 17:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I think it may be that I am the one who commands the least (or no) respect, so editors feel they can take their frustration out on me! Would be far easier to ban userboxes... George The Dragon (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hah, sorry :). You were the first one with that as your sole reason. Sometimes you get the fuzzy end of the lolipop just by being the one that stands out the most :). Trusilver 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    George, I didn't and don't "hold up" that issue, as I clearly state in my post, it's a very minor point — both within my oppose rationale and for this RfA. Dorftrottel (complain) 19:56, May 2, 2008
    Still thinking whether I should support or oppose, so neutral for now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Normally I don't move votes, but this time I feel the need to. Switch to oppose. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral: I want to support due to the religious bigotry being shown against Philosopher, and due to undue weight of his answer to Q4 by other people, but his lack of recent activity in the past half year, and his apparant love for speedy deletion keeps me from joining the support side.--Bedford 08:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Please refrain from calling our concerns regarding this user's religious expression religious bigotry. We have stated our concerns, fully. We have a right to do so. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, but when people go nuts over someone for their faith when they just briefly mention it, then referring to it as religious bigotry is just calling it as it is.--Bedford 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Not going nuts. Simply stating my opinion. Please dont over emphasize this. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    The queer thing about free speech is that someone is just as "right" to hold a contrary opinion as you are to have one yourself.
    Personally, while I wouldn't call it "bigotry", I think it is an easily justified summation of his opinion in regards to some of the opposition arguments. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral The answer to question 4 concerns me the most, as well as question 11. While question 4 doesn't seem correct, the initial answer to Q 11 is I have now.  ;-). Those are pages that an editor should know about before the RfA brings it up. How many other guidelines and policies didn't Philosopher read? He makes good contributions, and is a good editor overall, but I am afraid I can't support at the moment. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:38, 3 May 2008 (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.