Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Phils

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Phils

final (14/2/4) ending 11:24 21 April 2005 (UTC) I'd like to become an admnistrator. I've been here since October 2004, and I feel that if adminship really is 'no big deal', I'm ready to take up this position of responsibility. I understand my edit count is rather low for many people's taste, but I would like these people to look at my contributions without bias before voting. For those who consider it a requirement for adminship, I have virtually written all of the feature article Link (Legend of Zelda). Phils 11:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Merovingian (t) (c) 14:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 14:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) To elaborate further on my support: I am happy to assume good faith. JuntungWu 16:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Conditional support - the condition being that Phils learns how to spell "responsibility" :) Grutness|hello? 07:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    The spelling error is an artifact from French, one of my native languages. :D Phils 09:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    ah - a polyglot too! Even more reason to support! Grutness|hello?
  4. Support. I'll add to the virtues already described that Phils is a useful and helpful FAC voter, and that s/he gets my extra selfnom points. Edit summaries are important, though, I hope s/he gets into a 100% habit of them real soon.--Bishonen | talk 01:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support Howabout1 02:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 07:03, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  7. A bit borderline for me, but constant activity since October, good interaction in Wikipedia namespace and an overall good breadth of contributions to various areas. Nobody's yelling at him on his talk page (though it is a bit thin) and he's not afraid to point out when he was wrong (question 3 below). CryptoDerk 14:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. I've not personally interacted with Phils before, but looking at his contributions, he seems impressively dedicated and quite capable. – Seancdaug 17:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I can see no reason why not. The user seems friendly, getting on experienced, and, crucially, prepared to admit where he is wrong. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Sure. ugen64 20:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Good user. I don't consider the "no edit summary in the past" to be a problem. As Oleg Alexandrov said, he's done a good job with it lately. --Lst27 (talk) 21:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Sure, why not? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:03, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Less than 2000 edits is a bit on the thin side, but plenty of activity on the Wikipedia namespace, and good work otherwise compensate nicely. Sjakkalle 09:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Why not? Slac speak up! 13:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Mild oppose. All edits should have edit summary, especially those on generic topics. I would also welcome more contributions outside games, as the admins could get involved in anything. Pavel Vozenilek 17:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comments. The one about the edit summary I will keep in mind. I've been trying to use it more of late, but it still hasn't become an automatism yet Phils 09:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. oppose for the meantime. with so few edits, i don't feel i can get a real grasp of Phils' style and personalit.y Kingturtle 03:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I don't consider a thousand edits to be a low count at all, even for those who think such is important. (I only post counts to specific namespaces because people are going to be looking at the total with Kate's tool anyway.) I don't vote support or oppose on users who I haven't had prior interactions with, though. —Korath (Talk) 12:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Phils edits and interactions seem great, but < 1500 edits is just really hard to go on. I also kind of agree with Pavel's comment that the user's edits seem limited to topics on video games, FAC, and VFD aside. I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing, but combined with the low number of edits, I feel like it would be beneficial to see a few more months of this user's activity on a wider scope of topics. Keep up the good work though. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  3. An edit count of (as of this writing) 1167 that is primary limited to video games, FAC, and VFD is not a good sample to judge how Phils effectively interacts with the community as a whole. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Edit summaries are indeed important, and Phils has been doing at very good job at that recently (this to address Pavel Vozenilek's concerns). But, a higher edit count would be desirable. Oleg Alexandrov 18:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Phils currently has 1101 total edits: 621/42 to articles/talk, 314/18 to Wikipedia/talk, 25/40 to User/talk, 23 to Image, 13 to Template, and 5 to Category. —Korath (Talk) 12:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Closing words. I probably won't be able to check this page or edit before the voting period ends, so I thought I'd write a few words. Whatever the outcome of this nomination will be, I'd like to thank all those who've taken the time to look at my contributions and make all those encouraging comments. Two important things I've learned during this RfA period: 1) edit summaries are important 2) edit count does matter (1000+ is fine by my standards, but I can very well understand why other people don't feel comfortable endorsing a nominee with only ~1100 edits, especially given the average edit at promotion to admin is somewhat higher). I'll keep your suggestions (including diversifying my edits) in mind and, in case I'm not made admin, re-apply for adminship in a couple of months when I have a higher edit count. Thank you all. :D! Phils 20:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Votes for deletion, vandalism check, and I'm seriously considering taking more frequent and close looks at WP:TfD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Link (Legend of Zelda). I feel I've done a good job considering most of our articles on video game characters are notably bad. Having Link on my watchlist also was the ultimate test for "do not bite anons/newcomers": I've often felt like reverting edits that I considered were not up to par with the rest of the article, but instead tried to keep all new information and integrate it smoothly.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I had one dispute with User:CoolCat [1]. See the Starcraft section linked on my talk page for details; although both CoolCat and I were pretty sharp worded at times, I think the whole conflict was more of a misunderstanding. I also had a discussion on this talk page[2] about sources. Now this discussion I do not feel so good about: I really came over as an hysteric paranoid. I clearly was wrong and way too much on the defensive. However, I also believe the other participants took my words (I disagree violently...) too literally.