Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick

Sphilbrick

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (83/16/8); Scheduled to end 18:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) – Sphilbrick has been a member of the English Wikipedia community since June of 2007. In that time, in my opinion, he has demonstrated the qualities that I look for in in an EnWiki admin: intelligence, common sense, an understanding of how the project operates, the courage to both question the status quo and to enter the fray at the various boards at which the difficult decisions are rendered, the humility to accept that prevailing consensus may not be in line with his personal opinion, and, most of all, a healthy dose of courtesy and respect for his fellow editors. Another reason I respect Sphilbrick is that the majority of his edits are not auto-Twinkle/Huggle/bots but are the product of a person putting thought to paper--or should I say screen. To use wikimedia jargon, Sphilbrick demonstrates serious levels of "clue", and is someone in whom I am more than willing to trust that he will use the maintenance tools wisely and with forethought. Even if I may disagree with the actual decision, I trust him enough to come to that decision with deliberation, wisdom, and humility, which is all that can be asked of our admins. Therefore, I respectfully submit his name to the greater English wikipedia project for consideration to receive the administrator maintenance toolkit. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I'm grateful for Avi's kind words, and hope I can continue to live up to them—I accept the nomination.SPhilbrickT 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I am fairly active at MFD and would like to transition from simply !voting to closing some of the discussions. As with many other candidates, I plan to monitor the backlog, and do my part in terms of the cleanup work. I'm active at Requests for feedback, most of which doesn't require an admin, but often times, a new editor will ask for feedback on an article that has been deleted by the time I see it. If I could see it, I could be helpful to the editor in cases where the subject could be salvaged, possibly userfying all or a portion if the editor is interested in continuing to work on the potential article.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Everyone expects WP to have solid coverage of Barack Obama, but I think one of the strengths is the coverage of subjects where the alternative may be hard to find.

• I've added new articles or expanded existing articles related to women's basketball. For example, I took Nera White from this to this.
• I expanded the history section of Simsbury, Connecticut from 163 words here to 1235 words here
• I added 172 photographs, mostly on National Register of Historic Places, as part of the Connecticut photo contest
• I've commented on dozens of request at Requests for feedback, for example: here, and here.

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: Let's face it, women's basketball doesn't quite compare with the Balkans, so early on, I had no conflicts. I jumped to the other extreme by getting involved in Climate Change—I think I've managed to keep my cool in a challenging atmosphere, but that's for you to judge. This is one of the more heated exchanges; I could have done better. Unfortunately, I can't find the underlying talk page comments, but it boils down to a misunderstanding, and was resolved fairly quickly. I do get emotionally involved in subjects, but I'm fairly good at recognizing this, and, remembering There is no deadline, I can walk away for a few minutes or a few days, whatever is needed.

Optional question from Parrot of Doom

4 An administrator and anon IP argue over the addition of cited text (from an apparently reliable and neutral source) to an article. The argument descends into abuse and blockable personal attacks, of equal weight, from both editors. You're asked to intervene. What do you do?

A: The first point is, admins don't get positive consideration for their content argument by virtue of being an admin. However, while we do not tolerate abuse from anyone, we expect admins to know better, so a blockable personal attack is worse from the admin. I'd start with a stern warning for both, stronger worded for the admin. You said blockable, but generally speaking, a personal attack doesn't rise to a block without a warning. (if there are prior warnings, different answer, I'm assuming no prior warnings) If personal attacks continue, the warnings escalate quickly, but the admin deserves a block sooner, as they should know better.

Optional question from NuclearWarfare

5. I followed the climate change topic area since about this February, so I know many of the incidents and discussions the first two opposes have likely voted based on (or perhaps not; I am not psychic). But most of the other editors who will be voting in this RFA won't be aware of those incidents, and I hardly think it is fair for voters to be expected to dig into the mess that was the climate change disputes over the past year. So, do you think you could expand on your answer to question #3 some more? Also, since this your RFA after all, you should have some say in this: Would you be OK with editors who have been topic-banned from the climate change topic area discussing disputes from that in this RFA rather than just leaving what are essentially votes and not furthering discussion?

A. First, I don't know that I have authority to grant this, but I am fine with anyone who is topic-banned posting specifics about why I might not be qualified. (I suppose an arb could grant such permission; oddly, I have been arguing that a topic ban should be broad, but here is a good example of an exception I would support.) In fact, I just left an email with one of the opposers, offering to post any diffs provided. I'll elaborate on question 3 shortly.

Expanding on question 3 per NW request, I was involved in some of the Climate Change issues. I don't encourage anyone to wade through that material again, but if you want to, my most edited talk page is Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I cut back once the Arb hearing started, so you have to go back to archives such as Archive 14. A careful researcher can find some strongly worded statements, but I don't think you will find anything that crosses bounds. The CC evidence page has a lot of unpleasant reading, but I see at least 749 diffs, and I don't think a single diff of mine made the list.

Optional question from Rd232

6. You log in one morning and find that a BLP page on your watchlist has a major edit war in progress. Two editors have repeatedly inserted a claim that the subject has been unethical in his work, sourced to a well-known blog. Several newspaper columnists have also mentioned the claim, in less detail, but no mainstream news reports cover it. A single editor has reverted the claim 7 times, claiming the WP:BLP exemption to WP:3RR. The dispute has got increasingly heated, with accusations of censorship and increasing incivility in edit summaries and on the talk page. Whilst you're looking at the situation, a fourth editor reinserts the information, adding several more blogs and a press release from the subject's institution rejecting the claims. You're fairly familiar with the topic area (having participated in some fairly collegial editing in it not too long ago), so you know that all 3 editors adding the claim hold views strongly opposed to those of the BLP subject; you also know the fourth editor is an administrator. What do you do?

A. First, we have to be very careful with such a strong claim in a BLP. It cannot stand without impeccable sourcing. While I personally think some blogs are better sources of information that some reliable sources, until WP finds a way to formalize this, we have to use blogs in a very limited way (statements about themselves, for example). The fact that no mainstream news reports have covered it is controlling at this time. You said some columnists have mentioned it; how they mentioned it may be relevant. It may well be that they are discussing it as a rumor that everyone is talking about. We cannot be in the position of converting a rumor to fact just because a lot of people are talking about it. The admin insertion looks like an attempt at balance, with one mention supporting the claim and another refuting it, but that doesn't work for me. First, the subject institution may feel compelled to rebut the claim, as they may not be able to take the position that it is just appearing in sources that don't meet Wikipedia's list of RS. Adding more blogs doesn't justify adding the assertion.

While I personally might find the multiple blog references compelling (for my personal beliefs), that simply means I now think there's some truth to the statement. However, we aren't in the truth business, we are in the verifiable business. It isn't our mission to be the first to post something as soon as we think it is true, it is out mission to compile relevant and verifiable information. We need to wait until a mainstream news outlet covers it. Even then, we have to be careful and diligent, to monitor how other news source address the subject once one covers it, in case the others cover it with a very different conclusion.

Addendum Anyone reading this should note it was added after Rd232 noted I concentrated on content and omitted admin actions Some consideration of protection is warranted. If most of the editors involved are non-confirmed, then semi might be enough, but a strongly worded note to the admin is warranted, noting their lack on understanding of the sourcing issues, and urging discussion at the talk page. If many of the editors are confirmed, temporary full protection may be in order. Full protection should be rarely used, but multiple attempts to add material that could be libelous should qualify. This still requires strong admonition to the admin, as they can edit over protection. All parties should be warned about edit-warring. Either report them to WP:AN3 or confirm that they have been reported. Those that may have previously been warned might now deserve a block.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

7. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

7a. ...an editor to be blocked?

A: Blocking is something that ought to be used sparingly. I view every block as a failure of the community to persuade an editor to contribute constructively. I'm not so naive as to think that means blocks are never warranted. There are some people uninterested in contributing to the project, and fascinated by their ability to wreak havoc. They get a very short leash, but usually do get a leash. ("usually", to note there are exceptions, and a block can be issued with a prior warning in some circumstances.) In general, an editor who is violating some policy ought to be warned that their edits are in violation of policy. Especially for newcomers, there are a lot of policies, and some actions that are quite permissible in other places are prohibited here. However, and editor than continues to violate policy in the face of warnings, and is making no good faith efforts to modify their behavior can be blocked. If warnings are being ignored on the belief that they are merely warning, then it is time to step up and stop the ability of the person to edit. Initial blocks should be short in duration, as you are trying to send the message that the warnings are serious. Continuation of behavior even after a block should result in blocks of increasing duration. However, one should not simply issue longer blocks. One should also makes clear why the block is issued. I can live with a user complaining that the block was unfair, I don't ever want an editor to say they were blocked but don't know why. Now, I'll possibly get myself into hot water by saying I personally do not like indef blocks. I prefer time specific blocks in all cases. (I don't feel so strongly about this that I would ever reverse someone elses indef, this is more of a personal preference.)

7b. ...a page to be protected?

A: This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so we ought to use protection sparingly, as it interferes with that maxim. That said, there are situations where determined vandals or POV pushers are more interested in their own agenda that the improvement of the encyclopedia. Even in these cases, protection is not the first defense. If a page is being vandalized by a single editor, then address that editor, first with warning, and if necessary, blocks. Other editors should not be inconvenienced by the actions of a single individual. Even if two editors are edit warring, if they can be identified, they should be dealt with. Protection should be reserved for problematic editing by a larger group of individuals. When protection is required, it should generally be time specific. Exceptions occur, it is inevitable that pages such as Barack Obama will attract too much attention to drop protection. I support the concept of pending changes protection as a good middle ground to allow anyone to edit, while avoiding the possibility that articles will contain problematic material, but I understand that logistical details are still being worked out, so pending changes is not yet and may never be a universal solution.

7c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

A: In general, our goal for articles is "get it up and clean it up". One of the main rationales for a wiki approach is that we do not need to wait until something is close to perfect to include it. We are willing to have imperfect article on display, as we believe that the crowd can help make the article better. (My personal preference is to use user subspace for very early drafts, but that's another subject). This doesn't mean everything is acceptable. There are examples of articles that do not belong in our main space. In some cases, where the article simply is not up to the standards required, we can work through an orderly process to delete the article from main space. One advantage of a time-consuming process is that some might be able to rescue an otherwise unacceptable article and make it better. We have Prod and AfD as "normal" processes for removal of such article. However, there are certain types of article where we do not want to grind through the process. In those cases, we want to remove them much faster than the "normal" process. The reasons for circumventing the normal process falls into (in my view) two broad categories - those we want to deal with quickly because we don't want to waste time on process for process' sake, e.g. pure vandalism, and those we want to remove quickly because their existence creates a problem, e.g. BLP attacks or copyright violations. We try to err on the side of caution in both categories, but caution leads to different actions. In the second case, where the existence causes a problem, err on the side of removal. We don't want to debate a week whether an article is libeling the subject - remove it, and discuss slowly and calmly whether it can be restored. In contrast, for the other category, subjects that are not notable, and articles considered poor for other reasons, the caution rule means we only speedy things that very clearly do not belong. The fact that you think it won't survive an AfD or Prod is not a sufficient reason for speedy, use the more deliberate process and get more eyes on it.

7d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

A: The intention is that this project should follow the principles set out in the five pillars. The first four of those pillars are very broad statements. Over time, the community has developed a set of policies, guidelines and essays to help address specific situations. Inevitably in any human enterprise, the attempt to codify the spirit of the first four pillars onto specific rules about how to handle vandalism or address copyright issues will result in some missteps. The point of the fifth pillar is not to bind yourself by an imperfect rule, if the result would harm the encyclopedia. It is not carte blanche to do anything—the guiding decision ought to be - yes, I know what I'm about to do is a technical violation of some rule, but I am confident that the community will reach a consensus that the rule was flawed, and may even change the rule for the future. Suppose at one time there was a rule never to block anyone until they have been warned. Then the editor create the first bot, and starts it deleting every article. Don't let the rule bind you, block, because you are sure the community will quickly agree the rule "always warn first" needs an exception.

8. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

A: First and foremost, consensus is not a vote. In theory, nine people expressing an opinion to keep and one expressing an opinion to delete could be closed as delete, if the keep rationales are forms of "I like it" and the delete rationale is a solid example of a clear violation of policy. In practice, numbers like this are unlikely to occur; once the one person finds the major problem, others are likely to change their opinion. However, at XfD, it is not uncommon for editors to register an opinion, and not revisit it in light of subsequent positions, so it could happen. Ideally, consensus represents a position that all can accept. In my contrived example, some of the keep !votes might stick with their original position, but accept that the delete rationale has some validity, and won't be upset if the decision is delete. In practice, we are too diverse to insist that 100% accept the decision, but it is the admins function to determine one of three (not two) outcomes—the opinions expressed strongly support one position, the opinions strongly support the opposite position, or there is no consensus. This is a simplification, as there can be more than two options in the table. In general, with n options, there are n+1 possible outcomes.

Getting specific, in an XfD discussion, the admin has to conclude that the arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for keeping and there is a sufficient number of editors commenting. If there are not enough, it should be relisted. If there are enough, the decision follows the consensus, with no consensus generally defaulting to keep (There are some who feel that certain categories of BLPs should default to delete, but I don't believe a consensus on that decision has been reached.)

I have limited involvement with DRV, so I'll emphasize that I would never close a DRV without more experience there, but I believe the main difference is that a no consensus defaults to relist. The community did make a decision to delete the article, it should not be restored or even remain deleted on a sharply divided opinion—the community must affirmatively reach a decision.

A talk page discussion can be a bit less formal. While the nature of a wiki is than any decision can be reversed, it is much more disruptive to delete an entire article or template, then restore it, compared to the decision to accept or reject a particular edit to an existing article. Edits that are challenged (in a WP:BRD approach) need to reach consensus for a preferred version. The rule that it is not simply a vote still applies, but the critical mass needed to make a decision is smaller. For example, at a AfD, three keeps and one delete should probably invoke a relisting. but on a talk page if one person wants a phrase in and three are opposed, that is sufficient to make the decision (at least for now). Another difference is that an admin formally decides the consensus status of XfD, and DRV, but talk page consensus is determined by those involved, including non-admin registered editors and IPs.

9. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

A: My first step is to warn both JohnDoe and JaneRoe.

My first instinct is not to consider protection - I view protection as a solution for a broader problem of edit warring, not just two clearly identified editors.

My initial warning will be a warning. I don't yet have enough information to warrant a block. The warning will strongly encourage going to the talk page, with an admonition that a further revert could result in a block.

I'll try to note in the warning that I separately plan to determine which version should be displayed while we work out the issue, and neither editor should take it upon themselves to unilaterally decide which is the right version. This is especially important when protecting, but also applies when protection is not invoked. in general, the version before the revert war broke out may be appropriate, but if the war broke out over contentions that material in the older version was libelous or an attack, I would use the cautionary principle and use a version without the questionable material while we sort it out. In many case, identifying the right version to maintain while we go sort it out is easy, but in other case it is quite difficult. I feel comfortable on my own issuing warnings, and making a decision whether blocking is necessary. Early on, I would look for feedback form other admins if I think protection may be needed, but I anticipate reaching a comfort level with that decision in due course. I lean toward a four eyes approach if there is a question about which version should remain while the issue is discussed, as I see quite some heat generated over this issue.

I would make sure the article is in my watchlist. Ideally I can find the time to help sort through the issue, at a minimum, I need to keep an eye on it if the participants agree to try to work it out, in case they cannot.

I will try to remember to thank JohnQ for bringing it to my attention. Even if I think JohnQ was motivated by something other than pure intentions, I'll AGF.

"My first step is to warn both JohnDoe and JaneRoe." - Just for clarity, what might you do, if anything, prior to the dual warnings? - jc37 16:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something, and I'll start by noting I do not plan on taking any admin action prior to completing admin school, and reviewing major policies. My goal is to stop the edit war, and I think I am on solid ground that jumping to protection is premature. However, more important than stopping an edit war is to ensure that we don't have defamatory information visible to readers. (Copyright is extremely important, and time sensitive, but on the order of magnitude of hours not minutes. Libelous and attack material should be gone ASAP. So the first thing I'd do is look at the article, in particular the recent diffs. If one of the two is trying to insert defamatory material, reverting to a version without the offending material is, well, let's call it step zero. If the issue is more benign, say John Doe claims that someone graduated from an Ivy league school and Jane insists it was really the ag college, well, yes, we want to get it right, but it isn't so critical that I should spend time first deciding on the version. To summarize, check for serious BLP issues such as attacks, unsourced negative statements, or potentially libelous claims, address those first if they exist, then move on to warn, then come back to think calmly through which version.

I wondered if I should make anything of the fact that one of the participants and the reporter are both named John. However, even if they are socks, or meatpuppets, I address the issue first, then come back and AGF and give thanks to JohnQ, then I might check to see if JohnQ is also editing the article, and see if any red flags show up.

Thanks for the clarification.

That last part was the crux of what I was looking to find out here.

As an editor (regardless of being an admin) I find that what I do most on Wikipedia is go through histories (page histories, editor contributions, etc.)

And this question in particular, the first step should always be to check that. Issuing warnings (or blocking, for that matter) should be an informed step if at all possible. And the ability to assess the situation is obviously important.

Thanks again. - jc37 17:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

10. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

A: I am very interested—dare I say passionately interested in this project. I've been vaguely aware of it for some time prior to getting involved. but I concede I dismissed the concept as "obviously impossible". I'm happy to admit error—like the calculations proving the bumblebee cannot fly, the analysis was flawed. Despite being involved, I cannot fully explain why so many people are willing to spend so much time on this project. However, once committed to the project, I fully understand that the nature of any volunteer project is that it contains tasks that are fun, and some that are not so fun. To consider myself fully part of this community, I want to sign up for my share of not so fun tasks. I can do that to some extent without being an admin. Responding to some of the request at WP:FEED is fun, but some others I do out of a sense of duty. I don't like writing, but as Dorothy Parker is reputed to have said, I don't like writing, I like having written, so the content creation is generally fun. I signed up for a TS tranche. It hasn't been fun, but it needs to get done.

In the same way, I think I've been around long enough and learned enough about the policies to contribute to some of the cleanup task that require admin tools. I think I'm generally level-headed enough to be helpful in disputes. More importantly, I am self-aware of situations where I may be too biased to take admin actions. I am extremely interested in the Climate Change issue, so much so that I consider myself involved, and would recuse myself from anything other than emergency actions in the climate change area. I think one can passionately fight for a position, or impassionately moderate a dispute, but it is close to impossible to do both. (In contrast, while I have interest in improving women's basketball articles, I don't feel that my ability to take an admin action in that area is precluded.)

Optional question from Newyorkbrad

11. To address a concern implicit in some of the oppose comments, please state whether you expect to use administrator tools in the climate change topic area.

A: I swear I composed and posted the answer to the question above before seeing this question; I believe it answers the question, but in short, no.

Optional questions from ScottyBerg

12. Under what circumstances do you believe an administrator should view him/herself as "involved" and not take administrative action or otherwise act as an administrator concerning a particular editor/article?

A: I answered the second part of your question first, so partially addressed this, but I'll elaborate. Perception is important. Can an admin perform an admin action fairly even those the admin has edited the article in question? Probably, but that's not good enough. Just like an individual can write an unbiased article about themselves, but it is hard to do, and harder still to recognize unconscious biases. To make it easier, we strongly discourage writing about oneself, to avoid the perception that the article might be biased. In the same way, we recognize that admin actions are a big deal to those affected, so we want to avoid the perception that the admin action might be biased.

With respect to articles, ideally an admin would never have edited the article, but purely minor edits shouldn't be deemed as involved. Roughly speaking, any edit properly classified as minor is OK, plus a very few others. For example, if I create a navbox for all winners of some award, and add it to each bio, I don't call that a minor edit, but I also don't feel I am involved in it. In contrast, for example, I added a couple sentences for each player who played in a WBCA All-American game, and I would treat those articles as ones where I am involved.

With respect to editors, I confess that's something I haven't considered, but if you find you've blocked the same person a dozen or more times, it is time to start thinking about finding someone else to do it.

Finally, I'd say err on the side of caution. Even if you have zero edits to an article or group of related articles, if you do enough admin actions, the community is going to view you as involved. According to the existing rules you are not, but if multiple editors tell you that they view you as involved, accept their observations, and recuse yourself.

13. Do you feel that WP:INVOLVED, as currently worded, is sufficient, or if it needs to be modified? If so, what changes would you make?

A:As many are aware, the definition of "involved" was a major source of contention in the CC area. Generally speaking, I think the current definition at INVOLVED is fine. One cannot deem an admin as involved simply because they take an admin action. That rule would be self-defeating. It is necessary for admins to be able to wear two hats, the hat of an editor and the hat of an admin, but it is exceedingly difficult to keep the roles separate, so the best course is to do one or the other but not both.

In theory, an admin who takes 100 admin action in an area but zero editor actions qualifies as uninvolved, but in practice we are human, and if you take that many admin action, recognizing that each action almost certainly raises some emotions, one reaches the point that one can no longer truly be uninvolved. If I were to modify the policy, I would be attempt to try to codify this concept, but I don't have sufficient experience to know exactly how to do it. Do n actions of whatever type disqualify you from calling yourself uninvolved? Do blocks count for more than protection? What about edits over protection? Its tough to quantify, so I'd approach that very carefully, and frankly, prefer to handle it as an unwritten rule, at least for now.

To clarify one other point I've made, I said I would not feel I need to recuse myself from an admin action on a women's basketball article, but of course, if I've edited it,then I'm involved. I don't count spelling corrections as substantive edits, or the addition of a navbox, but if I added any content , or materially reorganized it, then I'm involved in that article. In contrast the CC area is so toxic, I would avoid admin actions on any article in the area, even if I've never seen it before.

Additional optional question from Dank

14. I like most of what I'm seeing, but reading the first archive in Talk:The Gore Effect gives me some concerns, so let me re-cast what I see as the problem in a setting that doesn't involve global warming and ask your opinion. Let's say that, on George W. Bush's current book tour, something irrelevant but embarrassing keeps happening ... suppose it turns out that he's got some degenerative disease and this is verified and well-known, and suppose he's shaky and stumbles a lot now. Given the way a lot of people feel about him, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see a lot of reliable sources (though probably not the best sources) saying that his stumbling is obviously symptomatic of a guilt complex or drug habit. Do we have an article on the "Bush stumbling controversy"? If we do, how do we frame it? Should we have a list of what each publication speculated, or would this be WP:UNDUE weight in your opinion?

A: My general criteria for whether something would desirable to be covered in WP is whether I expect people in general with some interest in a subject to think they might find something in WP on the subject. If GWB is stumbling a lot, and it is being remarked on in the press (or even in blogs), I can imagine someone deciding to check out what WP has to say about it, in the hope that the discussion with be neutral, and not partisan charged. So I do believe we should comment on it, if we can satisfy the RS hurdle. (I originally said should be covered in my opening sentence. However, if it is an unsourced rumor, I can imagine someone turning to WP to see what we have to say. However, in that case I intend to disappoint them, as we do not simply report rumors.)

Once we decide to include it, we need to decide where, and as you put it, how to frame it.

If the various article talk about the problem, but don't settle on a common name, for example, one says Bush stumbles, and other says Bush shakes, another says Bush looking old, then the discussion belongs in the article on George Bush. Why? Because that's where people are likely to look. In contrast, if someone comes up with some clever, or even not so clever phrase, let's for the sake of discussion assume everyone starts referring to it as the "quaking in the Bush", then it might be warranted to have a separate article. One can still add the phrase as a redirect to a section of the Bush article, but once it becomes its own phrase, it could take on a life of its own.

That still may not be enough to justify a standalone article, but if the phrase becomes a part of language, so, for example, we refer to someone else stumbling saying they are quaking in the Bush, then we are moving toward an article about an ubiquitous language phrase which happens to involved George Bush, as opposed to a specific discussion about an aspect of his life. At this point, if we can satisfy the usual requirements for adequate sourcing, it could justify its own article. As is always the case, I want to lean on what can be verified factually. Pure speculation should get low weight, but not automatically zero weight, if speculation rises to the level that RS are discussing the speculation. We do have to be rigorous about ensuring that no reader will confuse speculation with verifiable fact.

Finally, because you've asked a challenging question that might well have half the audience on each side of an issue, let me emphasize my respect for consensus. I've presented how I might express my views in such a discussion, and I would hope that others would agree, but I can easily imagine other positions, and if the community wants something different than I would have chosen, in many cases, so be it. (I don't compromise on principle - if someone wants to include a scurrilous, poorly sourced claim as if it were a fact, then I'm going to fight. But whether it should be a section or one article, or a standalone article, or not even covered isn't as critical - I'll make my position know, attempt to restate if is I think I'm misunderstood, but if the community decides to disagree with me, the project will be fine.)

Additional question from jc37

15 - The question answers are pretty decent, and I like that you've been involved in areas helping less-than-experienced editors. But looking at some of the links on your userpage (User:Sphilbrick/Tour of Duty, User:Sphilbrick/RFPP Clerkship Discussion, etc.) and the tone/tenor of some of your comments in your contribution history, make me concerned about a focus on "titles", "hierarchy", as well as a "reward philosophy". In my estimation, adminship is carrying a toolbox (carrying the mop, as it were), and can also be a social construct due to carrying those tools. This is supposed to be a question, though I'll honestly say I'm not certain how to phrase it, but here goes: Can you "read-between the lines" and determine what my concern is, and could you help allay my concerns? (And for those in the peanut gallery, yes, I understand what campaign promises are, but I'd like some clarification, regardless.) - jc37 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A. Many corporate organizations get the "dirty work" done through a combination of stick and carrot. The sticks can hierarchy based "you work for me, so do this drudge work", title based "I'm a VP and you're not, so do this", both with the stick of "or else you're fired". They can also use the carrot of monetary rewards—salary increase and bonuses for completing some of the less pleasant tasks. Because that isn't our model, we have none of those options. That's a good thing. Titles and hierarchy may work in the corporate world, but I have no interest in reproducing that here. (I do support clarity of roles, but I see that as different than titles.)

My current concern is how to do a better job welcoming and nurturing newbies who are struggling to become editors. Requests for feedback is woefully understaffed. I can't pretend the work is intrinsically wonderful, so I look around for other ways to persuade people to help out. I prefer carrots to sticks so I'm casting about for ways to create rewards or other ways to motivate people to do what is needed. Contests can work, but I'm painfully aware of the recent DYK fallout that mentality created, so I'm very concerned about pushing that model. In short (although it may be too late to say that now - I'm happy about the minimalist hierarchy here (there's some, but not much), I don't want titles for the sake of titles, but I am intrigued about how to create rewards (as long as the approach is carefully controlled.) If there's another way to get more people helping out at Requests for feedback, I'm all ears.

Additional questions from 2over0

16 - Please accept my apologies for adding another to your already lengthy list of questions. I stress that this is optional; your answer will help sway me one way or the other, but I cannot guarantee that it will affect anyone else either way. Some of your answers above are very weak to the point of strengthening my earlier misgivings. It is not that they are not decisive (that is not the point to walking through a hypothetical), it is that they are also not incisive.

Magog the Ogre has made a proposal at Wikipedia:AN#Sanctions on Tea Party movement (permalink) suggesting a special revert restriction and other measures aimed at promoting productive discussion and editing. Based on your experience with another perenially contentious area and general adminning philosophy, what do you think of the advisability and likely outcomes of such a proposal? Can you offer any suggestions for improvement? Disclosure: I have commented there, but this is very much an area with room for disagreement among reasonable people; I am far more interested in why than what. If for whatever reason you would prefer not to comment on that particular issue, do you think that this or some similar proposal would have helped Climatic Research Unit email controversy, Climate change denial, or some other controversial article in your experience? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A. I'm generally in favor of experimenting with alternative mechanisms, within reason. It will not work if we have different rules for every article, so we have to be judicious about how we conduct such experiments, and take care to remember that newbies barely know the general rules, and established editors knowing the general rules may miss that a particular article has custom rules, so care must be taken not to block someone because they missed a different rule for a particular page. Magogs rule 4 specifically addresses this, my minor, anal edit would be to change "may be granted leniency" to "will be granted leniency".

The substance of the proposal appears to be the one revert limit on same content. I like the spirit, but not the execution. "The same content" is virtually begging for wikilawyering. A desirable feature of a metric is objectivity. In some cases, there is little alternative. (The definition of "revert" is one I find troublesome, but I have no better solution.) However, in this case, we can define an objective measure which will approximate the desired goal. Simply apply the one revert to a single section (or possibly subsection). Debate briefly what level to use, but then use that definition. Changes in content should generally be accompanied by a change in section header, so if someone argues that a single section contains two distinct types of content, perhaps there's a layout issue to be resolved, rather than an argument about how to count reverts.

Picking up on what worked at CRU, I thought we did OK when we simplified BRD down to D. To put it differently, in the same way a fully protected article doesn't get changed unless editors reach a consensus and then ask an admin to make the change, we agreed to act as if that rule were in place when Full protection was lifted, the only difference being we didn't have to find an admin to make the change. But we did have a period of time where we agreed no substantive changes without a talk page discussion and consensus. It was grinding and painful, but it beat ANI reports, blocks and Full Protection.

17 - On a lighter note, what do you like about the new {{cn-span}} template? I had never seen it before last night. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A. Keeping in mind that the vast majority of our "customers" are not interested in learning policy, but come to get information. We need to let them know, as gently as possible, that not the quality of information in WP is uneven. We do this a variety of ways, with templates on article, and indicators for GA and FA. Some do not like the templates, and I appreciate the concern, but we owe it to our readers to let them know that some articles are less finished than others. I see the new {{cn-span}} template as a relatively gentle way of alerting the reader to be careful. As an aside, I'm not the biggest fan of WP:Bold, but the concept is used on another language, was mentioned on Jimbo's page, and someone boldly came up with the template. I've used it a few times recently, will bow to consensus if it is eliminated, but think it is a worthwhile experiment that sends a message to the reader in a less ugly way than a template banner.

General comments

• Links for Sphilbrick: Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Sphilbrick can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. Appears to be more than qualified knowledge-wise, and comes over very calm and collected. I liked the last section of your talk page where you asked help before just jumping in and messing something up. If you stick to this when you become an admin there shouldn't be any problems. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Support. Seems to be a solid contributor with an even temperament. 28bytes (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. Very helpful and knowledgeable editor. Was going to nominate him myself. -- œ^™ 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Seems like a fantastic editor. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. Someone I've frequently seen around, and I see absolutely no downsides in terms of competence, civility, or clue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
6. No concerns. ~NerdyScienceDude 19:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Support Of course I would support this RfA! Perseus!Talk to me 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Maybe not. Perseus!Talk to me 20:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

7. Support – Great contributor that can be trusted with the tools. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Yes Inka⁸⁸⁸ 19:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Support dedication at help desk is a strong reason to say plus one. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
10. I asked S to ping me if and when he was nominated. So here I am. :) Avi has it just so, I think S will be a fine admin. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Support - plenty of experience, seems trustworthy, opposes are unconvincing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Support My interaction with SPhilbrick has been at the help desk - they are a knowledgeable editor and very willing to help. TNXMan 20:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Trust the judgment of Avraham and Good Track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
14. Support. Yes. Tiderolls 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
15. Support I don't see any special reason behind the two first oppose votes. From what I've seen, this is a good, trusted user. Diego Grez (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
16. Support - I can't see any reason to oppose. Best of luck! Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
17. Support - hard-working user with a seemingly level temperament. The opposes have not brought up any points, so... PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 21:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
18. All three current opposes really don't have any reasons while the candidate is a level headed editor with plenty of experience. Derild4921☼ 21:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
19. Support. This user is a hard worker with plenty of experience. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. Good history of content creation, and good answers to the questions. Best of luck.--Korruski^Talk 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
21. Support. Hard-working wikipedian; provided good answers. TheRasIsBack! 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
22. I've followed the climate-change judicial processes closely, and I'm OK with what I've seen there from Sphilbrick. (S)he strikes me as thoughtful, calm, and reasonably grounded in policy. I differ from Stephan in that I think this is actually a reasonable take on a somewhat overdramatized dispute. I'm very willing to support someone when I've seen them deal with conflict in a mature and sensible manner, even if their positions on specific questions don't agree with mine. I haven't spent much time looking at climate-change articles, so I guess there could be something hidden there that would make me change my mind, but based on what I've seen thus far, I can get behind this as a good idea. I think Sphilbrick will be a good admin. Make us proud. :)

    As an aside, I would greatly appreciate it if some of the opposers below were at least allowed to expand on their rationale. MastCell ^Talk 23:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

23. Support—I've seen many of his contributions during my time here on Wikipedia, whether they be to articles or discussions. I have not once seen something that would suggest he is an incompetent or uncivil editor; on the contrary, my previous encounters with his contributions have proved otherwise. I can trust him with the mop. Airplaneman ✈ 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
24. Support per nom. Great candidate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
25. Support I have had significant interaction with this editor in the "topic area which must not be named", and while I didn't always agree with this editor, they always seemed to be reasonable and level headed. ATren (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
26. Support. In addition to what others have said: I recall seeing good work in areas dealing with newcomers particularly, and that's an attitude/focus which should be part of the variety of interests in the admin corps. Rd232 ^talk 00:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Per all above.intelati^talk 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
28. Support His edit history suggests that he is well familiar with WP policies. I don't have any interaction with this user and my opinion is solely based on his contributions. EngineerFromVega^Discuss 01:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
29. Support Per all above AND how could I not support a potential admin who actually cares about editing the entry for Carol Blazejowski? --Quartermaster (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
30. A few prolific drama mongers below that have offered either a completely blank oppose rationale or IMO inaccurate claims of the candidate inciting drama. This has lead me to Default to Support until I can be convinced otherwise. The candidate has clearly made popular enemies, but their arguments on why we should not support the candidate are beyond weak and/or non-existent. Vodello (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Addendum After learning more of why there are so many blank opposes below, I am updating my vote to My Strongest Support of 2010. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#William M. Connolley and other sections that relate to blank or weak oppose voters on the arbitration case were fun reads. It seems to me that the candidate is a major threat to many prolific and very well-known users that our arbitration committee have found by majority decision to have repeatedly treated Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I talk about candidates bringing up red flags by having views that conflict with Wikipedia policy or by being a major drama monger, but strangely enough these circumstances, beginning with the Big Blank Oppose #1 by the ex-admin William M where his reputation certainly precedes him, lit up a big ol' green light. Support, Support, A Thousand Times Support Vodello (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
31. I think he would do fine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
32. Support. Everything I see here indicates to me that he'll do fine. Seems level-headed and plenty skilled enough. No serious negatives - nothing provided by the Oppose commentors rises to the level of a deal-killer, or even close. Candidate is to be commended for being willing to work on climate change topic, even though its stressful and likely to create enmity. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
33. Support per Herostratus' reasoning. I'm underwhelmed by the oppose comments so far. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
34. Support A level headed candidate - per nom. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (Note - this comment was originally posted in the "Oppose" section Raul654 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC))

    Uh, this is the oppose section... ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    Is it? I just thought it was a page on a website. How fascinating. Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    You may wish to glance at WP:POINT, of which the above appears to be a (minor) infraction. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    I have little doubt that Pedro is well aware. This is fairly innocuous and can probably be ignored (as I note below). So at this point, the less we focus on it, the less likely it'll be disruptive, imho. - jc37 23:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    It looks like WP:IAR is in fair form here. I'm fairly sure that whoever closes this will notice this. So nothing further to be concerned with, I think. - jc37 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    Enough. I am not going to be as politically correct as my fellow editors above. The oppose rationale and the subsequent nonchalant condescending response by Pedro is completely irresponsible, immature, and a poor representation of all administrators of Wikipedia. If you are going to oppose the candidate, please do it right instead of doing this petty pussy-footing in a deliberate attempt to get a negative response. You have succeeded. This is my only response to Pedro's completely disrespectful comment, so if anyone wants to indefinitely block me without ever so much as receiving a single warning in four and a half years just for daring to point out how absurd his comments are, you will highly unlikely receive any opposition. No user, administrator or no, has the right to turn RFA into a joke like Pedro and several others here have. Vodello (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I will not refactor this comment in any shape or form. Vodello (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) NOTE: Pedro's "Support" vote was initially in the oppose column until User:Raul654 moved it to the support section. My initial comment is in response to Pedro deliberately placing his "support" vote under the oppose section and his response to his action. Vodello (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

35. Support Nothing of major concern here. We all make mistakes and I'll assume that you mean the best. Besides, bringing the issues to light here is a good thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
36. Support the reasons given for opposition are weak to say the least. DC T•C 05:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
37. Support Yes definitely! I was thinking when this would come up. Minimac (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
38. Support I don't see any issues in this user's history that raise concern at this time. Oh, and Closing Burecrat: Please just do everyone a favor and just ignore the first four opposes. The first two are from people with personal grudges that are ignoring the spirit of the rulings against them in order to avoid having to justify opposes that they probably cannot justify with actual words if they had to, the third has no reason at all, and the fourth is a boilerplate oppose by someone who appears to not want anyone at all to be an admin, i.e. a POV pusher. This is a really pathetic lineup of opposes here, except for the ones that actually give reasons, of course. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Don't you think that's rather disrespectful, not to say dishonest? What you really mean is "Closing Burecrat [sic]: Please just do everyone a favor and ignore the votes of everyone who doesn't agree with me". Given the admin-for-life mentality, any rational person ought to oppose a candidate if there's the slightest doubt about that candidate's suitability. That so many here are irrational is hardly my problem. Malleus Fatuorum 12:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    No more disrespectful that your oppose voting every candidate you can until you get your way with desysoping. Did you even look at the candidate before posting that? I don't think I said anything wrong in pointing out that your response is a boilerplate that has nothing to do with the candidate and everything to do with your personal views. I clearly made the distinction between the legitimate oppose votes and the ones that were... not so legitimate. I don't mind disagreement, and I have no vested interst in the candidate's success or failure. I just don't like the immature little game you are playing. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    When did this become a free-fire zone where incivility was tolerated and encouraged? Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    No, this is a great idea. Let's have the 'crats invalidate any oppose vote that seems to be motivated by personal animus. Of course, that would drop the oppose count of the average RfA by about 90%. I'm looking forward to seeing this applied in practice. I'm also looking forward to seeing the 'crats discount support votes that either don't give a rationale, or give a weak rationale that seems to consist solely of personal affection for the candidate. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Months ago, long before I came onto the scene. For the record, I don't mean to attack you personally, just point out that not posting your reasoning here because of an ArbCom ruling is like pointing to a "Stay off the Grass" sign as an excuse for not stopping a child from walking into traffic. We all know that there is a difference between the spirit and the letter of the law. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    So, what you mean when you wrote "The first two are from people with personal grudges that are ignoring the spirit of the rulings against them in order to avoid having to justify opposes that they probably cannot justify with actual words if they had to," wasn't that I had a personal grudge against this individual, that I was violating the spirit of a ruling banning me from a topic by opposing an RFA, and that I couldn't justify my oppose if I was allowed to? Is there even a remote chance that you'll apologize, or retract, or just let me have the last word? Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

39. Support the opposes so far are pretty convincing: this is the kind of guy we could use as an administrator. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    If anything, the very first oppose vote which was a blank vote by ex-admin User:William M. Connolley was a large green flag for me. Without even having the tools yet, the candidate seems to have successfully rattled several cages of users that desperately needed it. The candidate has obviously made very prolific enemies, several of which specialize more in drama than content building. If these blank opposes drive the approval rating below 70%, I strongly encourage the closing bureaucrat to trout all blank opposers. (with an indef block so that we can get back to building an encyclopedia instead of the next episode of The Real Housewives of Wikipedia. Just kidding. Or am I?) Vodello (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

40. Support, per Jclemens, who's onto something. Sphilbrick seems ripe for teh tools, and has much to get on with. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
41. Support -- wiooiw (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
42. Support - about time too :P —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:16pm • 08:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
44. Support - per nom. Looks fine to me & should make a good admin. No concerns here - Alison ^❤ 10:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
45. Support per a most persuavsive nomination. I'm confident that the 'crats will ignore oppostion attempts to rat-fuck this candidiate. MtD (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    When did this become a free-fire zone where incivility was tolerated and encouraged? Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    I don't think he was being uncivil. Though inelegant, "Rat fucking" is actually a term of art related to elections coined by Donald Segretti. See this. Raul654 (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    From your link "Ratfucking is an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks." It is not civil to accuse people that disagree with you of "political sabotage or dirty tricks." I did not accuse other topic-banned editors in support here of any malfeasance - and I didn't pointedly ask them to justify their support. I understand that as I'm in the minority of this RFA, I am permitted to be challenged, insulted, poked with sticks, and what not, without repercussions, but let's not play like something else is happening here. Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Agree the language of this support is unacceptable. Polargeo (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Who said I was referring to Hipocrite? I was particularly non-specific. I reiterate, there is an attempt by certain oppostion voters to rat-fuck this RfA. For shame! MtD (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    That is neither an excuse or an apology? Polargeo (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    You are most perceptive. It is neither an excuse nor an apology. If I had done anything wrong I would be entirely unrepentent. MtD (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Please someone sort this out in the edit summary I was called "you smug little hamster of a man" This is a blatant Personal attack. Polargeo (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC) (changed to lower case so that I am not shouting) Polargeo (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Oh stop whining. You love it. MtD (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Matty the Damned, your contributions here are not helpful; you are instructed not to post any further on this page and never to behave like this again. Polargeo, calm down just a tad; your reaction will draw increased attention to the obnoxious comment, which is not what we want. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    On the one hand, NYB is entirely correct, on the other hand, this is the most hilarious exchange I have seen in an RfA in a while. Funnier than the 32/33/38 votes at VernoWhitney's... I just love how RfA brings everyone together. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

46. Support. I have an impression of someone who always gives thoughtful and constructive contributions. I am unfamiliar with Climate change and POV issues raised by opposers, but I believe that administrator status has no bearing on these issues. If he were to use administrative privileges in a partisan way, the community would respond resoundingly. I am sure he will be a greater asset to the project per his answer to Q1A. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
47. Support. I see no worries here. Moreover I liked "However, we aren't in the truth business, we are in the verifiable business" in the QA. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
48. Support unquestionable support. Due to extended interaction with this user I judge them to have common sense and the project at heart. Even when I disagree passionately with them. Polargeo (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
49. Support. Plenty of good and varied experience, and good answers to the questions. Climate change conflict opposes don't really worry me. If you edit in contentious areas like that, you're certain to garner vociferous opposition - and it is the opponents who have the bans, while the candidate does not and has a clean block log. The discourse highlighted in Q3 is perhaps not ideal, but if that's the worst example of a heated exchange, I don't think we have a great deal to worry about. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    I would just like to point out that topic banned editors both support and oppose this RfA. I am one of them. This should not diminish their opinions because they are experienced editors with considerable content building, vandal fighting and even admin experience. Polargeo (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Hmm, yes, that's a fair point. Perhaps it would be fairer for me to simply point to the candidate's lack of any blocks or bans as being suggestive that they did not really stray out of order in such a contentious area -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

50. Support Good responses to questions, giving me the impression he is able to exercise restraint with the tools where appropriate. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
51. Support Was concerned by the opposers implication that the candidate might push the harmful climate skeptic POV, but Polargeo's support and a quick check of their contribs mostly allays this. Other than their take on climate they look excellent, per all the above. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
52. Support per nom, answers to questions, Feyd's support above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
53. Support Great answers here, solid contributions to several areas in both the main space and the project space. Sphilbrick will make a great admin. Steven Walling 16:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
54. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The answers to questions 10 and 11 may alleviate the concerns implicit in some of the opposes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    I wish as much, NYB. Promises made during RFA are made ad captandum vulgaris - they are unenforceable, and making a promise here demonstrates that the promiser is either dishonest or unaware of the history of RFA promises. You, however, are an arbiter. Perhaps if you had stripped (or started stripping) adminship from individuals who blatantly and obviously broke RFA promises in the past... Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    I noticed in the past that nominees engage in the discussion section at their own peril—it is often wiser to stick to the candidate answer section. But I'll ignore that warning signal in my head, and see if I can note something which I hope will be helpful. First I agree with your general point - when I review an RfA, I put very little weight on what they say they will not do. If I say I won't close a CSD, and then I do, what are you going to do? You gave me the tool. In contrast, we have an existing policy that says an admin won't act when involved, and I've said very explicitly that I consider myself involved in all of CC, so if I violate my pledge, I've not "simply" broken an unenforceable RfA promise, I've violated a policy, and if there is any gray area (am I really involved) you have the words to hang me.--SPhilbrickT 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    The system at Wikipedia is set-up to encourage a wide range of plausible deniability when it comes to violations of one's promises in one's RfA. I have seen firsthand how an administrator who insisted they would not act in certain areas did indeed act and act with a certain impunity in that area a few years down the road. When I complained about this, I was told, basically, that because it was a few years later the promise didn't mean anything any more, (Involvement is temporary while adminship is forever?) and, besides, they weren't really acting all that problematically. The case eventually went to arbcom, but it still has not been fully resolved. This isn't to say that I don't believe you, SPhiilbrick. Only that once burned, twice shy. If Wikipedia actually had a working admin recall system in place that wasn't easily gamed and held admins accountable, I'd be more inclined to take into consideration your promise. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

55. Support As nominator. Of course it gets transcluded when I'm out of town on business 8-). Good Luck!! -- Avi (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
56. seems fine. -Atmoz (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
57. Strong Support—every interaction I've had with this user leads me to believe he will make an excellent administrator. I believe he can be trusted not to abuse administrative tools in areas such as the climate change topic. –Grondemar 18:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
58. Strong support. Excellent candidate. Very thorough and knowledgeable responses to questions. Just the man for the job... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
59. Support When checking the candidate's contributions, I find them improving content, creating a DYK, making sensible comments at the Help desk and helping new contributors. Seems quite admirable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
60. Support, generally per Mast Cell, excluding his last sentence, since I don't think further elucidation of those opposes are necessary to anyone who is paying attention. The Climate Change Arb sanctions cast a very wide net: anyone involved there who wasn't sanctioned was most likely behaving. I have read every diff presented in the Opposes and Neutrals and don't see anything of concern. He has agreed not to use the tools in the Climate Change area. He corrected his answer that concerned Malleus. I encountered Sphilbrick during the DYK copyvio debacle, and he was a voice of reason. In short, I see a mature, helpful, knowledgeable editor here unlikely to abuse the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
61. Support MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
62. Support -- No concerns. I notice there are some Climate Change issues swirling around, but they seem to have been adequately addressed, especially since the candidate agrees not to take admin action in that area. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
63. Support - Seen this editor around, have confidence that he'll be able to handle the tools without problems. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
64. Fine answer to my question, no concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
65. Support - Overall I see a net positive. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
66. Support - per NY Brad and others. Jonathunder (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
67. Support - per above - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
68. Support - the candidate looks fine to me. AlexiusHoratius 22:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
69. Support - We need more neutral admins, given existing Wikipedia systemic bias and double-standards. THF (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
70. Support. I was initially concerned by some of the comments made by the opposers so I went through the users contributions looking for a reason to oppose. I have determined that he well suited to the tasks of an administrator. Climate change is a difficult area and it is no surprise that any involvement will generate strong opposition. But it seems to me that this user kept his head while strongly making his points. He then bowed to the decisions and moved on. Asking questions, seeking understanding and plainly stating your case any important qualities. Is he perfect? Of course not but he is suited for he job. JodyB _talk 23:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
71. Support: Shouldn't be a bad admin. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Nobody should be a bad admin, but unfortunately too many are. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    Which is precisely why I oppose at least 85% of any candidates for adminship. I can vote them in, and I can't vote them out. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2 is my favorite reminder of this inconvenient truth. Under normal circumstances, I would oppose this candidate because of potential involvement in drama. However, looking at the blank opposes from some of the usual suspects that I sometimes see in drama firestorms and subsequently finding out why they are really opposing, I must commend the candidate for his ability to crush bullshit without even having the tools. Sphilbrick as an admin should be a good step in the right direction, hopefully allowing for less pointless drama mongering that stifles productivity on building an encyclopedia. I want this RFA to pass more than any other I've participated in for 2010. Vodello (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

72. Support Good content, good answers, opposer's diffs are unconvincing Jebus989^✰ 00:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
73. Support. Level headed editor with a record of quietly improving the encyclopedia, and his answers demonstrate he has a clue. Two of the opposes from editors for whom I have a great deal of respect (jc37 and Dragonfly67) gave me pause, but I respectfully disagree with them. Horologium (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
74. Support - Yes, some of the opposes are correct that the timing of this nom may not be ideal, but I've seen very few ideal RfAs, and I expect that this candidate will turn out to be an excellent admin. —DoRD (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
75. Support. Not insane. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
76. Support I'm not particularly swayed by the opposes and I've interacted enough with Sphilbrick in various areas that I think he would be a fine admin. Gigs (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
77. Support I've seen this editor around in several places. Although the first several !opposes claim (rightly IMO, but likely would be OK to bring forward here IMO)) that they are prohibited from elaborating their rationales I am somewhat aware of the surrounding events and I dismiss their opposition as "you opposed me once, I will oppose you forever". The answers to Qs 1-8 plus some cherry-picks pretty much sold me, as did the nom statement. Everything I see is consisten with the editor with which I'm familiar, a very thoughtful and well-spoken contributor. I might agree with a little more than half the things they say, but almost all of them get me thinking, which helps my own progress. I see no indication at all that they would abuse the bit to forward an agenda, rather I see a large dose of integrity and clue. So no problems, but we will likely have some debates in future. In a perfect world I would take you to task for your dozens of typogrammos above, and point out how you can use preview to ensure your ideas are conveyed (almost) perfectly clearly, and how important it is for an admin to be very clear in their communications - but I'm wagering you've been drinking late-night coffee just now, and after all, dude, it's the 90's, just sound the words out. Franamax (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
78. Link to the ballot box for early voting. I think Sphilbrick is able to put his personal opinions he has as an editor aside when it comes to using the tools. Comments made by Sphilbrick after the end of the CC case when problems arose, lead me to believe this. Count Iblis (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
79. Support I trust his judgment. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
80. Support I've been aware of Sphilbrick's work for quite a while and I've looked extensively for a chink in his armour. I couldn't find any. To those who are opposing simply to retaliate, and to those who are neutral because they think he chose the least opportune moment to run: it's the best time, because it's nothing compared to some of the drama he will encounter when he gets the mop, and if this is the way he handles the scandals, I'm convinced he's fit for the bit.--Kudpung (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
81. Support The sensible and thoughtful answers to the questions indicate to me that this user would make a good administrator. Deli nk (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
82. Support Serious, thoughtful, calm editor. I trust him not to use admin tools/status in the climate change area.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
83. sure.

Oppose

1. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, that's a very pretty signature. Would you mind giving a reason for your oppose? The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Somehow I think you're not the first person to use that reply. And I find it humorous still. :) (X! · talk)  · @879  ·  20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry darling but the police say I can't tell you [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   This [2] may help you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

2. I do not trust this user not to abuse the tools to push a fringe POV. Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Care to share? That way other participants can make a more informed decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but I am topic banned from providing more information. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Possibly both opposes relate to climate change (see here). The only interaction on either of their personal talk pages that I can find is a notification about this page, which S seems to be involved with only for formatting purposes. Perhaps someone else can cast more light on the situation? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Seems like an hypocrisy... Diego Grez (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   When did this become a free-fire zone where incivility was tolerated and encouraged? Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Incivility? When did asking for rationale become incivility? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   It's not. The incivility was from Mr. Grez. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   My interpretation is that Diego was making a (rather poorly thought-out) pun on your username, and did not intend to cause offense. sonia♫ 23:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose Perseus!Talk to me 20:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Mind providing a reason? Derild4921☼ 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

4. "admins don't get positive consideration for their content argument by virtue of being an admin". Really? Until there's a fair and honest desysopping process in place (which may be never judging by current progress) such a blinkered view does not bode well for the use of the admin utility belt. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   What do you mean by that? From Sphilbrick's answer, "don't" is meant in the sense of "should not", with action following accordingly. You surely don't think they should do you? Did you read the answer differently? Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   In which variant of English does "don't" mean "shouldn't"? Malleus Fatuorum 11:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   I'm looking at the answer as a whole, particularly as it relates to the specific question "What do you do?". So "don't" here relates to what should I do not what happens normally. Rd232 ^talk 11:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   I'm looking at the facts, which is that they do. Malleus Fatuorum 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   The facts are not at RFA, Sphilbrick is. And his answer indicates he shares your concern. Rd232 ^talk 12:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   If he shared my concern then he would be addressing my concern, not putting himself forward to join the ranks of the untouchbles. Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   He didn't put himself forward, he was nominated by User:Avraham. The reference to "untouchables" makes me smile - I heard a thing on the radio yesterday about Dalits who have to earn a living by emptying toilets. Well, "cleaning shit up" is part of the admin job description... :) Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Malleus makes a good point. When I wrote the sentence, it was implicitly "admins don't (from me) get positive...". It was intended as a prescriptive answer, not a descriptive answer. I'm happy this exchange occurred, because I was quite surprised at the oppose, and didn't originally understand the rationale. Happily, I agree with MF. In short, some do, but they should not.--SPhilbrickT 13:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose as I believe too much drama will ensue from this editor being made an administrator. Someone who teams up with another user to write something like this, in my mind, is running afoul of community standards we have to avoid, say WP:ATTACK and WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's not the kind of problem I like to see surrounding an admin candidate. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Point of order: that page states "material was compiled by [another user] and formatted by Sphilbrick." Rd232 ^talk 01:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Helping another user make an attack page is at least a tacit endorsement of the content. It's unapologetically in the admin-candidate's user space and there was no, to my understanding, attempt to correct any of insinuations (dare I say, personal attacks?) contained therein. I cannot guess as to motivations, but I can see how sphilbrick has been involved and I'm not impressed. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   "attack page"? It looks like a summary of events, with neutral descriptions of "X did Y", plus quotes from editors from their edit summaries etc. There is no commentary that I can see. Rd232 ^talk 01:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Directly commented: "William M. Connolley reverts with no explanation in edit summary. William M. Connolley marks this edit as minor." -> This is not a neutral summary of how WP:ROLLBACK works. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   The diff doesn't say "rollback", you have to guess it. And using WP:ROLLBACK on that edit looks like an abuse of the tool, in which context, the given summary is neutral. Rd232 ^talk 01:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   It seems that you've fallen into a similar trap of trying to make commentary about this subject without having all the information, casting aspersions where you likely should not, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   I chose my words carefully: "looks like". It is not outside the realm of possibility that the use was OK. But (a) it looks like a misuse on a reasonably close examination as one not familiar with the entire context (b) the summary you refer to is neutral (c) an editor involved in "formatting" a page like that can not be expected to review every piece of information in great detail. (d) it is really quite amusing that you would cite that casting aspersions link when you are the one seemingly unable to back up your accusation towards Sphilbrick. Rd232 ^talk 08:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   It is funny how problems related to climate change tend to bring out the worst in people. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to bait me into some sort of uncivil argument. Be that as it may, it's clear that Sphilbrick was closely aligned with a group of editors who exacerbated the problems surrounding climate change. The user Sphilbrick was "helping" was eventually subject to a topic ban as part of the arbitration. This indicates poor judgment on Sphilbrick's part: a judgment that indicates an unacceptable possibility of abusing certain administrator tools. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Well you're entitled to your opinion. And I would agree that any reservations I have about Sphilbrick arise from that topic area (in which I disagree with him and agree with you...). But I think overall his judgement as an admin will be good, and I include in that an assumption that he will have the good sense to essentially avoid acting as an admin in that area. Rd232 ^talk 18:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose - I do respect Avraham. But I think that the timing for this isn't the best. And in this case, I don't think clairvoyance was needed to note that such drama could occur. (Not that drama should stop us from doing what is right, of course.) Anyway, all that aside, in looking over contributions, I'm not sure that this person currently meets my personal criteria for trust. Not to bring out an old RfA cliche, but "maybe next time"... - jc37 01:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose - On good days i've been considering giving out a barnstar for levelheadedness and adherence to NPOV, despite S's personal POV - but unfortunately each time its been followed by incidents that made me wonder why i even considered it. More detail is unfortunately not within my means to provide, given that my interaction with S is in an area from which i've voluntarily topic-banned myself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   The heated exchange example in #3 is a good reason for why i'm in opposition. Without touching upon the basis of the conflict (since i can't), the exchange to me shows a faulty way of addressing a problem. If any editor has background knowledge of sources that can resolve a situation/edit - but these sources aren't referenced in the article - then the incorrect way (SP's unfortunately) is to ignore this background knowledge and state that nothing supports the edit/situation. The three correct ways: a) tag unsourced b) add one or more references c) ignore for now... are significantly better. In this situation i believe that SP let his POV determine the method of resolution, instead of his mind. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Summarize: the heated exchange case in #3 seems to me to be a POV statement of the kind that (paraphrased) says i can will-fully ignore verifiable reality, at the detriment of the article, because conveniently enough no one, has yet, provided the verification that i know exist, but do not like.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Kim, can you please provide a diff for the heated exchange in #3? I'm not sure what that's referring to. Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Its in the response to Q3 - the link is embedded on "this", and thus hard to see: ".... This is one of the more heated exchanges; I could have done better. ...." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

8. Weak oppose I'm not inclined to grant adminship to anyone who has been involved in the climate change fracas right now. This user certainly seems to have offended one of the factions, and looking through their contributions I can see why. AniMate 08:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   "and looking through their contributions I can see why" - would you have something specific to point to? You might then go beyond justifying your vote to affecting the opinion of others. Rd232 ^talk 14:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose. This is a courteous editor, and generally kept above the fray in the CC articles. But I'm concerned about his/her view of reliable sourcing and his/her attitude toward the general topic of keeping inaccurate information out of the project. I remember having a generally negative opinion on this editor, to be frank, but the volume of CC talk pages is so immense that the task of finding the basis for that feeling was daunting. A cursory search found this comment in which he demonstrated what was, to me, a poor concept of reliable sourcing. In this instance, he opposed inclusion of a United States Environmental Protection Agency report relevant to one of the CC articles. I felt, and feel, that this demonstrated poor judgment, and I'm reluctant to elevate him to administrator if he can't make a proper judgment in a straightforward instance such as that. In that discussion, we see him articulating a sentiment that I've seen him make in other contexts: "Yes, we go by the sources, occasionally even when they are wrong." I know, the rule is "verifiability, not truth." But there is no rule that says, "we put in stuff even though we know it's wrong." I don't like that attitude. I would prefer a potential administrator to say that sources that we know to be wrong are not included. We are not mindless automatons. Editors, and especially administrators, must exercise good judgment for the good of the project. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   "sources that we know to be wrong are not included"... who is "we" and how do we "know" that? It seems to me that if I've interpreted you right, you want administrators to violate policy. Well that's how messes get caused. (sometimes, as with last year's BLP activity, it's worth it, but that's not something to ask a new admin to do, IMHO)... You may want to try to change our policies rather than opposing an admin candidate who wants to enforce consensus. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   Ask Sphilbrick. He was the one who said "Yes, we go by the sources, occasionally even when they are wrong." ScottyBerg (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   If it helps, I strongly agree we would not mindlessly go by a source if we all know it is wrong. If the NYT accidentally uses millions, when they mean billions, I'm not going to shrug and say it's a RS so we must use it. I'm making a much weaker statement, than it appears on the surface. If the NYT, Fox news and the Guardian report that a dozen protestors showed up at a rally, and Scottyberg says, I know that is wrong, because I was there and I counted 15. I simultaneously believe you, but do not support removal of the statement without better evidence.--SPhilbrickT 21:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

10. Sorry, the drama attached to someone who seems to otherwise be an excellent candidate means that I must regretfully opppose. DS (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Today's attempts at blocking people involved in the climate change controversy that oppose the the request for Adminship, but not those climate change folks that support the request for adminship has tainted the whole process to my mind. It is clear that one one side of this discussion is silenced either through topic bans and perhaps fear of actual bans if they come forward and try to express their opinion. I have no personal contact with this particular editor, and under normal circumstances have no reason to support of oppose their adminship. But the current situation seems to be to have become one sided. So I think this adminship should be denied for now and a new RfA shoud take place again when an honest and more frank examination of the interactions with other editors can take place, where these editors themselves are welcome to comment. Thenub314 23:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Note that Sphilbrick had nothing to do with these blocks; see the WP:ANI thread for a further discussion. These blocks were reversed after a discussion showed little support for them. I don't think the blocks should be held against Sphilbrick. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose It is a poor idea for editors who are under a current topic-ban as the result of an ArbCom decision to stand for admin, and a very bad idea to give them the mop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Uh, Sphilbrick is not topic banned. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    I stand corrected, and offer my apologies to Sphilbrick for my incorrect statement of the facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

12. Oppose, with respect, and apologies. Sphilbrick seems like a responsible, trustworthy user, who will likely make a good admin; but per AniMate above, I just can't support anyone who's been involved in editing/discussing climate change articles, however remotely, to become an admin at this time. The whole area is still too toxic, and I've no wish to re-ignite simmering conflicts (in fact, looking at the Opposes above, this RFA already has). I trust that if this RFA passes, Sphilbrick will abide by his answer to Q11. Robofish (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    So what you're saying is that, when a controversial topic arises, sensible editors should avoid it, leaving it exclusively to the disruptive editors. If sensible editors get involved, they should be tarred with the same brush and thereafter denied any credibility. Right? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    If they've acted in ways that raises doubts about their actual sensibility, why yes. Perhaps you should have looked up "Begging the question" before posting your passive-aggressive response. --Calton | Talk 08:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

13. Oppose Per SA. Protonk (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose. A skim of talk page comments gives me sufficient concerns about this editor's judgment, and about both the rush to confirm and the ludicrously overreactive blocking of a couple of editors voting oppose. --Calton | Talk 08:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    Note that Sphilbrick had nothing to do with these blocks; see the WP:ANI thread for a further discussion. These blocks were reversed after a discussion showed little support for them. While your other concerns may be valid, I don't think the blocks should be held against Sphilbrick. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

15. Mostly procedural oppose. I have a bad feeling in the stomach about this candidate and find some of the diffs above concerning. I would normally stay out of the discussion until I have made up my mind, and if this doesn't happen wouldn't consider it necessarily a bad thing. But since several bureaucrats have announced their intention to rig the vote in this case it's appropriate to make it harder for them by adding yet another oppose vote which they will have to ignore. Hans Adler 12:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    No one has announced anything of the sort. Votes provided without a rationale have always been afforded less weight - bureaucrats are not mind readers. If a user is topic banned, they can justify their vote with general statements, or seek clarification from the committee to determine if they may provide more direct evidence from the topic ban area. –xeno^talk 15:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

16. Oppose, for several reasons, including:

    (1) Question 6 posits you being "familiar with the topic area (having participated in some fairly collegial editing in it not too long ago), so you know that all 3 editors adding the claim hold views strongly opposed to those of the BLP subject", yet the two answers given make no mention of WP:INVOLVED. We have enough problems with involved admins who act despite their involvement, and not recognising the involvement issue in two responses is disturbing;

    (2) In answer to question 5, Sphilbrick wrote "A careful researcher can find some strongly worded statements, but I don't think you will find anything that crosses bounds" in response to NW's request for further comment. I really object to being told to dig for problems when a specific issue is raised. Sphilbrick, I would have much preferred you say 'these (diff, diff, diff) are what I think are my worst comments in the area, though others may think different comments were more serious'. You are asking to be trusted with the admin tools, so I think you should have been more direct and open about places where you may have gone a bit too far;

    (3) In answer to question 13, you wrote "an admin who takes 100 admin action in an area but zero editor actions qualifies as uninvolved, but in practice we are human, and if you take that many admin action, recognizing that each action almost certainly raises some emotions, one reaches the point that one can no longer truly be uninvolved" - this was exactly the issue around Lar at the Climate Change case, yet I do not recall you calling for Lar's sactioning or an adjustment of the loophole he was exploiting. If your past actions bore out that you would act on this statement, I would not be concerned that it is hollow; yet (as far as I recall) they don't, so I am;

    (4) The preposterous blocks and the WP:BN discussion of discounting opposes are, I recognise, outside of your control. The safe action is to stay out of those discussions, and it is also the politically-wise approach; however, we have plenty of admins who are adept at safe and politically-wise actions. What we need are admins who will stand up for a principle, in this case, the principle that sanctioned editors are not unpersons and should not be disenfranchised. Sphilbrick, you were uniquely positioned to be able to stand up and defend those who oppose your election on principle, and I would have been greatly impressed and respected that action, as (I suspect) would have others; I am disappointed that you did not choose such an action. I could not support or oppose on solely on this ground, but it does help to sway;

    (5) The only examples in Sphilbrick's evidence at the CC case were about using words like "denier", which was (at best) a very minor part of the problem in the area, and all directed at one "side". A would-be admin should be able to recognise a more complete picture of problems, even when they hold a strong view. I applaud his declaration of involvedness in the area, but I still question his judgment and impartiality and these are critical skills for an admin.

    EdChem (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Sphilbrick has posted to my user page, pointing to several diffs of comments he made in defence of WMC at ArbCom Enforcement and elsewhere. Those diffs do clearly show him standing up for the principle that an editor should not be blocked for posts which are not covered by a ban, even if the ban should arguably have covered that particular circumstance. As an example of standing up for a principle - and particularly, given the weight of opinion against him - it is one that I certainly must acknowledge and credit. Whilst not directly on my point (4), it does certainly go to the sort of principled actions that I would like to see more of from the admin community in general. His straight-forward acknowledgment of his omission of WP:INVOLVED from the discussion in question 6 is also refreshing. I will continue to watch this RfA, and watch for further developments. EdChem (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. I have some concerns, e.g. wikilawyering here, but I've also seen some sane comments. I'm a bit concerned that he seems to have dropped all contentious topics and sticks with Wikignoming - I'd like to see more behavior under stress from an editor who has (had?) an interest in contentious topics. Also, his Erdös number is too small to be plausible, but too large to use it to bribe me.No longer relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral. Answer to my question (Q6) is fine for what it covers, but it's solely focussed on the content issue, and says nothing about the issues involved in deciding whether or how to carry out any administrative acts in relation the situation. Rd232 ^talk 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   An imperfect addendum to the Q6 answer, but it is a learning curve and all round seems a good candidate. Rd232 ^talk 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral. You do some good work around here, but I'm concerned by the opposes above. I'll sit on this for now and re-evaluate in a few days. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral, at least for now. Your work welcoming new users seems solid and shows good follow through; your contributions to basketball and historical places look well written and make appropriate use of references. Your understanding of copyright seems to sit well with mine; asking SandyGeorgia to double check your work in response to the recent kerfuffle shows both good sense and good judgment, as does your breakdown. You show a willingness to work in unglamorous areas, and appear committed to the major purpose of the project.

   On another hand, I do not see any evidence of resolving complex disputes besides being a player in the climate change mess. It is important to be able to investigate an unfamiliar situation and arrive at a clear understanding of the underlying issues. A few things to think about:

   • unnecessarily argumentative and ignores the main thrust of that thread, WP:DUE.
   • way too WP:BATTLEGROUND; in fairness, both this and the preceding diff are from the some conversation at the now-superseded climate change noticeboard.
   • This series of posts ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]; full discussion) gives me significant pause. It passes the dead horse line, shows a serious lack of awareness of the problem of cherry picking, and is not your finest moment with respect to WP:BLP (misrepresenting a living person's positions could have serious real life consequences for the subject of the article). You seem to be a bit of a pedant, especially when it comes to process; I appreciate that, but as an administrator people will make bad faith requests and it will be up to you to recognize patterns, not just details.
   • The above is followed shortly by [8], which is a long way from helpful.
   • This post from back in March (linked from the climate change arbitration) shows you again missing the point of a discussion despite arguing elsewhere that part of our job as editors is to filter and weigh sources. In your defense, I think that that is the only diff of yours posted to the /Evidence page.

     On the gripping hand, I think you are deficient in a few admin-relevant areas and an excellent editor elsewhere. I am not comfortable supporting on this basis, but neither do I think you would delete the main page. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

     • I'm usually quick to oppose any candidate given probable cause, but out of these plethora of diffs provided, I just don't see anything incriminating in the least. Is this a Request for Adminship, or "Wikipedia editors versus William M Connoley's Crew"? We're getting completely blank oppose votes, and then this long, well-thought out neutral vote comes along with many diffs provided.. that still seems to be much ado about nothing. Vodello (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   FWIW, I would expect Sphilbrick to have the good sense to avoid non-trivial admin actions in the climate change area. Whether or not xe's done anything substantially wrong there, it's clear that this would not be a good idea. Rd232 ^talk 08:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   do not see any evidence of resolving complex disputes besides being a player in the climate change mess - I do not think that SP can be said to have helped to resolve what you so aptly call a "mess"; partly because the mess wasn't resolved, merely ended; and partly because he didn't help William M. Connolley (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral - candidate's answer to my question seems to suggest a certain level of naivety with regard to how some admins regard themselves here. Nice though to see someone who actually creates content. Parrot of Doom 10:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral I've seen Sphilbrick around and would like to support but am concerned about the mysterious 'climate change' issue. Hopefully, that lone editor whose lips have not been sewed shut will come in and help us understand why the opposers are opposing. Meanwhile, it's neutral for now. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral for now, when having a look at this my reading of Sphilbrick's comments in the CRU controversy talk archives was pretty favourable, but the response above to question 5 led me to the answer "The CC evidence page has a lot of unpleasant reading, but I see at least 749 diffs, and I don't think a single diff of mine made the list." That suggests no involvement, but rather to my surprise Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence#Evidence presented by Sphilbrick is there, and is a bit disappointing. Sphilbrick's "a few examples of word choices which should not, in general, be directed at editors" starts with a diff of my use of a word which wasn't directed at an editor. Maybe Sphilbrick feels we should avoid the usage altogether, but in the circumstances more care should have been taken about introducing the evidence. Not really a big deal, but gives me some doubts.
   On a different topic, the answer to question 9 opens up some questions. Perhaps it should be taken as read that before issuing warnings for edit warring, the first thing to do is check each editor's talk page and talk page history for previous warnings, as well as checking the edit history of the article concerned to confirm that there had been edit warring. There's an unstated presumption that the answer is from an uninvolved admin dealing with this situation, in which case "I'll try to note in the warning that I separately plan to determine which version should be displayed while we work out the issue, and neither editor should take it upon themselves to unilaterally decide which is the right version." is a bit odd as it suggests becoming an involved editor rather that an uninvolved admin, and the warning will require editors to stop all unilateral action anyway. While it's a good point made in the answer that libelous or attack material should be removed until issues with it are resolved, my understanding is that in general page protections are always of the Wrong Version, and 3RR is no respecter of being right or wrong, subject to any valid BLP exemption or evidence of sockpuppetry which should be considered before the warning. If there was a clear BLP violation the editor should be warned for that rather than just for edit warring, so the proposed note in the warning would be inappropriate, and if there wasn't then the first priority would be to remind editors to take the issues to talk rather than edit warring. Just my take on that answer. . . dave souza, talk 21:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Neutral Although the candidate has made some very valuable contributions to the project, I'm a little concerned about the timing of this RfA in light of what's going on in climate change and this candidate's involvement therein.--Hokeman (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)