Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philafrenzy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Korruski (talk | contribs) at 12:15, 23 August 2018 (→Oppose: +1 oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Philafrenzy

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (80/29/10); Scheduled to end 11:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

Philafrenzy (talk · contribs) Philafrenzy is very much a "content creator"; he's started over 4,000 articles, and contributed substantially to the good articles The Indian Antiquary and Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Elizabeth II. He's got a good track record at Articles for deletion and he's a prolific contributor to Did You Know, with over 300 nominations making the main page.

Philafrenzy primarily approached me for adminship because he thinks there are not enough people monitoring and updating the DYK queues, particularly when issues are reported there, or at Main Page errors. Having had a go at doing the work myself, I agree that we need some more admin resource in this area. His work elsewhere gives me full confidence he will be able to use the tools in a responsible manner, and be civil and polite to all. So, let's give him a go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by 78.26

I am very pleased to present for your consideration the candidacy of Philafrenzy for Administrator. Additionally, I am honored that such a candidate has selected me to be one of his nominators. Philafrenzy is one of our most prolific content creators. Since he began contributing regularly in February 2011, he has amassed more that 175,000 edits, of which more than 80% are in the article space. That’s more than 1500 improvements per month to article space alone. More than 4000 new articles are the result of Philafrenzy's endeavors.

Philafrenzy has a long and respectable record at AfD, where his "correct" voting totals more than 85%. It is refreshing that when he does not match consensus there is no particular pattern of "delete" against a "keep" result, or vice versa, showing an independence of thinking which is sometimes lacking in that area.

Philafrenzy is communicative. His page is full of useful discussion with new and experienced editors alike. He is open to suggestions and new ideas, but knows his way around Wikipedia’s labyrinth of guidelines and policies. My personal interactions with him has revealed a character of collegiality, flexibility, thoughtfulness and perseverance.

Philafrenzy has a true need for the additional tools. The areas of WP:DYK and WP:ERRORS are always in need of further administrative attention, and it is here that the candidate wishes to focus his attention in an administrative capacity. Here is no hat collector, it has only been at the repeated (I hope gentle) prodding of several highly experienced editors that Philafrenzy has agreed to proceed with this RfA.

He has the correct temperament. He has more than adequate experience, both in edit count and tenure. He has the WP:CLUE. He is an exemplification of WP:HERE. It is for these reasons I request that Philafrenzy receive your positive consideration as an administrative candidate. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Ritchie333 and 78.26. I accept. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 anticipate working in DYK and ERRORS as I am already quite active at DYK. Both are always crying out for admins to fix problems and there seems to be a shortage so I should be able to help. I also anticipate being more active at AFD but starting with non-controversial closes. I haven't done any non-admin closes as I think all closes should be by admins.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am mainly a content creator and so would say my 300+ Did You Knows, most of them joint. Working in a team to expand an article from almost nothing to complete enough to appear on the front page is something I enjoy. I have two GAs.
I have created over 4,500 articles that are listed on my user page, mostly on biographical or historical topics. Many of these are stubs but there are plenty of longer ones mixed in. I know not everyone likes lots of stubs and I don't claim that my stub creations are great works, just that every article adds to the richness of the encyclopaedia.
In terms of the wider community I have mentored new users and have done outreach work. I was the organiser and one of the presenters at the event to train new users at the Black Cultural Archives in London and I helped train at events at King’s College London and the British Library. I started the meetups in Oxford, Reading, and Glasgow. I maintain the London meetup page and that's the one I attend now. I have contributed over 10,000 of my own photographs to Commons some of which are in use 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: There was a discussion on ANI in 2015 about articles I created for professors of history and the interpretation of WP:PROF. They were criticised for being too short and lacking a strong assertion of notability, which was fair criticism. I have taken that on-board and I don't think I have had any problems in that area since then.
I declined a request for mediation this year as the request came from the PR agent for the article subject and I don't see how they can ever approach mediation in good faith with a neutral point of view. I oppose paid editing.
I have had some AFDs in the last year. Some were for articles that on reflection I shouldn’t have created such as a tax lawyer who was just another lawyer and a vet who was too soon. Others were kept such as British Society for Surgery of the Hand or even found their way on to the main page like Columbine cup. I find the best way to handle them is to expand with plenty of referenced content.
I have had the usual minor disputes about article content but they have all been resolved through discussion. Wikipedia is not a source of stress for me. I have never been blocked.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from SoWhy
4. Your edit summary usage is below 55%. Can you elaborate why?
A:There was a discussion about this on my talk page. It depends what tool you use. I create a lot of new material and if I am creating an article in 20 or 30 straight edits that I know is not on anyone's watchlist I tend just to use CE (copy edit) to save time. Where an article is more mature or for anything contentious or high traffic I will use a fuller edit summary. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The higher count in the edit counter tool probably stems from section headings counted as edit summaries. But a look at your last 50 non-minor edits at this moment reveals more than thirty edits without edit summaries which makes it pretty hard to track your edits and understand your motivations. Are you willing to change your behavior and use useful edit summaries for all edits? Regards SoWhy 14:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed SoWhy. Starting with this edit! Philafrenzy (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Nihlus
5. As someone not entirely familiar with the WP:DYK process, can you show where your lack of administrative tools has negatively impacted the DYK process?
A: Please see the archives of WP:ERRORS Nihlus. It's empty right now but is often littered with non-admins reporting errors, for which there is consensus over the necessary changes, and no admin available to action them. Often they remain unfixed on the main page for hours or even the whole time the relevant article is there. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Philafrenzy: This does not answer my question. I am more concerned about the main DYK process. Please elaborate on how the process there has been impeded by your inability to take administrative action, as you have little experience at WP:ERRORS. Nihlus 23:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Fram
6. Considering that you want the mop partly to help at DYK / Errors, where it is especially necessary to be careful with sourcing, correctness, and other policies: you created Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat three days ago. How did you decide that the subject is notable, considering that all sources you give only have a very passing mention of the subject? Additionally, how did you decide that all sources are about the same Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat, and not e.g. his father, who died in 1863, and who may well be the one mentioned in source 1?
A: The article is still under construction Fram and will need further research but I have sufficient sources to say definitely that the subject was a justice of the peace and deputy lieutenant of Kirkcudbrightshire and a notable figure in his part of Scotland. There are far more sources than currently in the article but I haven't had a chance yet to go back and develop it. In policy terms it is GNG as JPs and DL's aren't automatically deemed notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat, where it should stay until it is decided which of the two Roberts it's about, and until it demonstrates some notability. Fram (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Nosebagbear
7. Why do you believe that even completely non-controversial, Non-Admin Closes by experienced AfD editors should be prohibited in AfDs, given both that they can't close "delete" and that it would significantly increase admin workload unnecessarily?
A: Early in my Wiki career I saw a number of questionable closes where there was insufficient voting to assess the consensus accurately in my view (not on articles I created). For instance 2/1 or where the nominators vote wasn't given any weight. It was a long time ago and maybe things have changed. I understand the rationale for getting non-admins to help and I don't feel terribly strongly about it but it did put me off from ever doing my own. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jbhunley
8. DYK and ERRORS are areas with lots of conflict between editors with strong opinions. An admin in that area needs to be able to both function in that environment and have the skills to deescalate or otherwise manage conflicts. Please describe either some situations where you have done this or how you plan on doing so in the future. My concern is that demonstrated skill in writing articles in not necessarily a good proxy for how one deals with conflicts between other editors.
A: I don't have a great deal of dispute resolution experience Jbhunley, unless you count DYK reviews of which I have done 100s, many contentious, but I try to approach disputes by AGF and with patience and persistence. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Northamerica1000
9. What are your thoughts regarding WP:NEXIST?
A: I agree with what is said there. This is particularly the case with offline sources which are often overlooked and sometimes there is a lack of persistence in tracking down the sources, but ultimately, if they are not found the article or the unsourced material in it cannot exist until they are found. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Ivanvector
You've said a couple of things in your nomination statement which stuck out to me as being a personal qualification on a widely-accepted policy. Administrators must be able to put aside their personal opinions and enforce community-consented policies, which can lead to tough situations. A couple sample scenarios:
10. A non-admin user comes to your talk page with a complaint. They have closed a requested move in favour of keeping the article title as is (closing as "not moved"). They explained in their closing statement that the opinions of the supporters were outweighed by policy-backed arguments from the opposers, and signed with the {{nac}} marker. In addition you note that the opposers outnumbered the supporters three to one. One of the supporters has reverted the close, with an edit summary "you can't close this, you're not an admin". Noting WP:NAC and considering this RfC, how do you respond?
A: Per WP:NAC, a non-admin is allowed to make that close and in the scenario you describe it sounds like the right decision too. If arrived at properly it can't be overturned just because the closer is a non-admin and the revert should be reversed to allow the original close to stand. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. An editor with a paid contribution disclosure notice regarding the article Trade Air has edited the article's table of destinations, adding a new route the airline has recently started servicing, and updating the source provided. A second editor has reverted them with the edit summary "NO PAID EDITING!", and requests indefinite semiprotection at WP:RFPP citing vandalism. In response, the COI editor adds an {{edit request}} to the article's talk page, asking for the same information to be restored. The second editor also reverts this using rollback, adds a {{uw-vandalism4im}} notice to the user's talk page, and starts a thread at WP:ANI complaining of "all the paid editing on Trade Air". As an administrator, what would you do?
A: The COI's edits are not vandalism but they are contrary to our policies and they should be warned to stick to talk page requests. I wouldn't think the page needed protection if the matter was a one off as it might block good edits from other users. The reporting editor should be warned not to revert the COI's attempts to engage on the talk page as they were doing the right thing. I would remove the vandalism warning from the COI's talk page. Incidentally, I would question whether the constant updating of detail like travel routes is actually encyclopedic content. It is the sort of content that is hard to maintain with reliable third party sources and tends to date quickly. It could be considered on the talk for deletion from the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Amakuru
12. Looking at Oppose #2 below, there's a copyvio / close paraphrasing identified at Chicago Milk Commission, with the IWS history page at [1]. Please could you comment on this?
A: That's one part of the lead sentence. Maybe it's too close but it's also a statement of the basic purpose for which they were formed - to fight the consumption of unpasteurized milk. The sentence as a whole is OK I think. I tweaked it slightly. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Wumbolo
13. All reviewing jobs, including at DYK, require a sharp eye for promotional material, even if the article appears well-written and well-sourced. Just by looking at this COI-written revision, can you spot the extremely fishy COI self-promotion issue?
A: It's not difficult to spot the promotional tone of that one is it? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a specific content issue (a specific part of the article), not a tone issue. wumbolo ^^^ 20:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the feuds section where famous people are quoted criticizing her which might give the appearance of making the article seem more neutral but actually is promotional? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good guess, but no. wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Dolotta
14. What area(s) of Wikipedia do you consider yourself to be the weakest?
A: Some of the more obscure aspects of Wikicode slightly baffle me still, such as tables and some of the more unusual referencing systems. Non-diffusing subcategories are a mystery to me. I am under no illusion that there is still plenty to learn Dolotta. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Beeblebrox
15. I see an oppose below based on your knowledge and abilities regarding image copyright. While the criticism may be fair, I am curious as to how you think it might impact your ability as an admin. So my question is: Do you plan to work with image copyright in an administrative capacity?
A: Not as a specialism. I feel I have a good track record on images and that the criticism made was not accurate. Please see my reply Beeblebrox. Having said that, I do realise that copyright of images can be very complex. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Banedon
16. Why did you approach Ritchie333 for adminship instead of self-nominate?
A: I needed the advice of an experienced nominator as to whether I was a suitable candidate. It's difficult to be objective about oneself. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Vanamonde93
17. I'd like to give you the opportunity to answer the close paraphrasing issue more broadly, since a number of users have now brought them up. Are things like this a problem? If so, how would you make certain the issues didn't crop up again? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thank you for the opportunity Vanamonde93. This is Lisa Littman which on the face of it includes a 30% similarity to the sources. It's not identified as too close by Earwig but clearly would be if it really was 30%. However, the majority of the phrases matching are ones that should match:
  • Assistant Professor of the Practice of Behavioral and Social Sciences (job title)
  • Littman is a physician (statement of profession)
  • a residency in obstetrics and gynecology (basic facts, what’s the alternative, gyn and obs as a resident?)
  • residency in General Preventive Medicine and Public Health (capitalised in source as having that job title)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (organisation name and location)
  • reproductive health, rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), detransition, iatrogenic persistence of gender dysphoria, and maternal and child health including prematurity and substance use (almost all technical and medical terms, what’s the alternative to “iatrogenic persistence of gender dysphoria”?)
  • works with the Rhode Island Department of Health (principally an employer name)
  • maternal and child health (could be health of children and their mothers I guess)
  • iatrogenic persistence of gender dysphoria (technical term again)
  • rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) (technical term again)
  • “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports” (Article title)
  • American College of Preventive Medicine (organisation name)
If you remove these from the calculation there is little left.
Early stage articles inevitably tend to focus mainly on a recitation of basic facts that includes job titles, technical terms, publications etc. This is as it should be and is neither plagiarism nor close paraphrasing. Biographies also follow a logical and well-established broadly chronological structure which the sources also tend to use so the overall flow may tend to resemble the sources in the early stages. Later, articles become more discursive and analytical and move away from stating facts that may provide false-positive reports of copyvios.
The need to avoid close paraphrasing has to be balanced with the risk that if we change too much we introduce a new meaning not intended by the original author and are not faithful to the sources. It’s difficult to get right and I apologise for the occasions when I have made the wrong judgement but I can say I have sincerely tried to get it right and will pay close attention to this question in the future. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Cwmhiraeth
18. I see that if successful, you are proposing to work in the area of DYK and ERRORS on the main page. Apart from your nominations at DYK, and the QPQs you have done in connection with these, what other part have you played up till now in the administration and decision-making processes at DYK?
A: One issue that has concerned me is the lead time on DYKs where I have consistently argued for longer leads to enable articles to be more developed when they reach the front page. This would improve quality and reduce errors. When the matter was debated in 2014, I proposed 10 or 14 days. When it was discussed again I thought there was a consensus on 30 days and boldly changed the rules with an invitation to revert me if I had been too bold. I was reverted and the idea fizzled out. In a later discussion I proposed again that it be extended. It is still too short at 7 days in my view as articles often stay in the queue for a month or even two so why force people to rush to get them nominated within 7 days? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Have you ever built prep sets or moved hooks into preps? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but thank you for your brilliant work there Cwmhiraeth. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Lee Vilenski
19. This is more of a question regarding the above question for number 5. The crux of this request for adminship is regarding the need for admins specifically for the WP:DYK project. However, I'd like to know more, as I don't know much about the project what exactly is it that DYK needs administrators for? (I understand they get vetted by administrators.) What is the current and previous backlog in the project, and how much time would you spend in that area, above say, closing WP:AfDs, or the administrators noticeboard, or WP:ERRORS as stated above. I'm a little worried that the request above is regarding to helping out at one portion of Wikipedia; but you would clearly be using them across the encyclopedia.
A: Only an administrator can place a DYK hook (the sentence with the interesting fact in it) on the main page and only an admin can change if it is found to be wrong. Obviously they should never be wrong but it happens fairly regularly and is reported at the errors page. Often there is consensus about the error and the necessary correction but no admin can be found to make the change so we have incorrect material there for hours or a whole day. I can't say how long I will spend on admin tasks as I don't know how long they take, never having done them, but I do intend to continue doing article work. I will act cautiously and gradually extend my admin tasks as I learn the ropes. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from PCHS-NJROTC
20. What are your thoughts on blocking shared IP addresses (usually corporate networks, educational networks, and ISPs that use carrier-grade NAT) and IP ranges for extended periods of time to stop sporadic instances of silly vandalism that are inevitably going to happen on an open wiki, in absence of any actual pattern of WP:Long term abuse by a single person?
A. IP or IP range blocks risk blocking the innocent as many computers are shared. I would be cautious about such blocks. There are other ways to fight vandalism. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
21. I realize this isn't your primary area of interest, but assume it is May 23, 2016, you have been asked to help with a backlog at WP:AIV, and someone has reported this fictitious IP address. There has been no edits from the IP in four hours. What do you do? (Pay close attention to the talk page comments.)
A. Sorry, this really is way out of my area of expertise and not one of the areas I envisage working in. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Power~enwiki
22. What are some specific articles you've worked on this year that you feel are particularly good examples of content creation?
A: Thank you Power~enwiki, I enjoyed working on:
The Last Day of Pompeii - 5 x expansion of painting stub
Camilla Gray - historian of Russian art
Nikki Sievwright - model who became a soldier
Rudi Cormane - Dutch dermatologist (jointly)
Shirley Pitts - Notorious British shoplifter Philafrenzy (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support We have talked about this together - net positive for Wikipedia. However, one thing is please try to use edit summaries more often but apart from that, you would be an excellent administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Dedicated at the coalface, + all the boxes ticked, - dramaz = WP:CLUE. Good luck. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: erm... whats coalface? —usernamekiran(talk) 14:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    kəʊlfeɪs... Lourdes 16:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129 and Lourdes: i thought it was supposed have some different meaning in the context here. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Usernamekiran: No, apologies for opacity. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: lol, an apology is not called for here. Anyways, we should cease this conversation, or we might get moved to the talkpage —usernamekiran(talk) 12:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I've met Philafrenzy at the pub before, and he seemed a very nice chap. More importantly, he is experienced, has a clue, content creation aplenty, and the proposed DYK work is certainly needed, particularly when it comes to correcting errors and misleading hooks.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Clean block log, adequate tenure, excellent contributions to some art history content, no concerns. Carrite (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I have known Philafrenzy for several years, mainly through Wikipedia meetups at Oxford, Reading and London (also Wikimania 2014). Always helpful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Matt14451 (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Suppport Great content creation and seems an obvious net positive. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - exemplary candidate with a good track record in a diversity of content areas Chetsford (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - you had me at ERRORS. Fish+Karate 12:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Some stunning work, and a great track record. Orphan Wiki 12:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support Great content creator & very level-headed. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as nom, or course! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - has clue, has demonstrated that they could use the tools, and they're not a jerk, so I think this would be a net positive. I'm not particularly impressed by the low edit summary percentage, but it's not such a big of a deal for me to oppose.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, I do not have any worries.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Close paraphrasing is a concern, I will be doing additional research on how widespread this problem is.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per Amakuru, whose judgement I trust. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support precious, responsive, to the point. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Has a very strong history of being useful and anyone that wants to help are errors, well Jimbo bless them. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: Edit summaries should not be required for articles that have just been created or have only one major contributor Catrìona (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support definitely deserving of the tools, we need more admins in DYK. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. It's not clear to me exactly why they need the tools but there hasn't been any significant reasons raised why not. Ifnord (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Happy to support - looks like he'll be useful with the mop Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...) 15:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support: Though we need admins at DYK, that's not the reason why I support this RfA. Philafrenzy has done an amazing job at DYK/GA and new content creation. I've followed his editing and work over the years and can only speak great things about his contributions. He's an invaluable asset and I have no reason to believe he will abuse admin powers if granted to him. Give this man a mop! MX (✉ • ✎) 15:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support: clearly has a clue and wants to work in an understaffed area. I approve of the "starting with non-controversial closes" qualifier regarding AfDs. In 178,000 edits and 4500 page creations, people will always be able to find a plethora of problems, and indeed there is good advice to bear in mind from the sections below. I encourage the candidate to be careful with copyright concerns and AfD nomination justifications in the future, particularly when admin actions are involved. Edit summary usage, using a couple of unreliable sources and making a mistake with two identically named people do not concern me at all. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming back to add: in regard to the pile-on of "copyvio" opposes, the answer to question 17 is excellent and wbm1058's support is one I agree with. The examples I've seen do not convince me that many of the candidate's 4500 articles have clopping issues, and dozens of opposes over the same one or two pages are ridiculous in context. I think questions 13, 16, 19, 20, 21 are absurd. It is not the candidate's responsibility to describe what DYK is, solve cryptic riddles or describe obscure elements of policies they won't be invoking. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Solid background in content creation and a willingness to assist in areas where help is needed. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - seems like a good candidate. Also, since it was brought up in an oppose below, I am also supporting because of the lack of involvement at the dramaboards. It is absolutely acceptable for an admin to work away in the background without engaging in those no-win scenarios. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Per the noms. Lourdes 16:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Great content creator, admirable work with DYK (and as admin could help out more efficiently there), helpful to others and just the kind of well rounded admin we need. JC7V-constructive zone 17:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Per nominators, excellent candidate.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Wikipedia needs workhorse admins to keep the wheels turning and the candidate seems to have an aptitude for such work. Notice that the Picture of the Day co-ordinator has just retired after 13 years service and some friction at WP:ERRORS. The candidate wants to take up the slack in this area and so will help in filling the gap. Andrew D. (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Has clue, shows need for tools, no major problems (as others have said above, this editor should also use edit summaries more often). SemiHypercube ✎ 17:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Excellent prior contributions to Wikipedia, with clear ability to meet an area where more admin attention is needed. Daask (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Reasonable AfD record, good article creation. (some edits could have been combined, and polished a hair, but that is not related to being an admin at all.) Best of luck! Collect (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Amazing amount of content creation, clean block log, and lots of experience at DYK, where admin tools will make him even more productive. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support — Damn, that's a great amount of mainspace participation, including having participation in good and DYK promotions; the concern raised by B about improper upload of files is a cause of concern, yes, but, at the end—to me. at least— Philafrenzy is a clear net-positive.
    Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 19:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Excellent nomination for a great contributor who has shown enormous care and dedication to the project for 8 years with countless hours, hundreds of DYKs, as well as other, smaller articles, in addition two very nice Good Articles. The contribution part is extremely important, and it is people like Philafrenzy, who assist wikipedians toward quality within the articles. I am confident that his experience with DYKs will be a push to the DYK process. We need admins that are heavy contributors: they are an example to all contributors, especially to newbies, with their leadership skills in content building. I am also sure that his participation in the AFD closing process will be important, we need admins in that area too, especially someone like him, who has successfully started ~4600 pages in enwiki, and thus is very aware of the notability issues. That experience is not matched easily by many candidates at an RFA. Last: No behavioral issues, no blocks in 8 years, and, by looking at his talk page, everyone has good words for Philafrenzy, especially for the great help that he distributes to fellow wikipedians continuously and generously. That shows a great spirit of collaboration, which does not come easily and doesn't go away easily. I would have no issues trusting the mop to Philafrenzy, and he won't disappoint. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I like what I've seen so far. -- Tavix (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I do not see anything to make me believe that the editor will misuse the tools. SQLQuery me! 22:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support ERRORS needs more admin involvement, and someone with 300+ DYKs seems like the perfect person to chip in there. For the record I asked my question because similar concerns came up at my second RFA, and I felt like it was not a good reason to oppose as image copyright/fair use is a very complicated topic with significant grey areas. If the candidate is not planning to work around it their relative knowledge of it is of minimal concern. I also think working at the “bottom end” of new content is a great way to prepare for being an admin as that is where most content-related admin work is needed anyway, but they also have GA credits to their name, which shows they have solid content work experience (more than I did when I became an admin to be sure) No other serious, recent issues found, current oppose rationales not at all convincing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support 4600+ contributions and less than 1% deleted is a remarkable track record. I feel confident they understand what we're doing here and DYK sure as heck needs the help. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I have had lots of conversations with this candidate at London meetups, delighted to see and support this RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 22:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - good content creation is very hard work so it is pleasing to see someone with such an excellent content creation record being prepared to take on some admin duties, as well. Just Chilling (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Very Strong Support - As a physician keen to see medical articles improved and expanded, they have made more than average contributions to WikiprojectMedicine, not just in their existence, but to their quality. In addition, regarding articles on minorities, women and others, they have demonstrated without doubt that they are capable of sifting out sensible from otherwise. Best virtue- tolerance. Whispyhistory (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Philafrenzy is a helpful and trusted editor. SarahSV (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Impressive content creation, very good answers to the questions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - No concerns, clear net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No concerns about this editor gaining the tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Great candidate, great experience and I strongly respect the answer the question 16. Acalamari 01:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support: would be a valuable addition to the admin corps. Thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support -- Well put answer to my question. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - The sheer amount of content creation speaks to this nominee's level of dedication to the project. That coupled with the support of many editors I look to as bellwethers seals the deal.  spintendo  02:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Very impressive level of content creation, one of the most prolific and dedicated editors. DYK is an important area and needs dedicated people, which Philafrenzy has really shown Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support: I am familiar with the candidate's work in DYK and ERRORS, and I am certain that they will be a net positive as an administrator in these areas. Unconvinced by the close paraphrasing concerns; Template:Did you know nominations/The Pheasantry was troubling, but that was 2014. I am under the impression that Philafrenzy works tirelessly on large volume of articles, and consistently tries to address concerns that are raised (although not always successful). As long as they are willing to adjust their approach to recognise that if a information cannot be paraphrased well and can be left out, it is best to just leave it out, then I have no concerns. Alex Shih (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Will be a net positive. No concerns. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I am sure that Philafrenzy would make an excellent admin. James500 (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion on this !vote moved to talk page Λυδαcιτγ 11:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Net positive Agathoclea (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Meets my RFA criteria Iffy★Chat -- 09:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. There are valid issues in the oppose section, but I hope the candidate can learn something from them. Becoming an admin isn't a reward and isn't the end of striving to improve your editing. Net positive overall, with no evidence tools may be abused. —Kusma (t·c) 10:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, in general this is WP:NOBIGDEAL, in this particular case I know the editor and trust their judgement (although I don't always agree with them!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a common thing on RFAs? Editors saying they know the candidate and trust them, but without disclosing the nature of their relationship? In this case the only two pages Mike and Phil have edited more than once each, less than a week apart, are this article and on TT:DYK. In the former the interaction was non-existent, and in the latter I might be missing something but the section titles in their edit summaries appear to imply that the only direct interactions were this and this, neither of which are actual interactions. The claim to NOBIGDEAL is a bit dubious (the actual WP:NOBIGDEAL makes it clear that it is not a rationale that is widely accepted now that Wikipedia has a more respectable place in the world than it did 15 years ago) given the copyvio concerns multiple editors have raised, and given what happened a few votes up from here (essentially an editor making a demonstrably bogus claim to know Phil's record, in order to justify a bad-faith hound vote) I'm beginning to wonder if we should be a bit more scrutineering about exactly where such voters observed Phil's judgement as being trustworthy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever happened to AGF? Iffy★Chat -- 11:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iffy: AGF regarding whom? I'm not going to "assume good faith" on the part of the candidate and change my vote based on the "assumption of good faith" that the recent copyvio was an uncharacteristic accident. I'm not questioning Mike's good faith; I'm questioning what he means by claiming he knows and trusts the candidate's judgement, having never interacted with him on-wiki. I am asking this question because, when I asked almost the exact same question on the talk page of another user who is clearly acting in bad faith (I went out of my way to assume good faith until that assumption was killed), I got no answer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one challening support !votes, nobody has challenged your oppose !vote (yet, knowing how often oppose votes get queried). So you're assuming bad faith here because you believe someone else assumed bad faith an another !vote. RFA !voters can support or oppose for any reason (or no reason at all). Iffy★Chat -- 12:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what someone else assumed bad faith an another !vote means but I suspectit might be missing a word or two. Anyway, the problem with the one further up was not that I believe someone assumed bad faith; the problem was that I believed they were hounding me and voting the opposite way from me just because. The fact that, as it turns out, a bug in the tool I used makes it not show a bunch of pages where the editor in question hid his !votes by not bolding them unless you limit the search to a certain time range (!?) means I'm unlikely at this point to convince anyone that his motivation for choosing this one of the dozens of RFAs his old associates have been involved in to comment on was dubious, so I really don't want to argue it anymore, mind you. (I'll finish by just pointing out that RFA !voters can support or oppose for any reason (or no reason at all) relies on an assumption of good faith that assumes WP:HOUND is not taking place, even though a lot of the time it definitely is: if JoshuSasori had shown up to an AFD/RFA/whatever right after I did, you wouldn't claim he was acting in good faith.) Anyway, for all I know the same bug is hiding Mike's interactions as well for whatever other mysterious reason, and I really couldn't be bothered figuring it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just going OTT. Calm down, drink some coffee, and stop making comments all across this RfA that are, well, absolutely embarrassing, given your editing experience. Lourdes 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, net positive. Good record, bodes well for mop-use. Willing to do need admin work in areas where we need more admins. --LukeSurl t c 11:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. I'm okay with this one. Deb (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I see nothing to make me think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per others above. Respect opposers' opinions, certainly; however, there is strong reason to believe that this editor would be a good administrator all around, and I find it dissatisfying to see so many objections, some from editors I know and revere, that might make this attempt fail. I submit that this editor appears to be one of Wikipedia's best, a fast learner and would be great with the tools, so I ask all conscientious objectors to please do reconsider!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support No reason not to trust. effeietsanders 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Conclusion, I am Supporting.This is in a cot because before I went on wikibreak I saw that a discussion was on WT:RFA about length, and I don't know what became of it, also the bullet point list makes it fairly drawn out. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (I have transferred the collapsed list to the talk page, as it messes up the numbering - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  68. Support Great content creator, and they have a clear idea what they want to do and why they need the tools. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - experienced user who, other than in this RfA, seems entirely uncontroversial and productive. As yet unpersuaded by the opposes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Been here a fair amount of time, known how the place works, absolute excellent editor, and now they will make an excellent administrator. scope_creep (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support The opposes do not sway me, although it could be a learning experience. I've seen him around and admired his work. Question: Are you from Philly? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you search through P's Userpage for stamps, you get some 50-70 instances of articles in that niche, and if I remember correcly P is involved with wikiproject on the matter. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support I don't see any issues. Opposing because there's some instances of close paraphrasing found from +4000 created articles is rather unconvincing. --Pudeo (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Amakuru, Redrose64 and WereSpielChequers having had personal interactions with you and vouching for your character, and the support of Collect on your content contributions is good enough for me. plagiarism is a serious charge and I'm very bothered to see it bandied about so loosely in the oppose section. Your answer to Q.17 is good. There's an issue with this?? The source was cited, and it's not even the organisation's own website. Perhaps it would be better to focus more on quality writing of fewer articles in depth rather than writing stubs in large quantity; other than that very little of the criticism on the opposing side is resonating with me. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Sounds like just the sort of editor who should be an admin. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  75. This is hard. I'm putting myself here in a position that kind of spans support and moral support, after really struggling with what I think I should do. Close paraphrasing is a very big deal for me. I absolutely oppose plagiarism on-wiki or anywhere else. And I get it that doing admin work with DYK is just the kind of place where we don't want admins who are careless about it. (On the other hand, I think most plagiarism issues are dealt with by reviewers rather than by promoting admins.) But I also recognize that this is someone with a ton of editing experience and a clean block log along with no history that I can see of getting on the wrong side of fights. And I do worry about RfA getting too demanding. I've crossed paths with the candidate at DYK (recently did a QPQ review of one of his submissions, and checked for paraphrasing of sources and didn't find any) and I can kind of see how there might be an issue with him creating a lot of new pages in a hurry, and with a sort of casual way of communicating that seems to be putting some editors off in regard to his answers to questions here. But I'm not seeing someone who is particularly likely to do harm with the tools. This isn't like a candidate who might treat other users badly or delete pages that shouldn't be deleted. And I reviewed the examples of paraphrasing in the oppose section, and much (albeit not all) of it was paraphrasing of people's CVs, where there is a limit to how many ways one can reword it. This doesn't look to me like someone who really goes around plagiarizing, and I'm concerned about editors following the crowd into the oppose section after the accusation arose. So I suspect that this RfA is going to fail, but I think that may be the wrong outcome for a candidate who is a net positive. This hasn't exactly been a ringing endorsement, but at a minimum I want to give moral support. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. A tireless contributor with a massive body of good work behind him. Done fantastic work on DYK. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. I see nothing to give me pause about this editor's admin potential. bd2412 T 00:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Content creation is excellent! //nepaxt 01:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. I'm sure Philafrenzy will do just fine as an admin. This is not rocket science: a longtime trusted contributor is unlikely to go wrong with the mop. Pichpich (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support no evidence that the Philafrenzy will abuse the tools. Great contributor to Wikipedia. Gizza (t)(c) 02:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

#Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 03:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support - I am going to set aside my qualms over the close paraphrasing incidents to support Philafrenzy's candidacy. The candidate's strong record of content creation outweighs their relatively sparse record of mistakes. And more eyes on the DYK queue is a net positive in my book. Altamel (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tentative support. My opinion here is quite similar to that of Tryptofish. I take close paraphrasing seriously, and I'm not entirely reassured by the answer to my question. It is true that it is often difficult to adequately paraphrase biographical detail; it is also true that the candidate could have done better in that case without too much effort. I'm also slightly concerned by their description of of the Earwig's tool result: the percentage similarity there is only a very rough indicator of the problem, as you can have problematic close paraphrasing with a very low similarity result (by using occasional synonyms) and a high percentage without any actual problems (since the tool flags even appropriately used quotes). On the credit side, we have an editor with tonnes of experience, no temperamental issues that I can see, a willingness to take criticism, and a willingness to use the tools in an area where they are required. I, too, am concerned that we've become far too demanding at RFA, to the point where we're rejecting candidates who may not be perfect but are a decided net positive. So I'm supporting in that spirit, and I hope that Philafrenzy will take concerns about close paraphrasing on board no matter what the outcome here. Finally I suspect (I don't have much evidence for this, I'm afraid) that it would be far easier to desysop someone for serial copyright violations than for most other bad behavior admins are guilty of, if it comes to that. Vanamonde (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may clarify my thoughts on Earwig for you Vanamonde. I am fully aware it is not completely reliable. It doesn't filter out things that should match like names which inflates the reported similarity but it also doesn't search paywalled sites or anything that happens to be offline at the time and so may fail to pick up matches there. It is completely useless for articles relying on offline sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - After reading through the noms, questions and especially the various reasons given among the "support" comments, (and who those comments were from), I believe this cadiadate to be more than able to administer this project, and certainly deserving of the opportunity to prove themselves so. - wolf 06:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I did review the alleged instances of close paraphrasing, and I think that the concerns were overblown. I find it unlikely that the candidate will abuse the tools, and I'm satisfied enough (although not thrilled) with the answers to questions. No such user (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. It seems that all the significant issues with this candidate have already been raised in the oppose section and I don't think those are big enough to make the candidate a bad admin. Deryck C. 10:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose because of the upload history. Wikipedia values the promotion of free content. We begrudgingly accept images used under a claim of fair use under rare cases, but only when we cannot reasonably expect to obtain a public domain or creative commons one. In the case of someone who was famous in the United States prior to 1978 or who lived in the digital camera age (e.g. File:Michael Peter Kaye.jpg), an effort should be made to obtain a freely licensed image rather than just declaring, "He's dead, Jim, let's upload a photo we found on the internet". An example I use sometimes is Jerry Falwell. After he died, I emailed his ministry and asked if they had a photo they would contribute under the GFDL. They did and we have a professional-quality freely licensed photo of him. But if we just declare he's dead, let's find a photo of him on the internet somewhere, we will NEVER get anything else. If someone was famous in the US prior to 1978 or they were famous in the digital camera age, we really shouldn't be settling for photos used under a claim of fair use because we can "reasonably expect" to receive a free one. You retouched File:Dawson Williams.png, which has the dubious claim of being public domain, "It iwas created before 1928 and is therefore in public domain." Okay, sure. It was published in the British Medical Journal in 1928 and is most likely NOT public domain. You uploaded File:Earnest Elmo Calkins.jpg. In 30 seconds of searching, I found [2], which is from a 1905 publication and clearly public domain. In File:C. Stowe Myers.jpg, you give [3] as the source and say the "Author or Copyright holder" is unknown, but the book says "C. Stowe Myers, ca. 1950s (courtesy Industrial Designers Society of America)". Technically, we don't know that they are the copyright holder, but that's information that you didn't give on the image description page. I see a lot of your uploads where you give the website you found it on as the original publication and original source and say unknown for the author. Maybe for some of them we can't easily figure out what the original source is (unless you were to do something truly unthinkable like asking) but others give a source and adding that source would be better than not having it. --B (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finding the free image of Calkins. I see you have already uploaded it to Commons. I will nominate the fair use file for deletion. The free one was either not around at the time I searched or I missed it. If the later, I apologise. Note I did not upload the Dawson Williams image or place it in the article. On C. Stowe Myers, the Industrial Designers Society of America supplied the photograph. We have no idea who owns it or took it, hence "unknown". Philafrenzy (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Without trying to derail this too much, Peter Kaye was an 82 year old notable surgeon who had very little/no publicity in the last decade of his life. Certainly he was not going to be near the top of the list for having free photos available alive or dead. Jerry Falwell was a televangelist preacher constantly in the public eye, speaking at public events, activism etc. The comparison between the two is incredibly biased. Like it or not, the WMF and ENWP NFCC policy has been interpreted to (for deceased subjects) be "not reasonably likely". Its reasonably likely a recently deceased high profile individual in the public eye will have a free picture available. Its not reasonably likely an obscure surgeon not in the public eye will have such media available. Its also not required for editors to actively contact deceased subjects relatives or close acquaintances in order to solicit a photo in their time of grief just to illustrate an article. Not to mention incredibly insensitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me that uploaded the image of Dawson Williams, not User:Philafrenzy. Half your oppose rationale is based on my mistake and not on User:Philafrenzy. Philafrenzy probably never checked the meta data on it, before cleaning it. I suggest you withdraw it. scope_creep (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm ... no ... two sentences in a long comment are about his or her retouch of your image. I clearly said he or she retouched it, not that he or she was the uploader of the original uploader. Philafrenzy has a substantial number of uploads of recently deceased people under a claim of fair use and that's part of the whole problem with the current fair use culture here. WP:FUC#1 is being used as permission to upload a copyrighted photo of anyone who is dead, as opposed to what it really is - a bright line against uploading one of a living person. --B (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Utterly disappointing answer to question 6. At the moment you have an article with probably incorrect information (an article about two different persons mixed up), no actual indication of notability, and no sources to suggest such notability. "I haven't had a chance yet to go back and develop it. " You have created 5 other (unrelated) articles since you abandoned this one. Coupled with your use in other recent articles of unreliable sources like familysearch, and external links to be avoided at all costs like findagrave, I don't think you have the right priorities to be an admin, especially for DYK and the main page in general. Never mind what you did at Chicago Milk Commission (also from this week), where the first line, "The Chicago Milk Commission (CMC) was established in 1908 to combat the consumption of unpasteurized milk [...]" is rather too similar to this, "The Chicago Milk Commission was established in 1908 to combat the consumption of unpasteurIzed milk". Fram (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Rather too similar" is putting it nicely. I checked a dozen other of their creations though and couldn't find any pattern of such copyvios. Do you have more evidence that suggests a pattern of copying sources verbatim? Regards SoWhy 15:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not recent, but the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/The Pheasantry is relevant to that question. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I found the answer to your question 6 solid. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was a solid answer. Philafrenzy has successfully started ~4600 articles, and has a great experience with Notability. I actually found it excessive that this article needed to be brought back to draft when GNG is easily demonstrable, but I feel that it was done exactly so that it would not interfere with the voting process, and it shouldn't. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Other copyvio/plagiarism issue (apart from the case that you don't solve this by changing one word[4]): Académie nationale de chirurgie is a straight translation of the French article on the same subject, but this hasn't been acknowledged on the page, in an edit summary, or on the talk page. And Arnold Dohmen is an utter disgrace. A Google translate created page, abandoned with an "under construction" tag in May 2018, should never have been placed in the mainspace. And even the machine translation patr doesn't explain why all the good sources and most relevant categories were stripped from the article. I'll move it to Draft:Arnold Dohmen instead. Fram (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    From July 2018: Society for the Study of Addiction. Philafrenzy version (whole article): "The Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and other Drugs, originally The Society for the Study and Cure of Inebriety was founded in 1884 in response to the inadequacies of the Habitual Drunkards Act of 1879. The word "Cure" was dropped from the society's title soon after it was formed and in 1946 it changed its name to its current form" Source[5]: "The Society for the Study and Cure of Inebriety was founded in 1884 as a pressure group in response to the inadequacy of the Habitual Drunkards Act of 1879. The words "and Cure" were dropped from the title early in the Society's existence, and the title was changed to its present style in 1946. " While the source is CC-By-4, this requires clear attribution, which is lacking here. Changing "inadequacy" to "inadequacies" or "and cure" to "cure" may be enough to fool Earwig, but that doesn't mean it is no longer plagiarism. Fram (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per deletion action related to of one of his recent article,Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat[6] and lack of participation in Administrator boards (ANI, AN, SPI, AIV). शिव साहिल (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat wasn't deleted, it was moved to Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat (which you know, as you linked to the move). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose even granting the content creation, which I'm not completely convinced about, I still have worries about this editor's ability to be an effective admin in the areas they have identified. I don't think the candidate really addressed #3 in a meaningful way, I find the whiff of a response to what I considered a fairly easy question in #5 disappointing, but these are perhaps not surprising given the admission of lack of experience in the conflict resolution of Wikipedia admitted to by the answer to question 8. I started off as a neutral given my respect for the nominators and several of the supporters above, but then couldn't find the positives beyond the content creation (of which I also have questions). The lack of experience in dispute resolution wouldn't bother me so much if there were really great answers to questions. Since I have big question marks about what his approach would be, and don't think even he knows, I guess I'm not neutral and am really an oppose. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mind spelling out what the big question marks are? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My big question marks are his ability to handle dispute resolution as an admin at ERRORS and DYK given the answers to questions 3, 5, and 8. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: I think Mr Ernie was asking about the "big questions" you have in regard to "content creation" (as you mentioned it twice), not "DR @ errors and dyk". I'm also curious about the "questions" and the "lack of being convinced" you mentioned, in reference to content creation. Thanks - wolf 01:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the questions raised on this page, most convincingly for me by Randykitty, I am not convinced. I'm not saying there's something wrong, just not convinced. But even if I were convinced my oppose would remain given my concerns about how he would handle conflict as an admin in his chosen areas of ERRORS and DYK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    After close to 300(correcting per discussion in Neutral section) 100-odd reviews conducted, hasn't there been ample opportunity to see whether Philafrenzy has handled contention at DYK successfully? This RfA's only been open like 36 hours so we'll see, but if there's one thing this forum does... uh let's say, consistently, it's surface anyone with a grievance. Absent that, 300100 reviews is pretty solid track record of managing interactions there without inflaming things. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a few complaints about delays in old DYK QPQ-reviews; as I note below there aren't many of those in the past year to evaluate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for having a look into examples. If that's the worst of it, indeed I'm quite reassured; none of those are the kind of conflagration that would make me worry about people skills. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Upon Fram's observation above of the paraphrasing, I looked through Philafrenzy's other contributions and found that this is a troubling pattern. From Lisa Littman: "Littman received her undergraduate degree from Brandeis University and her MD from UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, now Rutgers Medical School. She completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology at the Women and Infants Hospital of Brown University. She completed a residency in general preventive medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital from where she also obtained a master's degree in public health."; compare to [7]: "She received her undergraduate degree from Brandeis University, her MD degree from UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (now Rutgers Medical School) and completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Women and Infants Hospital/Brown University. She also completed a residency in General Preventive Medicine and Public Health and obtained a Master’s in Public Health...". From José Eugenio Olavide: "He found himself in charge of the 120 beds of the San Juan de Dios Hospital and had to teach himself dermatology..."; compare to [8]: ""Back in Madrid, he found himself in 1860 in charge of the 120 beds in the San Juan de Dios Hospital... and he began the difficult task of teaching himself dermatology on the job". From Alisa LaGamma: "In 2012 she received the Iris Award for Outstanding Scholarship of the Bard Graduate Center in recognition of her contribution to rethinking the history of sub-Saharan African art and culture."; compare to [9]: " In 2012, the Bard Graduate Center recognized her contribution to rethinking the history of sub-Saharan African art and culture with its Iris Award for Outstanding Scholarship." This contributor created over 4,000 articles? ℯxplicit 01:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite you to possibly reconsider your vote, Explicit: Cardinal Richelieu said "Show me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough therein to hang him". Philafrenzy has written not six, but hundreds of thousands of lines, and actually the examples you brought above do have paraphrasing, and even Richelieu would be scratching his head in finding any solid proof to hang anybody. This is proven by the Earwig's copyvio detector for all three examples that you brought: Lisa Littman is an unlikely violation. José Eugenio Olavide is an unlikely violation, and Alisa LaGamma is also unlikely violation. The Earwig tool is very used in the DYK process by many reviewers. Yes, the paraphrasing of Lisa Littman may be a further improved, but from there to saying that there is a "troubling pattern" or even mention plagiarism, such as @Audacity: is doing, below, I believe is far fetched. Such words cannot be thrown so easily. --1l2l3k (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Note that I just edited Lisa Littman to remove the copyvio (though using Philafrenzy's version only increases the score slightly). Regardless, this tool seems to be intended to detect straightforward copy-and-paste copyvios, whereas the issue here is Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which is in fact still plagiarism. Λυδαcιτγ 04:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If the concern is now WP:CLOP, I believe that it is mostly the result of physicians' long titles, which, if changed and paraphrased, would no longer be correct. Further, bringing an article which the creator just composed three days ago, in the middle of his RFA should take in consideration that he may not have had the time in the last three days to refine the article. Some AGF? --1l2l3k (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Close paraphrase IS a copyright issue, not just some nice thing to avoid. If it is substantial, we revdel it. Our license does not allow for copyright violations to exist, for even an instant, on our pages. So no, AGF doesn’t apply to copyright issues and we don’t give people time to fix them. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni:, @Audacity:, @Hijiri88: I never said that close paraphrase isn't a copyright issue. I just said that, in general, long titles of physicians and long names of institutions, although switched and moved around in sentences to avoid close paraphrasing, still need to be correctly stated, otherwise someone will accuse you of not being faithful to the source. Also, if you read closely WP:LIMITED, within WP:CLOP, when there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing, close paraphrasing is permitted. The policy is very clear in saying that This may be the case when there is no reasonable way to avoid using technical terms, and may also be the case with simple statements of fact. The policy goes on saying Names or titles of people, organizations, books, films and so on may be given in full – there is no creative expression in a name or title, which is often the only way to identify the subject. It is ironic as the example at WP:LIMITED, of John Smith having pursued studies in medicine, include a very similar situation to that brought above for Lisa Littman, i.e. graduation from a medical school. Sometimes when one brings a policy, it's worthy reading it from head to bottom, rather than using it to persecute a user that has given much to this project with heavy accusations that are not fully substantiated. --1l2l3k (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing how "long titles of physicians and long names of institutions" are relevant here. You've mentioned "long titles" twice now, but the closest Audacity's edit to the Littman article came to this was removing "now Rutgers Medical School" (redundant because Wikipedia has wikilinks and redirects; anyone who claims this is needed or else we are misrepresenting sources is wrong) and replacing "UMDNJ-" with the clearer synonym "then part of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey". I have never seen an argument over long titles of physicians that hinged on "close paraphrase vs. misrepresentation of sources", but I suspect if such a dispute existed it was mostly a result of some users claiming that removing a long and unnecessary title and replacing it with a prose description of the subject's educational history was misrepresenting sources, even though (assuming that all the content of that prose description was based on an accurate reading of sources) it wasn't that; and I can't possibly imagine "close paraphrasing" being a concern in such a dispute to begin with. The problem here is whole sentences being copied outright from the source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @1l2l3k: Sorry if I seem to be "persecuting" Philafrenzy, whose massive content contributions I greatly appreciate. I don't mean to attack the candidate; however, I still think close paraphrasing is a significant issue of concern for them as a potential admin. As noted by Nikkimaria above, their DYK nomination of The Pheasantry failed because of "Persistent close paraphrasing". In the discussion, they were warned that "you've shown not only an inability to recognize it while you're writing, but a stubborn reluctance to check thoroughly for it afterward". Have they improved since? Their recent creation of Lisa Littman and their answer to Q17 above suggest to me that it's still an issue. For example, as discussed by Hijiri88 above, their version of Lisa Littman copied the phrase "her MD from UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, now Rutgers Medical School" verbatim from the source. While it's true that this is a bunch of titles, that doesn't mean that there's no way to rephrase it! I changed it to "her MD from Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, then part of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey", which both accords better with the article titles we have and gets rid of the potential copyvio. I think it's important to do this wikifying and de-copyvioing from the very beginning, and hope that Philafrenzy will incorporate it into their future work regardless of the outcome of this RFA. Λυδαcιτγ 02:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Google Books link didn't work for me. Here's a possibly better one. I also noticed the phrase "having previously taken no special interest in it" that Earwig's tool identifies, but the match there seems to be an article about something entirely different. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 19:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I simply can not support a candidate who wants to work in a high stress, high conflict environment who neither has experience dealing with managing conflict nor can articulate a conflict management strategy beyond mouthing a short platitude. (Answer to question #8 ) Administrators are more than just button pushers and lots of content creation, without demonstrated judgement and people skills, is not adequate experience and is likely to result in situations which are worse than not having an admin at all. The answers given in the other questions do not immediately inspire confidence either. They lack detail and specificity which raises concerns re, at least, the ability to communicate and support their reasoning in cases of ADMINACCT. Jbh Talk 01:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jbh, I think that is a wee bit disingenuous. I don't believe in the born hard mentality. Most people aren't born into being able to manage conflict, it is learned experience starting in primary school, as you grown older you learn what's what and you end up here. Would it not be the case e.g. that User:Philafrenzy could take some Mentorship lessons from other members of the administrations corps, as you would any learning environment, in their initial few weeks, and perhaps take an online conflict management course, of which there is literally 10'000's of them out there. That would prepare for the first few weeks and some kind of mentorship by the corps would do the rest in specific situations. I don't see any evidence by Philafrenzy of shying away from managing conflict and disputes, so the rest can be learned like everything else, and with learning comes experience. scope_creep (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: Considering that all of those possibilities are what-ifism I do not see the point of your comment since none of those things have any chance of occurring. Are you suggesting we can somehow require a candidate be trained? How? By whom? We require candidates to have demonstrated ability in article creation, AfD etc before they become admins. I feel they should also prove they are able to manage conflict and demonstrate that they have an adequate temperament to deal with the interpersonal challenges they will meet as an admin. Writers write stuff, admins on the other hand deal with conflict and when they are crap at they make the environment worse for everyone. Jbh Talk 21:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose concerns with unsatisfactory answers to questions and a general lack of experience with administrative matters. I'm also troubled by the candidate's lax approach towards files/copyright policy; since your RfA might pass, please take great care with files or avoid them completely. -FASTILY 03:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever happened to "Why not?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Will not support an admin who's not putting in the effort to make sure their references actually refer to the subject - and who paraphrased Women and Infants into a division of Brown, as seen in Explicit's oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose With regret, as I'm generally in awe of content creators with 200,000+ edits. However, significant copyvio concerns noted in oppose 5 above (e.g. Lisa Littman vs. [10]) make prolific content creation as much an area of concern as a good thing. I hope that, as with Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat, Philafrenzy was planning to improve/rewrite this article, but plagiarism shouldn't be left in the main space for any amount of time. Just too much of a red flag for me. Λυδαcιτγ 04:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Spotting copyvio problems is an incredibly important part of an administrator's job, for which we have been given a special tool. That we'd have someone with thousands of article creations is great, but that such an editor would still paraphrase too closely, to put it diplomatically, is not a good sign. I oppose reluctantly, since I know Philafrenzy has done a lot of good work, and I also greatly value the work and opinion of their nominator, but I don't have a choice right now. (We have online training for this in the WikiEdu department...I just did it to see what my students will have to have learned by tomorrow.) Drmies (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose moved here from support, essentially per Drmies. I’ll note that having issues with text copyvio is especially concerning for an admin that wants to help out on the main page. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I see a lack of sustained or consistent focus in many administrative areas. It's not that editing and writing articles is bad; I just don't see how becoming an administrator will further enhance Phil's contributions. EclipseDude (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - Given that the nominee lacks both a convincing need for the tools as well as anything resembling the wide breadth of qualifying experience most candidates are held to, I would expect to see an exceptional level of competence in the content space and in the answers to the questions to be comfortable supporting. I'm pretty disappointed with the answers to most of the questions, and the great mass of articles are almost all stubs, many of which are just single sentences. I agree with the "quantity over quality" points raised in the Neutral section. So, from the gate, I'm not convinced. I'm not much of a hardliner as far as fair use files go, but even I find the lack of conviction or even understanding in the reply to that oppose worrying. Then there's some minor concerns such as the fact that the candidate never enabled email until earlier this year when running an RfA was discussed, they keep their talk page absurdly long in spite of having an archive, and a low rate of edit summary usage, all of which are minor but quite simply not be issues to begin with. Then there's the lack of experience in non-content areas; the admin toolkit is very broad and admins should be experienced and demonstrably competent in a variety of project-space areas; I see no substantial experience in admin areas, not even in terms of making AIV reports, which is as basic as it gets. Likewise, as Jbh gets at, being an admin is a social position as well and candidates should demonstrate an ability to stay above conflict and help work through and resolve it as well, because mediating disputes and moderating discussions and managing conflict comes with the job as well, and the candidate simply can't come up with any experience in dispute resolution. I find that hard to believe. Then there's the actual problems, which are in the content space, namely issues with sourcing and copyright violations, which are quite simply serious enough issues on their own to oppose even the most qualified candidate. Sorry, it's a reluctant but firm oppose from me as well. Swarm ♠ 06:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Per the copyright issues raised by a number of editors, but especially per 1l2l3k's arguing that they aren't copyright issues. We have enough trouble with so-called "close paraphrasing" all over this project without editors being granted admin status while they are actively writing articles that include plagiarized text (Lisa Littman was created three days ago) and editors supporting said nomination based on the claim that close paraphrasing is not plagiarism. I know a lot of the other supporters are actually very good on copyvio issues and may not have even been aware of this issue, but I won't ping them to ask if they'd reconsider like Tony did as that would probably be "canvassing" if I only did it with editors who are my "friends", and going through all of them to find all the supporters who didn't explicitly mention copyright/plagiarism/etc. would be a bit too much work for me at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose The whole kerkuffle at Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat, though serious, could be forgiven as a one-off among many article creations, but the threads above turned up many examples of close paraphrasing (aka copy-pasting with a dictionary of synonyms). I also give a small but positive weight to the "does not search long enough for free files" argument. For the longer term, I also am concerned about their stance to paid editing. The answer to Q11 states that direct editing of article by paid editors is contrary to our policies, but it is not (it is "strongly discouraged", not forbidden). In Q3, they said they declined a request for mediation from a paid editor (which is fine) but I don't see how they can ever approach mediation in good faith with a neutral point of view seems out of line assuming "they" refers to paid editors in general (and not that one in particular for specific reasons) - in content dispute resolution, by definition at least one dispute participant does not have a "neutral point of view", the aim of mediation is precisely to compromise on what the NPOV is; and, of course, assuming no paid editor ever is in good faith or willing to compromise would be contrary to WP:AGF. For the record, I see two oppose arguments as meritless: (1) the idea that the candidate is an industrial stub-churner (bad!) rather than a GA artisan (good!) (not only does it not match my perception of the record, but even if true, creating decent stubs on notable topics is a worthy task); (2) the idea that having mostly avoided disputes in their numerous edits disqualifies them for the job on account of lacking dispute resolution skills (if anything, avoiding disputes is a good thing). TigraanClick here to contact me 08:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tigraan: copy-pasting with a dictionary of synonyms is an unusual definition of close paraphrasing; in this case, the close paraphrasing does not appear to have included replacement by synonyms, but rather simply removing unnecessary conjunctions and switching clauses around. I would say subbing out X number of words with synonyms would probably be acceptable (obviously depending on the circumstances), but what happened here was not that, and actually the problem with the phrase "close paraphrasing" that I've observed here and elsewhere is the opposite, where text has been lifted directly with only minor cosmetic alterations, and folks try to claim it's not plagiarism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: struck that. As you point out, as it stood, it is incorrect in multiple regards; fixing it would take far more bytes that deserved, but since I tried: What I wanted to demonstrate with the "synonym dictionary" thing, which was more an example/parallel than a description of the situation at hand is what follows (keep is mind IANAL). Argumentative texts (essays, manuals, etc.) copyright applies to published ideas, not only to text: it protects the expressed line of reasoning and its logical structures. Hence, merely replacing some words by synonyms, or translating in another language, makes a copyvio (if published without authorization), even if 99.9% of copyvios are blatant copy-pastes. The text match percentage matters little, the test is rather about the logical structure. Now, short excerpts (e.g. a single sentence) can hardly, on their own, be copyvios, because they do not contain enough ideas to protect, so "the feline devours the rodent" would not be a copyvio of "the cat eats the mouse" except in conjunction with other instances; arguably, there could be an amount of text such that copy-pasting it would barely be seen as a copyvio by a Reasonable Person (tm), but running it through a dictionary of synonyms would barely not be. However, if you get into arguing whether a short excerpt is or is not a copyvio, it matters little in the grand scheme of things on Wikipedia, because in any case it is plagiarism, which we should not do for ethical reasons. In any case, all this is fairly offtopic on the RfA page. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - too many concerns raised above, I'm afraid. Take the comments as constructive, learn from your errors, and come back in the future for another run. GiantSnowman 08:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Issues with close paraphrasing are concerning for any potential admin. But it is more concerning when specifically working in DYK/ERRORS, where making sure that content is not a copyright violation is part of the job. Problems with sourcing and notability of the articles they create, and the answer to Q13 showing an inability to spot promotionalism further shows that they wouldn't particularly be helpful keeping DYK quality high, and would likely only create further clashes in the area, especially due to their lack of experience in dealing with conflicts. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to reply to every vote Galobtter, but I clearly said above that the whole thing was self-evidently promotional. Anyone can see it is a PR puff piece. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarifying, Philafrenzy, I'm concerned about how you still haven't identified (correctly) how exactly it is promotional - what words would you remove to make it less promotional? What phrases or sentences are promotional, and why? Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just point out that the question specifically asks about evidence of possible self-promotion, not just promotion. It's not about how to rewrite it to not be promotional (the obvious answer to that would be to rewrite it as the current version is written), but whether there's anything suspicious that suggests self-promotion. I agree such questions are tricky and judging too harshly based on the answer can be unfair, as something that one person can see as obvious can go unnoticed by another without any personal failing - it can be hit and miss whether one person sees the same thing as another. But I see one thing that would raise my suspicions, though I think what I have spotted is quite subtle. Oh, and I'm really only commenting here because I can't resist a detective challenge ;-) How about you, Galobtter, can you see anything that would raise suspicions specifically of self-promotion? (If you can, I suggest not posting a spoiler, as I'm not going to do - at least not until the RfA is over). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Even "rewrite it as the current version" isn't really fully correct - I'd say "Her work has run in more than fifty publications, including The New York Times, Vanity Fair, Harper's, The Wall Street Journal, Allure (where she served as Contributing Editor) and Vogue." smacks of coming straight from her own blurb, and a lot of it is still too much based on the old promotional version (though much better formatted)
    I do understand different people seeing different things, and maybe specifically spotting self-promotion they may not, but giving what is promotional they should be able to (I think I may have an idea of what would raise specific self-promotional issues) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that even if they are fine on spotting promotional issues, that it'd still be an oppose - issues with close paraphrasing and in general with quantity over quality don't give any any confidence of them working well in the areas they do want to work (DYK/ERRORS) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but you *are* missing the point of the question, and I think it is unfair to criticize the candidate for not answering it in accordance with your misunderstanding of it - the question is *not* asking what is promotional about the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Q13 is about the article Judith Newman. What the discussion seems to be missing is that the candidate actually nominated this article for deletion. The result was a snow keep so it's puzzling that the complaint is now that the candidate is soft on promotion rather than being over-zealous. The subject seems to be something of a special case though, as a result of the NYT article Wikipedia-Mania.   Andrew D. (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the article contains spoilers for the question. wumbolo ^^^ 11:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wumbolo: What is the correct answer to the question? I'm still confused. Λυδαcιτγ 03:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: I'm not entirely sure how your comment relates to Galobtter's vote. Phil's AFD comment made no reference to promotionalism so it's not like he's being gone after for being "soft on promotionalism" when he in fact has a proven record of being hard on it; it could arguably be said that since both the draft at mainspacing and the article at AFD nomination included some of the same problems, Phil's not mentioning it shows a lack of sensitivity to it. The fact that a bunch of other editors also didn't notice it and the AFD was snow-closed is even more tangential. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per GiantSnowman. Double sharp (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose See question 6: his initial action and his weak-kneed response. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Reluctant oppose per Drmies, and the complete misunderstanding of WP:PAID in Q11. Katietalk 15:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What did I get wrong please Katie? I was replying from the point of view of COI. A COI editor should not be editing the page on which they have a COI. Please explain. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite Phil. Our policy does not prohibit paid editing (unfortunately). You're incorrect in equating "strongly discouraged" with "prohibition". Or maybe I'm reading your view wrongly. Lourdes 16:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Philafrenzy - in short, a COI editor is "strongly discouraged" from directly editing pages on which they have a COI, but there is no prohibition against it. You might choose to advise them to use the talk page to make edit requests in the future, however, given the provided example is of a reasonable edit, you should not be warning them to stick to the talk page. Moreover, the other editor is abusing their rollback tool to revert non-vandalizing edits. They should either be warned that further infractions will result in the loss of their rollback privileges, or if the case is severe enough, simply remove the privilege. I wouldn't say "complete misunderstanding", but rather an incomplete one. Refer to Tigraan's !vote for basically the same response. (edit conflicted with Lourdes). Mr rnddude (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did know that paid editing is not banned but was wrong about COI editing being discouraged rather than prohibited. It has to be good practice to use the talk page though and I did pick up on the bit about the rollback being inappropriate. I didn't mention it but I was aware that rollback can be removed for abuse. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Having re-read that answer, I'm not actually sure you did pick up on the rollback point. You stated that 'reverting' an edit that is not vandalism was wrong, however per H:RV that's not strictly true - 'reverting' an edit simply means undoing it, either manually or using the standard undo tool, and this doesn't have to be due to vandalism. Rollback, on the other hand, has much more specific and rigid rules about when it can be used, and misuse of it is more serious. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my point is that in my opinion you didn't, in fact, properly recognise the significance of some of the question details or identify the policies at stake.KorruskiTalk 07:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "The reporting editor should be warned not to revert the COI's attempts to engage on the talk page as they were doing the right thing." ie Rollback was not appropriate because the edit was in good faith, in the right place, and not vandalism. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think "The reporting editor should be warned not to revert the COI's attempts to engage on the talk page as they were doing the right thing." Is the same thing as "Rollback was not appropriate because the edit was in good faith, in the right place, and not vandalism" then I am not going to argue the point with you, but it does help me make up my mind about your understanding of WP policies.KorruskiTalk 12:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak oppose, unfortunately. I think Philafrenzy has potential, but his understanding of copyright policy could use some work. Explicit cites three examples of close paraphrasing above; José Eugenio Olavide and Alisa LaGamma are close enough to be concerning, but Lisa Littman is way too similar to the source for comfort. The images B lists may or may not be public domain, but "published before 1926" is insufficient as an image rationale. Different countries have different copyright laws – we need to know which country it comes from, and why it is in the public domain. These issues are common good faith mistakes, easily fixable, and should not preclude a successful RfA in the not-too-distant future. Kurtis (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurtis do you mean Dawson Williams, 1928? That image was uploaded by someone else. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, okay. Thank you for correcting me. I've stricken that part out of my rationale. Kurtis (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - The concerns raised by Drmies and Katie were enough to sway me to this camp for now. If these issues are addressed, I could see supporting a future run. -- Dane talk 17:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I am concerned that placing Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat in the main space without ascertaining the subject's notability is problematic at best, and if the subject were a living person, may violate WP:BLP. While the first version on any article is never complete, in this case, the initial version was three sentences long, and assumed notability partially relied on one line in someone else's obituary. The second edit was a construction tag followed by some category tags. Then he left for two hours, then added details about the subject's family before adding a couple more sentences. Again, the problem is not with the thought (or research) process of the nominee, because I think to a degree that is how we edit, but the problem was this was occurring in the main space, where there is less room for error (and while I am not saying that article creations must be perfect, I would recommend to the nominee that he do more work in draft space). --Enos733 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominee's response to Q6 makes it even harder to understand why the article was created in the main space. "In policy terms it is GNG as JPs and DL's aren't automatically deemed notable." However, the article as created, only has two references, one newspaper article and one line in an online obituary of another individual. To me, if a subject is going to need to pass WP:GNG (and it is not obvious why the person is [or might be] notable) we should expect more substance in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Five refs within two hours of creation and a clear assertion of notability in the very first version "a justice of the peace and deputy lieutenant of Kirkcudbrightshire" with an unimpeachable source (London Gazette) to prove it. It's not a BLP is it? Died in the 19th century. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If this were an AfD, I may argue that of the sources in the article, only one (the London Gazette article) may contain substantive information. From what I saw in the books, the only information about the subject were one line mentions. However, my concern is not about the one article, but that an experienced editor would be ok with creating a three sentence stub and adding a construction tag on any article they were working on. --Enos733 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC) I would add that in the neutral comments there are more examples of short low-notability stub articles created "for the sake of completeness." --Enos733 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Five refs, where the first one is about his father, the third one is about the family crest and doesn't mention him, the fourth one is about his brother, not his son, and shows that even more information in the article is wrong, and it is so far impossible to verify whether the fifth is about his daughter (no evidence that he had one by that name) or his sister (he certainly had a sister by that name). Which leaves us with a very short mention in the London Gazette (a primary source) that he became then a DL (page 1704 top left). That source does not prove that he was a Justice of the Peace, so why do you claim it does? Oh, and it doesn't look as if he "died before 1882" either. Basically, only one thing in the article (that he was a DL) is actually verified by the source, and no notability at all is implied by any of them. Still, you "have sufficient sources to say definitely that the subject was a justice of the peace and deputy lieutenant of Kirkcudbrightshire and a notable figure in his part of Scotland." so it shouldn't be too hard to set this straight surely? Fram (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Philafrenzy, are you sure you want to die on this hill? B's previous comment is spot on: notability is a red herring, really. Personally I think it is poor judgment to use mainspace to store incomplete drafts by using "in construction" tag and making sure A7 does not apply, but that is not the crucial point. The real problem is that you put in mainspace refs purported to be about X when they actually are about Y. I do not really see what you can say about that apart from "yeah, my bad, sorry". TigraanClick here to contact me 08:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - this RfA is another example for why the recent Term Limit discussion on Jimbo’s TP needs serious consideration. Until trial periods are in place and accountability issues have been properly addressed, I’d much rather err on the side of caution. Atsme📞📧 22:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Per the issues brought up by other opposes, especially Drmies, B, and Explicit. While the content creation is impressive and the candidate is looking to help out in one of the few admin areas where content creation experience is meaningful on its own, the copyright and NFC issues can not be overlooked, in my book. If this RfA does not pass, take some time to show that you know what the "free" part of "Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" means. If you do, I'll gladly be able to support. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Swarm and the candidates refusal to answer my question. Answers provided for other questions don't really answer the question being asked and merely deflect and, as a whole, are underwhelming. There is no demonstrable need for the tools, and the candidate has zero experience in almost every administrative area of the site. I would not feel comfortable with him showing us how he would handle such tasks after he got the bit. You don't need the admin bit to be a content creator, and you shouldn't get it if you "plan" on using it for mainly one thing. Further, his inability to discern copyright issues for both articles and files is very concerning. Nihlus 00:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your question was answered fine. The "main DYK process" doesn't end just because the hook has been handed off to the main page, it ends when the hook has completed its time and is replaced. Having more people familiar with the DYK process handling ERRORS is absolutely something we need. You're entitled to pull up the candidate on copyvio issues and the other things you mention, but to say he has no demonstrable need for the tools is objectively untrue.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. Sloppy sourcing, copyvio problems, creation of unexpandable one- or two-line stubs, etc., etc. This all smacks of article creation just for article count, or editcountitis. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about carefully sourced, carefully written, encyclopedicly notable and noteworthy information. This scatter-shot, slap-dash, rapid-fire approach to editing is very disappointing. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. I'm late to this RfA and unusually, I haven't done my own research. However, many well established RfA voters have done theirs and fully described their concerns. So as per Drmies, Explicit, Swarm and others, whose concerns are very real and valid, I am unable to support this bid for the mop. Even if the actual rate of close paraphrasing were low in comparison to the sheer amount of contributions, it's a disqualifier for adminship, and the issues over images also give me pause. Notwithstanding, Philafrenzy is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia and will learn from the issues highlighted in this RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Several reasons, including a lot of 'per aboves' around copyvio and sloppy content creation, but also the discussion above at Oppose 20. Maybe it's me that's being obtuse, but in my opinion the candidate has missed a key part of the question, then failed to understand what he missed when it was explained to him, and then failed to understand my attempt to draw attention to the distinction. Either that or he does understand the mistake but isn't willing to simply acknowledge it. Either way, it bothers me just enough to make me oppose on an RFA that I was simply going to ignore. KorruskiTalk 12:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. On the fence waiting for the responses to a few more questions. I'd like to know more about the WP:DYK queue, as this seems to be the crux of the request. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for the time being. I am very impressed with the numerous article creations and DYK contributions, but I am less than impressed with some of the users past AfD nominations that were based upon two or three words (e.g. "not notable") and appeared to possibly lack any WP:BEFORE searching to ascertain notability. Some of these nominations also may have simply been based upon the state of sourcing in articles, which is not a true indicator of notability, as per WP:NEXIST. To illustrate my concerns, here are some past AfD nominations that I found to be troubling: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14. North America1000 14:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing troubling about your example no. 1 (Becky's Diner — a "historic diner" first opened in 1991!) is that the first deletion debate didn't close Delete, which was the fairly strong consensus, but rather closed No Consensus. Not quite sure why redoing a No Consensus (strongly tending to Delete) was "troubling." Baffling. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was clear that I am concerned about past nominations with little rationale for deletion provided. For example, in example #1 in my !vote above, the entire basis for the nomination was "Non notable restaurant", with no further clarification qualifying said opinion. Also, my !vote herein is not intended to be a notability discussion about the topic. North America1000 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reassuringly, only one of those examples is more recent than...2014. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × a lot) Most of these AfDs are from 2014 or prior; unless I'm mistaken, this is the only "recent" one and it's from June 2016. Do you have any evidence of WP:BEFORE omissions made by the candidate in the past year or so? (Of course you can apply whatever criteria you want – I'm just asking because it affects my opinion.) I see that some of their nominations are still lacking detail, but can't find any specific !votes or noms that are clearly misjudged (though I can't see deleted pages). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bilorv: In this AfD discussion, the user's !vote, placed on 15 March 2018 (UTC), is entirely based upon the state of sourcing in the article, "Delete Article at present does not have a single reference." Regardless of the actual notability or lack thereof for the topic, this goes entirely against the grain of WP:NEXIST, a significant part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page. As such, I'm not convinced that the user has a sufficient grasp of notability guidelines. Since the user opined for deletion using this non-qualifying rationale for a non-BLP article, I am concerned that they may incorrectly apply weight to said non-qualifying rationales when closing deletion discussions. North America1000 15:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen that type of voting often enough from many editors I think well of, as much as I agree with NA1000 on how poor a rationale it is. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - For the time being at least. Reading through the first three answers, I uh, felt the answers were rather tepid overall. Without going into full analysis mode, I'll just pick on one thing that... well..: o.0? I am mainly a content creator and so would say my 300+ Did You Knows, most of them joint. Working in a team to expand an article from almost nothing to complete enough to appear on the front page is something I enjoy. Ok, so you're heavily involved in creating start-up articles for the encyclopaedia. 300 DYKs is also very impressive. That second sentence bugs me though, because getting an article to be "complete enough to appear on the front page" is a rather low bar: new article, 1,500+ characters of written prose, hook must be cited, and the article must comply with the core policies. This is a couple hours of work at most. Now one may say 300 DYKs by 3 manhours each is 600 manhours dedicated to the project. I am, however, a quality over quantity person. One detailed, comprehensive and well written article matters more to me than even a thousand Start-class ones. I also feel that the encyclopaedia has moved well away from creation to maintenance. Sure, there are articles to create, but there's so many more articles to improve. I did see the two GAs, and they are both short articles at around 9k bytes in length. Now, I've supported candidates with much less content creation under their belt. Moreover you're planning on working DYK and ERRORS, which you do seem qualified for. So why the fuss? In a word? seem. Your answer to Fram's question was weak. You suggest that you have many sources at the ready for the article. So why aren't they in the article? You've created a further five articles since then, and they're either stubs or very early start class articles. I will wait for a few days before I decide whether that seem is an is or not. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Basically for the same reasons as Mr rnddude. Content creation seems to prioritize quantity over quality. At best, creating bad stubs like Draft:Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat and leave them for others to deal with is bad form. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may reply to Mr rnddude and Randykitty jointly about Howat - It had an under construction tag on it because I was still working on it. It was not abandoned, just unfinished. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    [11], [12], [13]. --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is okay for an article (in article space) to be "incomplete" or a stub. It is not okay for an article in article space to be wrong (such as conflating two different people with the same name). Nor is it a great idea for it to be in article space if there is little/no evidence of notability. --B (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What I see is a pattern: quantity/speed over quality. The examples I gave above: one was changed to a redirect by Philafrenzy when it was tagged for notability, the other two were expanded with little effort by others, adding content and independent references demonstrating notability. These are just three examples that I was personally involved with because of my interest in academic journals, so I'm reasonably confident that these three are more or less random examples, indicative of a pattern. --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be a fair criticism of the overall quality of their content work, but how it is relvant to their fitness for adminship is a bit obscure to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be a bit in the eye of the beholder; I also did a spot check and saw a good number of entries begun as stubs that attracted the interest of others who had something to add, and grew into nice entries (page histories to see these trajectories: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc.) I'd be more worried if a larger number had been shown to be non-notable, but with a deletion rate below 1% and responsiveness when a specific notability standard is raised (Q3), to me it seems like the method of beginning stubs to allow for easier addition of content is working to the benefit of the encyclopedia. And folks who don't want to work on developing the stubs don't have to, of course. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Moved to oppose while I await further details and consider the issues already raised. As of now I'm fairly unimpressed by the content creation or answers to questions and am not seeing anything else this user is bringing to the table apart from being a warm body for DYK, certainly not impressed enough to participate in the an early-game pileon. I can be swayed either way at this point. Swarm ♠ 21:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I'm a bit concerned about low edit summary usage, and would like to see an answer to Q8. TeraTIX 23:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer is fairly vague and not exactly filling me with confidence. Q5 is also worrying. TeraTIX 02:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral leaning oppose. I'm concerned about the general creation of low-notability articles and close paraphrasings. Several articles sourced only to a Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists document appear to be too-close paraphrases (Gordon Fitzgerald, Archibald Donald). José Eugenio Olavide is another article that feels problematic. With the sheer volume of articles created, having a few issues like this is both inevitable and acceptable, but from a spot check it feels to me that it may be 5% of creations (especially if you discount stubs like Edmund Bray), which is a lot. As a result, I'm not yet convinced that his presence at DYK as an admin would be beneficial to the project. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be missing something, but I don't see the expected WP:QPQ reviews of other DYKs. Most of Philafrenzy's nominations are co-nominations with Whispyhistory, who does have plenty of these. I don't see how they can expect to be an admin in this area if they haven't done reviews. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whispyistory wanted experience at reviewing and so has been doing them recently on joint nominations. You can find mine further down the list Power~enwiki. I don't know how many I have done but it must be over 100. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Will wait for the answers for the concerns related to AfDs, raised by Northamerica1000. Kraose (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral As what everyone has said, most of the "articles" created by Phila in the past few years consist of just one or two liners, stubs which probably have no hope of ever being expanded. Think WP:PERMASTUB. Look at Charles Chute, there isn't much coverage of it online (web searches give ancestry or art pic results, indicating low notability). This can be said for many of his other permastub articles, showing quantity over quality articles. Thus his point of being a "top article creator" doesn't really apply since a majority of the texts have low purpose. Being an admin means more than creating 4000 of these articles, so I hope to see him talk more about the technical side of Wikipedia instead. aNode (discuss) 09:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Try William_Lyde_Wiggett_Chute, aNode. Charles was a spin-off for the sake of completeness. You can find the long ones on the right of my user page. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral I have concerns about the close paraphrasing, and some of the weak AfD rationales highlighted by Northamerica1000, which make me wonder whether Philafrenzy has a firm grasp of policy in these important areas. While it is true that we need admins in DYK/ERRORS, I am unsure whether Philafrenzy has sufficient experience in the administrative rather than content side of DYK, and I await his answer to Cwmhiraeth's question on that subject.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral for now. The most important quality of an administrator is mental stability, so that the person doesn't run amok with megalomania as a result of the authority they hold on Wikipedia, that is denied to them in real life by their temperament, going to their head. I do not think that the candidate shows signs of this shortcoming. I am, though, not so impressed by the large number of article created, some of which seems to be trivial and derivative. From his answers to the questions I have doubts that the candidate has the street smarts needed for what can be a tough job in dispute resolution. Would he be a liability to Wikipedia? I doubt it, but he might need a lot of guidance. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
General comments
  • Duplicated first line - I feel the issue in Q12 seems a little OTT. A single line near-duplicate is both an excessive obligation towards paraphrasing and in some circumstances near-necessary by the line's topic and purpose. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

_____

  • @PCHS-NJROTC: Questions 20 and 21 are pretty specialist; does your support / oppose of the candidate rest on the answer/s you get to them? Just that, range blocks (apart from being something the candidate has expressed absolutely no interest in whatsoever) are something that even some seasoned admins are uncomfortable with doing themselves. Q21 is certainly—interesting, although does the answer really have to be found in the minutiae of a ~70,000byte talk page?! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 19:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually commend an RfA candidate for having the hutzpah to admit their lack of specific knowledge and interest rather than giving a poor answer Nosebagbear (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at Philafrenzy's contributions, I thought "gosh, that's an awful lot of stubs". I looked to see if his talk page contained evidence of : AfD notifications that then closed as "delete", CSD notifications (especially G12), any other Twinkle warnings, or "You may be blocked next time you do 'x'" messages. I found a few AfD notifications that closed as "keep" aside from one WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, a few notes about the sizes of FUR files (which a number of other experienced users are now getting too) and that was about it. You can't pull the wool over the eyes of everyone working at DYK and ERRORS and if his nominations were problematic, somebody would have proposed sanctions at WT:DYK. As far as I know, this has not happened. The conclusion I reached from this corpus of evidence is that the community has decided that Philafrenzy does not violate policy and does not need sanctioning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that opposing someone's RfA is not the same as sanctioning them, right? And that no(?) policy violations had been noted before his RfA is hardly evidence that he doesn't violate policy. He was warned for way too often having problems with close paraphrasing in 2014, and while it seems that the actual number of issues has been reduced, it clearly hasn't disappeared (see e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Spooner Churchill, where again issues of close paraphrasing were raised, which you dismissed out of hand. The two articles I moved to draft space may not be policy violations (although this is debatable), the article I noted which was an unattributed translation of the French Wikipedia article definitely is a policy violation. "the community has decided that Philafrenzy does not violate policy" is a nonsense statement in its own right, and even more so after evidence to the contrary has been unearthed. You really aren't helping your nominee with such an ill thought-out statement, but that is something we shouldn't hold against them of course. Fram (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Philafrenzy&oldid=856180530"