Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philosopher

Philosopher (talk · contribs)

End date: June 30, 2009, 15:04.

Philosopher has been on seWP since August 2008 and became involved with both the mainspace aims of the project and with the community in discussion right away. A dedicated vandal fighter, Philosopher has proven that there is need for the tools as well as shown a good sense of judgement in when to warn, when to assume good faith and when to escalate incidents. Recent concentrations include mainspace work, DYK, community discussions and RFD. Admittedly there was a time of long inactivity, but most of us have had those and Philiosopher's activity level since April 21 has been more than sufficient in my opinion and is likely to remain high due to prior problems with a computer now being fixed. Edit count is 958 at last count which is two places below an active admin and above many other editors who are recognized and active here. I've always found Philosopher to be polite and of a tolerant nature. In short, please consider this editor for adminship. Thank you! fr33kman ^talk 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Goblin 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!: I'd like to be bold and add my co-nomination. Philosopher has been a very helpful and active member of the community and would certainly benefit from the addition of the admin tools. They help out in our DYK area, participate in discussions and revert vandalism - everything an admin needs to be. Good luck! :) Goblin 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Co-nomination from Pmlinediter  ^Talk 14:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC): Philosopher has always been one of our greatest editors. He has several vandalism reversions, is an active contributer to DYK and is a very helpful user. He is an asset to Simple and has all the qualities of a good admin. He certainly deserves the tools. Best of luck! Pmlinediter  ^Talk 14:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I am honored to accept your nominations. (Though Pmlinediter may be exaggerating just a bit when he says I've always been one of our greatest editors. ;) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional from NonvocalScream (talk):

Q: Optional in the way of, I won't hold it against you if you don't answer. Here is are my questions... As far as blocking, how tolerant are you for mistakes... and are you apt to giving chances to editors? For example... if an editor who is indef blocked for vandalism and generic disruption comes back 4 months later, requesting unblock, admitting the misdeeds and promising not to recur, would you consider unblocking?

• Hmm...won't hold it against me if I don't answer, but presumably would hold it against me if I answered wrong. Seems like a good excuse to keep my mouth shut, don't you think? *jk* --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'm not certain. I've indef-blocked (or modified an indef-block of) eleven users at EN (the twelfth was my doppelganger - a test of the tools), but none of them have asked me to unblock that I recall. Possibly I'd pass it up to WP:AN for discussion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: With regards to protecting pages... How do you decide to protect a page? In what circumstance, if any, would you find it acceptable to protect a page you are involved with?

A1: You see if it is highly vandalized or highly likely to be vandalized, or being edit warred over. Then you check WP:P. Then you decide whether to protect.

A2: You only protect a page you are involved with if it is receiving a lot of vandalism that is clearly not related to a content dispute. When in doubt, find one of the other online admins and have them resolve the issue.

Q: Do you have to provide administrator assistance to all who asks?

A: Technically? No. Should you? Yes. Though sometimes the assistance will have to be "I can't do that/It wouldn't be a good idea for me to do that because of x", as here (the article was salted after many recreations; a similar article was salted after an AfD). The (hopefully rare) exception would be trolls, whom you should not feed. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: I know there a a few questions here, and I think you for taking time, if you could do one more... CAn you give me a one liner about trust, in the context of a request for adminiship?

A: It's good? Sorry, one liners aren't my strong point. Instead, how about an anecdote? "I can still recall that one time when I was helping combat a vandalism bot over at EN and my browser kept crashing because of the crazy stuff the bot was putting on the pages..." --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong support as nom. fr33kman ^talk 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Support as per co-nom. Goblin 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
3. Strong support per my co-nom. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 14:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support (weaker than before per en admin :D ) - Why the hell not ! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - great user. Barras (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong oppose - User is an admin at enwiki, is therefore evil. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That means that you and EVula (and a bunch of other editors) are evil. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He was joking... Goblin 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

   Yes, I guessed that he was joking because he put his vote in the support section. I was just pointing out the lack of logic in that statement as if he had meant it. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   ...I was joking... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I know. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, to be fair, I am evil. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Support David0811 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support A little hesisant; Philospher has been inactive for the past 2 weeks. However, I think he'll be alright as an admin. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Access to the Internet has been an issue recently for Philosopher. These issues have now, reportedly, been fixed. Your concerns are right to be raised however. fr33kman ^talk 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   "...to be raised..." Disagree slighty, but eh. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If a person has any concerns about an adminship candidate, it is always best to air them. fr33kman ^talk 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You are correct, I'm being a bit dry humor here, sorry. :) I'm semi active. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support - needs to have access to flood flag. EhJJ^TALK 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support: No reason for anybody to believe that he will abuse the tools.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong support--Masha Ashner (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC) - Banned user. Chenzw  Talk  14:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Support per EhJJ :-) -- Mercy (☎|✍) 06:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support – You're not an admin? Oh dang... — RyanCross (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I don't see any reason why to not support. иιƒкч? 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. No reason not to. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. I'll support this candidate. Good luck, and thank you for the answers. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Not going to do anything totally outrages. Sadly. Soup Dish (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Yes, please.-- Tdxiang 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support --vector ^_^ (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Questions may be "optional" but, especially as they are from an active and established editor, opting not to answer them seems a little rude. Though this will pass, clearly, thanks to the IRC cabal :o) Soup Dish (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silence, there is no cabal (for all those with a thick skin, I'm joking). Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is(n't) an IRC cabal? Perhaps I should get on IRC one of these days. What server/channel? *wonders if he still has mIRC installed* --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

freenode #wikipedia-simple You have to get a bathrobe first. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is a secret "Simple Wikipedia Cabal" Channel (oops!) but only several editors knew of its existence up until now. :P Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair :) S/He only made a "handful" of edits after I left the not on her/is talk page. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]