Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Evilphoenix


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

Evilphoenix
[ Vote here]  (32/0/1) ending 05:20 October 14, 2005 (UTC)

– I joined Wikipedia on May 9th, having lurked for several months, enjoying reading the encyclopedia and learning more about the method in which it is being created. The culture of civil discussion, consensus building, and striving for a neutral, factual point of view greatly impressed me and led me to my decision to contribute to Wikipedia, which has been a very enjoyable experience for me so far. I have over 2,100 edits (Kate's Report), and spend most of my time here either copyediting or working on New Page patrol, with occasional participation in AfD discussion. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I do. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

Oppose
 * 1) He's done some excellent work, Support wholeheartedly. --fvw *  05:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) EXTREME... erm... I've seen good work. Sup some port Grutness...  wha?  07:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Merovingian (t) (c) 11:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Kirill Lokshin 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support without any witty comments. Thryduulf 13:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: After a review of your edits, the only one I questioned was this one. A quick Google search would have shown you this individual had a #5 hit in the UK (3rd link on Google search). Be a slight bit more careful in placing things for AfD, ok? I loved this comment from this nominee "We have no sense of humor here on Wikipedia" (on this page) Hysterical! Nominee seems to have a solid grasp of policy and is a strong contributor. Participation level is high, and use of edit summaries over the last 500 edits is 96%! --Durin 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Man-zier support.--Scimitar parley 14:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support a good editor and a good future admin. -Splash talk 15:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Cabal member 16 will serve my- er- our cause well. Dmcdevit·t 15:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Good-natured guy. Denelson83 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. A very good contributor who has displayed a good grasp of policy. Rje 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support without prejudice. Evilphoenix is a wonderful editor and future admin.  Hall Monitor 18:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) '''Support Private Butcher 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support --JAranda'' | yeah 19:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Michael Snow 20:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Simply Support. Every time I've run into him I've seen that he has good knowledge of policy. Tito xd (?!?) 23:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) S'port --Doc (?) 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Andre ( talk ) 04:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC) scritch (that's the sound of me adding one more chalk mark to the support tally) Grutness...  wha?  22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC) ::Oops - seems I'd forgotten that i'd already voted!
 * 22) Weak Support because he never told me he was running! I would have been glad to nominate! :P Strong support anyway. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Aww, I'm flattered. Thanks for saying that you would have liked to nominate me, and I'm sorry I didn't tell you, but I didn't want to give the appearance of campaigning. I appreciate the endorsement nonetheless, though. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 13:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) He's not one already? I guess if I thought he was one before and I didn't have any issues, I could support.  JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A great contributor and a reasonable voice. Cmouse 06:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Strong editor, helpful, should make a great admin. Johntex\talk 18:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - another good one. BD2412  talk 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Friday (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --hydnjo talk
 * 7) Support. Good edits, seems to understand policy. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support fellow vandalbuster &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; 03:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Support Removes vandalism -- &#9786; A  d a m 1213  &#9786; |talk  03:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Replaced and struck through text after voter blanked it from page. See:, &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 06:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) He's got my vote :) --AppleBoy Talk 03:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) My only memory of Evilphoenix is this edit, which was marked "rvv". Since this wasn't vandalism, but a content dispute about moving something to another page, with an edit summary saying "see talk", I feel that more though could have gone into it. The other votes suggest that this is an isolated event, which I hope it is. JPD 10:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I reverted that (yesterday) coming directly in from IRC, and when I double checked the edit I noticed the pointer to the talk page from the anon. However when I looked at the talk page, I didn't really see anything that maintained a clear consensus for removing that section, indeed I didn't really see anything that I felt gave me clear guidance as to the consensus on that section, but that's also me looking at an unfammiliar discussion on an unfamiliar page. I did however, see Talk:French_ensigns, which was a comment asking the IP that had just blanked a serious portion of the article to not do so. Noting that, I felt reasonably safe in letting the reversion stand. Had I seen something that gave me clear guidance otherwise, I would have reverted back to the anon's edit, but I didnt feel like I had. Thanks for your comment. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A.I would like to work on to clearing pages from Copyvio, work on Speedy deletion patrol (mostly clearing articles already tagged by other users), and close out AfD discussions. I would also not mind having page protection and rollback abilities to deal with vandalism. I would also like to participate more in the RfA process. I have been observing RfA's here for some time, and I know that some editors prefer to see RfA candidates that have participated in RfA discussions. In my mind, I feel that sysops would know best what qualities to look for in a sysop, so I have not generally participated at length in RfA discussions, with exceptions for a few candidates that I did know well enough to voice an opinion on.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Generally, I do one of two things: copyedit and New Page patrol. For copyediting, I enjoyed working on Tooth enamel, Korean Buddhism , and Kinnaur . I founded the Harry Potter WikiProject, which is doing very well. I also participate in an outside wiki using MediaWiki software, the ClemsonWiki, and I edit there as Evilphoenix as well. I am a sysop on that site, so I have had a chance to get a feel for the added buttons, but in all fairness, the infrastructure there is not nearly as complex as on WikiPedia, and there is also less vandalism and conflict.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A.I do not feel I have had any serious editing conflicts. There have been a few occasions where I have disagreed with other users. Generally, my practice has been to discuss it on the Talk page when I find evidence of disagreement with another editor. I am a big believer in the value of consensus and discussion, and the culture of pursuing those ideals on Wikipedia was one of the things that appealed to me about the project, and is part of why I chose to participate. I have occasionally encountered "WikiStress", but that has thankfully been rare, and more from fighting Vanity, Linkspam, and hoaxes on New Pages than from any dealings with regular Wikipedia users. I believe that in any conflicts I would encounter, I would follow the practices of the Wiki, seek to build consensus, and engage in discussion of the issues.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.