Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philwelch


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

Philwelch
Final (43/6/8) ended 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

– Philwelch has been on the project much longer than a lot of us have. His first edit was on February 2nd, 2004, and to this day he makes quality edits and contributions. Phil focuses his energy towards improving Star Wars articles, and for his efforts he has been awarded a barnstar. Phil has mentioned to me that he's had some problems in the past with other editors, but I noticed that he had the maturity to admit that he was wrong and he even apologized after the fact. I think it's time that we gave Phil the keys to the janitor closet. Linuxbeak | Talk 01:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * I gratefully accept this nomination and pledge to do my best to serve the purpose of building a quality encyclopedia. — Phil Welch 03:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. Good luck. Linuxbeak | Talk 01:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Looking through his edit contributions, and judging by his character I'd say Philwelch would be a great admin. TDS (talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support because he's holding a gun to my head  he'll give me a vote when I do an rFa because he's an all around nice guy and more than deserves to be an admin. MonsterOfTheLake 03:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support! Rather nice chap.--Sean Black | Talk 03:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support Will make a great admin . --JAranda'' | watz sup 03:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Seriously thought he was one. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Sure, go ahead, not a big deal. silsor 03:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support; Have seen good things from him. -- tomf688 {talk} 03:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, Phil is one of my favorite Wikipedians! Xoloz 04:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I was considering nominating him myself. :) Coffee 04:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Cautious Support. Good guy, but one specific thing (which I don't say, neener neener) keeps me from strong support. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Speculation does not an oppose make. We are in dire need of RC patrol. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-1 07:05
 * 13) No milk today, ta. But could you deliver a pint of semi-skimmed yoghurt on Thursday? &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - I wish I knew all of the admins, then I wouldn't feel embarassed about thinking he was one already. --Cel e stianpower háblame 09:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong Support, great user, smart as a whip, very knowledgeable, will make a great admin. Babajobu 12:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Fir e Fo x (RFA) 13:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, weren't he already admined?  Grue  13:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Hipocrite's arguments below seem a little bit imbalanced. Proto t c 14:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Johann Wolfgang 14:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rogerd 17:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Kbdank71 19:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I've seen good work from this editor, and have faith in his ability to handle the responsibilities of an admin. BD2412  T 02:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support with no comments. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Certainly. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, after having a somewhat extensive discussion with the editor (refer to the Comments section), I have changed my mind and believe that he is deserving of sysop rights. --Sn0wflake 23:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)\
 * 12) Support I see no problems worth laboring over here, except that words a NOT inherenttly POV. The word Terrorist has valid NPOV applications. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 00:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) support you mean he wasn't already an admin? &hearts;&hearts;purpl e <font style="color:#5A3696;">feltangel <font style="color:#CC0096;">&hearts; <font style="color:#5A3696;">&hearts; 23:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I've seen good work from him. In addition, it seems that Template talk:Suicide reached a compromise mainly because of him. --Zoz 00:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Lots of good edits, long-term contributor.--Briangotts (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support The hero of Template:Suicide due to his leading (perhaps sole) role in brokering a compromise solution that looks like it made everyone go home happy. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how much this means to me. Thank you so much. — Phil Welch 22:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) -- ( drini's vandalproof page &#x260E;  ) 00:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Reasonable, bold, high-quality editor. The edit war people are pointing at seems to have been very minor and resolved satisfactorily. Incidentally, it's not a show-stopper for the nomination, but please use more edit summaries.  r  speer 06:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Lean toward support. JuntungWu 04:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. He really helped the Template:Suicide dispute/discussion come to a satisfying conclusion with everyone pretty much happy.  (I honestly didn't think it would end so well!)--Kewp (t) 19:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) RFA Cliche #1. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 13:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Has been a real asset in working with and around problem editors on some Star Wars-related articles. Keeps a generally cool head but isn't afraid to jump in with both feet and speak his mind.--chris.lawson 05:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support 100%, edit warring and reversions are part of the learning experiences in Wiki. The important thing is that the person learn from his mistakes, as I did.  I trust in the judgement of Linuxbeak Tony the Marine 07:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. See no real issues. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I thought this user was already an admin and I thought he was a good one. —Cleared as filed. 01:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Cool. JuntungWu 12:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're a couple of hours too late. The vote closed at 03:04. Linuxbeak | Talk 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - "engaged in edit warring and thoughtless reversion" freestylefrappe 03:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that Phil is human like the rest of us and that he seems to have learned how to do things the "wiki way". He's mature enough to apologize. Linuxbeak | Talk 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Linuxbeak. I figured this issue would come up eventually, which is why I was upfront about the issue with Linuxbeak when he asked me if I wanted a nomination, and which is why I was upfront and honest about it in the RfA itself. I think the moral of the story is that even though I've done those things, I can own up to it and work on improvement. Still, that's a fair reason to oppose and I hope you'll reconsider in any future attempt if and when you're convinced that I've changed. — Phil Welch 03:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 *  Strong Weak Oppose  I'm no saint, but constructive edit warring must mean saying one thing somewhere, and another thing somewhere else. I must assume that it also includes ignoring what you consider minority viewpoints, untill you are in them, and then confusing the whole issue in a morass. I also assume that it includes putting huge and offensive made up templates on things to piss your opposition off (I guess that makes them more willing to be constructively edit warring with you?), and then martyring yourself loudly and proudly. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I looked at what you said, and then I looked at the diffs you posted. They all revolve around one single incident, and when you say things such "I also assume that it includes putting huge and offensive made up templates on things to piss your opposition off (I guess that makes them more willing to be constructively edit warring with you?)", that makes me wonder what you've got against him. I looked at that diff, and I don't think that edit was in any way intended to be trollbait. I think you're blowing a single incident in which you yourself got involved in out of proportion. You also seem to have taken it way too hard, as well: a quick look at your talk page indicates that I'm not the only one who thinks so. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And while Phil seems to be willing to go through dispute resolution and act in a civil manner, you were not... even after the fact that a successful article RFC was executed. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one up for adminship. I said he was two-faced because he was thanking my cooperation while at the same time writing this - the same thing I referenced above. That was before the fact that a successful RFC was executed - with my assistance. I'm blowing my only interaction with this user up to the extent I think it's relevent, and incredibly recent. Do you intend to challenge all of the possible oppose votes? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Praising someone for their cooperation seems a reasonable tactic to work towards actual cooperation. Tedernst 15:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but only if you don't leave a trail showing that you believed something else 2 hours prior. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I encourage everyone to look at the diffs Hipocrite has posted, as well as Template talk:Suicide in its entirety. If you notice, I even linked to it below in my answer to question 3. Hipocrite, if you have issues with the way I'm handling the dispute, may I suggest you bring them up in a different forum where we can perhaps deal with them more effectively? — Phil Welch 17:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? You accepted a nominaton for adminstratorship. That I didn't have issues more serious than to dread seeing you show up in the talk page of an article I was intersted in in no way means that I think you're remotely qualified to be an adminstrator. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is, of course, your right to oppose me, and I have no problem with your choosing to do so. I just meant that in addition to mentioning your grievances here you bring them up on my talk page or even on Template talk:Suicide. Throughout this whole thing I've been trying to do the best I can to help everyone work together in good faith despite our diametrically opposed viewpoints, and if you think I've failed in that, we should address that someplace else. Requests for adminship is not the best place to work out disputes over Template:Suicide, you know what I mean? :) — Phil Welch 18:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I've said numerous times now, after the conclusion of the RFC, assuming that it goes in the direction it is heading (towards absolutly no conclusion whatsoever), I will ask for intervention from TINMC. In the interim, I oppose your RFA. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Though something in me says it would be bad precident to use an RFA to push someone to do something in a content dispute, and thus must retain my oppose (now weak), Phil has made me embarassed at some of my angry comments via his impressive reasonableness on the page in question recently. If this nomination fails, I will support, and, in fact, nominate you for adminship in exactly 1 month, assuming that you handle disputes like you did on November 2-3. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Screw it. He caused that compromise. Bravo. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose in light of the disconcerting edit warring discussed above. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
 * 3) Oppose - I recognize that sometimes there can be a lot of contention on Wikipedia while editing, but I found some of the dialogue here to be a bit less measured as it could have been when the editing took place. --HappyCamper 04:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being passionate about NPOV. — Phil Welch 04:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose He has made some good contributions, however due to his constant habit of getting into edit wars I don't think he should be an administrator just yet. I would however have no problem supporting in the future if he can stop edit warring.  Jtkiefer  T - 23:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I thought, finally someone with some backbone. Then digging further, it looks like his backbone came from being in the majority.--Silverback 16:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) My only hesitation is edit summaries.  They're a big deal and make it so much easier for everyone else. Tedernst 15:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Philwelch, you are a good editor, but I cannot get past the lack of edit summaries, especially on your edits to talk pages. Think of the edit summary on a talk page as a subject line on an email. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, per the reasons Zzyzx11 and Tedernst. Privat  e   Butcher  19:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral please use edit summaries. Although i saw an editor who only used edit summaries like 30% of the time yet still passed with very few oppose votes. Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 22:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Edit summaries are a bit of a concern.  Also, a cooler head here (per HappyCamper's oppose vote) would have been helpful.  Edit warring over a neutrality tag (five reverts in half an hour?) is silly; take a day or two to let the issue settle and put the tag on the talk page in the meantime.  Hopefully Phil has mellowed since then; the incident was back in July.  Apparent sarcasm ('Sorry for being passionate about NPOV') is not a good trait in an admin. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Not entirely comfortable with this based on what I've read in Template:Suicide talk. However, he did eventually propose a reasonable compromise which will probably be adopted.  So, I'll neither oppose nor support. Derex @ 02:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral some of the things expressed make me nervous, but I dont get a malicious intent vibe from this user. I definately do not think this is the time to approve this user. Neutral because I dont feel strongly enough that he cannot make a good admin, but not strongly enough that he could.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 08:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral, really seems like a good editor; however edits like this concern me. Passion is good, but admins need to keep cool heads. -- M P er el ( talk 07:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, please improve your use of edit summaries. Overall use is 61% over the last 5,000 edits, 68% over the last 500 edits. This is pretty good, but could be better. --Durin 14:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * These are the contents of my discussion with Philwelch prior to my switch to Support. Oppose, being the administrator who tried to mediate the Template:Suicide situation, I interacted with this user for a couple of days. While I have nothing against him as an editor, I was not impressed with his conduct throughout the development of the discussion, as it could have been solved without the need of higher mediation. Also, twice or thrice in that debate he assumed bad faith on my part, and that's definitely not good. He needs to learn to be more flexible and less confrontational. --Sn0wflake 17:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like you to point out both times where I assumed bad faith. Diffs, please. While you may have interpreted my comments as assuming bad faith, they were not meant that way, and if you are to assume good faith I think it's only fair that you allow me to provide alternative interpretations.
 * As for "learning to be more flexible and less confrontational", I fail to see how I could be any less confrontational than I was. Short of consciously assenting to what I believe to be a gross violation of NPOV, there is nothing I could have done to make that dispute go any easier than it went. I can't be "flexible" with neutral point of view. The policy page itself quotes Jimbo as saying, in so many words, that NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. Again, I encourage everyone to look at Template talk:Suicide for themselves and ask whether any reasonable person, who believes as I do, could have possibly been more cooperative. I appreciated Sn0wflake's attempt to negotiate the dispute, but my unwillingness to unilaterally compromise NPOV and assent to the position taken by Sn0wflake and Hipocrite without them making any substantive compromise comes from a principled respect for core Wikipedia values. I'm sorry if that's seen as inflexible. — Phil Welch 18:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe that every rule has an exception on the Wikipedia. If you hold an opinion solely based on the fact that a rule or a statement by Jimbo says you should do that, then you are not admin material. This project is about being bold and finding solutions that satisfity all, not the majority. If you were not willing to negotiate due to a tangible reason, that would be fine, but if you fail to see that you must make exceptions at times, I don't really feel comfortable with supporting your you adminship. --Sn0wflake 19:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think any fair reading of the talk page shows that I am willing to negotiate, but only on a fair and open basis. Instead of working with me on that sort of basis, you asked me to completely abandon my position and join your side. And when I say I can't do that you call me "unwilling to negotiate"?
 * I don't make exceptions for NPOV. I'm sorry if you don't see that as a tangible reason. — Phil Welch 20:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering the latest developments of the situation, you took a mature approach to the problem. It seems that this odyssey did yield positive results, after all. I am willing to change my vote to support given the condition that this attitude — sorry for bringing this up, but I have to — will last beyond the closure of your RfA. --Sn0wflake 22:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, and I'm sorry I couldn't have expressed this attitude more clearly before. — Phil Welch 22:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I'm mainly going to deal with deletion and page move backlogs, and when necessary, anti-vandal action. I'll probably avoid the user-content issues (aside from blatant vandalism) at least from the start, although if I'm really really sure I don't care about a given dispute, I might protect a page. — Phil Welch 03:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Well, Color metaphors for race was transformed from a POV rant to a useful article covering the phenomenon in multiple cultures—I quite fairly consider myself an important instigator of that process, although User:Tverbeek was also key. That effort was largely borne out of a desire to save an otherwise interesting article from the hell of POV-pushing and an inevitable push for deletion. Gallery of flags by design was an attempt, proposed and spearheaded by me, to turn the former list of flags by design into something useful, rescuing what is now a fascinating article (well, for vexillologists and people who need to identify a certain flag) from the clutches of deletion. Darth Vader is another article I've worked on for several months now in an effort to reach FA status—an effort that, due to varying reasons, hasn't quite materialized yet. — Phil Welch 03:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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. Oh yeah. I've been in a number of conflicts. In the past, to be admitted, I have engaged in edit warring and thoughtless reversion. I am, as of late, extremely reluctant to do so for a number of reasons. I think Template talk:Suicide exemplifies my current approach to edit conflicts—namely, work with the other parties on developing a way to resolve the dispute. For instance, I decided to draw up a pact between my side and the opposing side agreeing not to make any edits that fell under the dispute, and to work together in filing RfC's and a potential future RfM. Another aspect of my current approach is "constructive edit warring", which is a term that I mean rather ironically—while it retains the feature of dueling edits between two parties, instead of simple reversions the edits take the character of a negotiation, in which each successive edit is closer to what the other person wants while introducing more and more undisputed improvements. I do realize that even a constructive edit war should eventually involve a talk page discussion, though you'd usually either reach a compromise version before that point, or use the talk page to better coordinate negotiative edits. — Phil Welch 03:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Due to recent events I've decided to add to this answer that the Template:Suicide dispute has been settled by consensus. Everyone's concerns seem to have been met, and not a single person has disagreed with the consensus proposal, which I have just now implemented. While I'm disappointed that certain good-faith misunderstandings have gotten in our way here, I'm glad that the dispute was ultimately settled as it was. — Phil Welch 21:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.