Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Phantomsteve

 This is just a note of appreciation for everyone who took part in my RfA. I didn't expect to get anywhere near 111 supports - I am honoured to be in WP:100. When I've seen other RfAs, I have understood that it can be very emotional when it is not going well - I hadn't realised how emotional it could be when it is going well! Thank you for your kind comments, and I promise to show you by my actions that your trust in me is well founded! Thank you all once again. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

General user info Username: Phantomsteve User groups: accountcreator, rollbacker First edit: May 25, 2005 19:12:20 Unique articles edited: 9,514 Average edits per page: 1.95 Total edits (including deleted): 18,514 Deleted edits: 912 Live edits: 17,602 Namespace totals Article	7587	43.10% Talk	515	2.93% User	959	5.45% User talk	5290	30.05% Wikipedia	2876	16.34% Wikipedia talk	223	1.27% File	23	0.13% File talk	2	0.01% Template	51	0.29% Template talk	45	0.26% Help	1	0.01% Help talk	9	0.05% Category	15	0.09% Category talk	5	0.03% Portal	1	0.01% Graph Month counts 2005/05	5	2005/06	6	2005/07	24	2005/08	1	2005/09	0	2005/10	0	2005/11	0	2005/12	1	2006/01	1	2006/02	0	2006/03	1	2006/04	0	2006/05	7	2006/06	16	2006/07	1	2006/08	1	2006/09	0	2006/10	1	2006/11	0	2006/12	0	2007/01	0	2007/02	0	2007/03	0	2007/04	22	2007/05	0	2007/06	0	2007/07	22	2007/08	2	2007/09	4	2007/10	5	2007/11	10	2007/12	0	2008/01	2	2008/02	12	2008/03	6	2008/04	11	2008/05	5	2008/06	2	2008/07	14	2008/08	1	2008/09	11	2008/10	11	2008/11	8	2008/12	17	2009/01	32	2009/02	7	2009/03	3	2009/04	3	2009/05	15	2009/06	189	2009/07	1003	2009/08	1199	2009/09	8916	2009/10	1429	2009/11	1888	2009/12	1445	2010/01	1216	2010/02	27	Logs Accounts created: 90 Pages moved: 86 Pages patrolled: 155 Files uploaded: 5 Top edited articles Article

* 119 - William_Stanley_(Victorian_inventor) * 58 - World_Aircraft_Information_Files * 42 - CBeebies * 36 - Dhvani_Desai * 33 - Classics_Illustrated_Junior * 29 - Classics_Illustrated * 28 - Pavel_Popovich * 21 - Gilbert_Thomas_Carter * 18 - Thornton_Heath * 18 - Something_Special_(TV_series)

Talk

* 81 - List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I * 32 - World_Aircraft_Information_Files * 18 - American_Technologies_Network_Corporation * 11 - William_Stanley_(Victorian_inventor) * 10 - William_Stanley_(Victorian_inventor)/GA1 * 9 - Step_(software) * 6 - Samuel_Zoll * 6 - Some_Mothers_Do_'Ave_'Em   * 6 - Frank_Spencer's_Lullaby * 6 - Lee_Jun_Ki

User

* 201 - Phantomsteve * 89 - Phantomsteve/monobook.js   * 77 - Phantomsteve/Rfx_contributions * 75 - Phantomsteve/welcome * 48 - Phantomsteve/Deletions * 28 - Phantomsteve/WMF_Projects * 22 - Phantomsteve/user-box/ww1-in-memoriam * 22 - Phantomsteve/Coaching * 20 - Phantomsteve/welcome/doc * 18 - Phantomsteve/er-done

User talk

* 477 - Phantomsteve * 32 - Juliancolton * 14 - Wiki_Greek_Basketball * 13 - Cecn * 13 - Havis1 * 12 - Dwayneflanders * 11 - Kernel.package * 10 - Silver22553 * 10 - Orangemike * 9 - Mattmartinelli8

Wikipedia

* 1100 - Help_desk * 262 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 99 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 73 - New_contributors'_help_page * 46 - Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching * 36 - Huggle/Whitelist * 29 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention * 24 - Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people * 20 - Editor_review * 17 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki_Greek_B...

Wikipedia talk

* 30 - Editor_review * 25 - Requests_for_adminship * 20 - Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching * 15 - Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC * 11 - WikiProject_Automobiles * 9 - WikiProject_Biography * 7 - Help_desk * 6 - Userboxes/New_Userboxes * 5 - Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics * 4 - Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_4

File

* 4 - Iei-logo.jpg * 3 - Cambridge_House_logo.jpg * 3 - Emu_Export_Logo.jpg * 2 - SIEW_logo.jpg * 1 - Holy_Trinity_Trowbridge_north_window.JPG * 1 - Pyrotronicdisintegrator.gif * 1 - Kix_logo.jpg * 1 - Billsmallbw.jpg * 1 - Plies_Becky.jpg * 1 - American_Technologies_Network_Corporation_Logo.gif

File talk

* 2 - Emu_Export_Logo.jpg

Template

* 8 - Help_desk_templates * 5 - HD/not-saved * 4 - Schools_in_Croydon * 3 - Editor-review * 3 - Oldafdfull/doc * 3 - HD/doc * 2 - Start_date/doc * 2 - Rd3 * 2 - HD/re-attribute * 1 - User_CICS

Template talk

* 35 - Did_you_know * 2 - HD   * 2 - Texas * 2 - Unreferenced * 1 - Solar_System_Infobox/Sun * 1 - HD/dyoh * 1 - Wikipedialang * 1 - Portal

Help

* 1 - Minor_edit

Help talk

* 9 - Template

Category

* 3 - Articles_lacking_sources * 2 - Mouseketeers * 1 - Children's_novels * 1 - Upcoming_mixed_martial_arts_events * 1 - Weekly_magazines * 1 - High-importance_chemicals_articles * 1 - Communism_in_the_United_States * 1 - Zambian_expatriates_in_Namibia * 1 - Guatemalans_of_Norwegian_descent * 1 - Computer_telephony_integration

Category talk

* 1 - Big_Brother_(UK_TV_series) * 1 - Christ's_Hospital_Old_Blues * 1 - Defunct_fast-food_chains * 1 - Guatemalans_of_Norwegian_descent * 1 - Zambian_expatriates_in_Namibia

Portal

* 1 - Google Generated from X!'s tool. Pmlineditor  ∞  08:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposition of User:Lambanog
Oppose. For someone planning to work on xfDs not enough relevant experience. Lambanog (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you certain of that? I count at least 25 contributions to XfDs in the past four weeks alone... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All I would say is that people can see which ones I've been involved in at User:Phantomsteve/Editor/Deletions, which list them all, along with my !votes and statistics --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like a doctor who has experience being a patient. That is the relevant experience I am looking for. Lambanog (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So you mean, he should have created an AfD? Or should he have had an article he created be up for deletion? Just curious as to what you mean by "patient". --  At am a  頭 18:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter. Lambanog (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really getting that. Creating an article that ends up being tried for deletion is better than firmly understanding the general guidelines of article inclusion, resulting in not having an article be put up for deletion? ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 20:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I say just leave it, or move to Talk page. The closing admin will be able to judge the "logic" of this oppose, I'm quite sure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to add, I think I understand Lambanog's reasoning. I totally disagree, but I think I understand; in theory it would give an administrator more empathy toward editors who protest the deletion of an article they've created. (By the way, I have had a page I created nominated for deletion, and it survived, but I don't think the experience was that useful.) --  At am a  頭 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is how it works in real life also - like for example if you want to be a judge on murder cases you first have to have killed someone to make your empathy with the accused complete. The counterargument that you should also then have been murdered at some point to be as effective and empathatic as possible is luckily overlooked. Weakopedia (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong but Wikipedia default is to encourage article creators yes? On the other hand I don't think society's default is to encourage murderers.  Your analogy is faulty. Lambanog (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * note: He did create an article that was up for deletion, Articles for deletion/Manish Pitambare. J04n(talk page) 12:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted before !vote made. But there is only the one and it was withdrawn early. As XfDs go it was fairly easy.  I also take into consideration other factors.  That is why I haven't raised the same issue yet with your own RfA.  Lambanog (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's weird is that the AfD wasn't eligible for a speedy close, since two editors other than the nominator asked for it to be deleted. It should have been left to run its course, in which case my guess is that it would have closed as "keep" but you never know. --  At am a  頭 18:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lambanog, what course of action would you suggest to Phantomsteve, or to any other editor in the same position? Should Wikipedia encourage editors to write articles that are more likely to be nominated for deletion?  ReverendWayne (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They can try salvaging more articles that are under the axe. That would give them a similar experience to what I'm looking for and appears more constructive to me than simply voting in XfDs, the current practice of which I've observed on occasion diverges from the principles laid forth in the various XfD articles which are rarely cited as valid reasons but which I feel should be since that is where Wikipedians not knowledgeable about XfDs turn to for info on the XfD processes. "Experience in XfDs" if not following the principles in those articles isn't worth much and may actually be detrimental. Lambanog (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be curious for you to provide diffs showing where I have diverged from the principles? I always look for sources of information, and I am quite happy to add these to articles if I have found them, or at the very least !vote "keep". On articles for which I cannot find sources, I am more likely to !vote "delete". If you look at my contributions, although I may not very often salvage articles which have been tagged for deletion, there are some occasions where I have done this (a recent example is Articles for deletion/Larry Gorman which I sourced). I am more likely to do it with non-tagged articles such as Gilbert Thomas Carter and Pooja_Gor - also Endemism where all the references in the Ecoregions with high endemism section were found and added by myself. I am a great believer in keeping articles which can be sourced, and removing those for which no reliable sources can be found. I am also open to changing my mind over the deletion of an article following information which gives "reasonable doubt" on the non-existence of reliable sources (such as Articles for deletion/Gumrah (1993 film), where I initially !voted to delete, but changed to keep following persuasive arguments from and ) and Articles for deletion/Hamada Gaku). I am also more conscious of the fact that Indian, Japanese, etc subjects may be inherently harder to source online, and the need to bear this in mind. Anyway, that's all I want to say. I understand (even if I do not agree with!) your rationale for opposing, and I would thank you for making your thoughts known in more detail. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify that my comments in the preceding post are of a general nature and not particular to your case. The criterion for my oppose in your case currently is an objective one formulated before I saw your candidacy.  I will say the examples you've just given me may prompt me to reconsider. While providing refs is not quite as good as contributing significant rewrite to articles since it doesn't vest you enough in the outcome of the article to experience what I'm after, those examples might be enough to sway me to change my vote.  I will think on it.  In the meantime the deletion review related to my question number 7 has now closed seemingly removing any reason for you to refrain from addressing it—would you care to answer the question now?  Lambanog (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)