Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick

Username: Sphilbrick

User groups: autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker

First edit: Oct 14, 2008 20:59:04

Unique pages edited: 3,301

Average edits per page: 4.18

Live edits: 13,628

Deleted edits: 179

Total edits (including deleted): 13,807

Namespace Totals

Article 6474 47.51%

Talk 1127 8.27%

User 989 7.26%

User talk 2069 15.18%

Wikipedia 2364 17.35%

Wikipedia talk 412 3.02%

File 17 0.12%

File talk 3 0.02%

Template 94 0.69%

Template talk 73 0.54%

Help 3 0.02%

Help talk 2 0.01%

Category 1 0.01%

Month counts 2008/10 1 2008/11 138 2008/12 63 2009/01 2 2009/02 1 2009/03 29 2009/04 71 2009/05 393 2009/06 854 2009/07 876 2009/08 890 2009/09 431 2009/10 716 2009/11 636 2009/12 621 2010/01 194 2010/02 424 2010/03 599 2010/04 572 2010/05 1972 2010/06 1068 2010/07 568 2010/08 600 2010/09 619 2010/10 986 2010/11 304

Article 451 edits 45.74%

Talk 88 edits 8.92%

User 67 edits 6.80%

User talk 165 edits 16.73%

Wikipedia 163 edits 16.53%

Wikipedia talk 42 edits 4.26%

Template talk 10 edits 1.01%

Top edited pages

(hide)Article

273 - 2009–10_Connecticut_Huskies_women's_basketball_t... 113 - Maya_Moore 111 - USA_Women's_U18_and_U19_teams 96 - Tina_Charles_(basketball) 93 - Simsbury,_Connecticut 77 - Geno_Auriemma 77 - Diana_Taurasi 76 - USA_Women’s_World_University_Games_Team 69 - Women's_Basketball_Coaches_Association 62 - Hazel_Walker (hide)Talk

382 - Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy 40 - Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report 38 - Climate_change_denial 32 - Global_warming 29 - The_Gore_Effect 29 - List_of_common_misconceptions 27 - Phil_Jones_(climatologist) 23 - Global_warming_controversy 18 - Effects_of_global_warming 18 - Rhino_Rack (hide)User

307 - Sphilbrick 70 - Sphilbrick/Sandbox_for_general_testing 34 - Sphilbrick/Sandbox_for_proposal 24 - Sphilbrick/RFPP_Clerkship_Discussion 24 - Sphilbrick/Feedback_Patrol 21 - Sphilbrick/Sandbox_for_Reelin_testing 19 - Sphilbrick/Robert_Watson_incident_timeline 16 - Sphilbrick/Sandbox_for_USA_Head_coaches 16 - Sphilbrick/Sandbox_for_support_of_proposal 14 - Sphilbrick/sandbox_for_current_bio_structure (hide)User talk

248 - Sphilbrick 21 - Chzz 21 - A_Quest_For_Knowledge 19 - Phantomsteve 18 - Senra 18 - Beebuk 18 - Trouver 17 - Doncram 17 - Lar 14 - Ukexpat (hide)Wikipedia

552 - Help_desk 457 - Requests_for_feedback 158 - New_contributors'_help_page 59 - Village_pump_(technical) 51 - General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Request... 49 - Village_pump_(proposals) 48 - Village_pump_(policy) 36 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 27 - Media_copyright_questions 26 - WikiProject_Connecticut (hide)Wikipedia talk

82 - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_... 75 - Requests_for_adminship 27 - General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Request... 15 - Requests_for_feedback 13 - Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC 12 - Citing_sources 11 - Article_wizard 11 - WikiProject_Radio_Stations 9 - WikiProject_Connecticut 9 - Help_desk (hide)File

3 - Derrin_House.JPG 3 - Plainville_High_East_Street.jpg 2 - Wbca_Logo.PNG 2 - Maya_Moore_2009.jpg 2 - Derrin_House_4.JPG 2 - Plainville_High_School.jpg 1 - Guanfacine.png 1 - Kashgar2002.jpg 1 - Derrin_House_sign_.JPG (hide)File talk

3 - Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png (hide)Template

18 - Women's_Basketball_Hall_of_Fame 11 - New_editor_advice 7 - Connecticut_women's_basketball_1,000_Point_list 6 - NCAA_Woman_of_the_Year 4 - NEA 4 - 2008-09_Connecticut_Huskies_basketball 4 - UConn_Women_Career_1,000_Rebounds 4 - Big_East_Women's_Basketball_Player_of_the_Year 3 - 2009_WNBA_Draft 3 - NCAA_Women's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament (hide)Template talk

60 - Did_you_know 4 - Convert 3 - New_editor_advice 2 - USBWA_National_Player_of_the_Year_–_Women 2 - Height 1 - Maggie_Dixon_Award 1 - Infobox_college_coach (hide)Help

3 - Magic_words_for_beginners (hide)Help talk

1 - Searching 1 - Infobox (hide)Category

1 - Requests_to_move_a_userspace_draft

Questions 7a-c
What is the purpose of questions 7a-c? Are we now testing the ability of candidates to summarise WP:BLOCK, WP:PROT, WP:CSD? Doesn't seem enormously helpful, because any answer to this will either be very long or omit something important. Rd232 talk 13:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The questions are all directly related to adminship. Do you dispute that? A candidate should have at least a passing understanding of the tools they are likely to use at some point after becoming a new admin.
 * And if i think something is "omitted" I'm free to ask for further clarification (as are others).
 * As for the rest, sometimes more can be gained from the response than just the information summarised... - jc37 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, of course the candidate should know something (but nowhere near everything, at this point), but I think situational questions are better at giving a sense of (a) what they know and (b) how they go about thinking through a problem. Policy you can always look up, and absorb as needed; it's decision-making that you need to select for. Rd232 talk 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, AFAICT, the RfA process is about determining trust of a candidate with the tools. In particular, with regards to potential use and potential abuse.
 * That aside, I don't necessarily disagree with what you suggest we should be looking for, per my criteria : ) - jc37 19:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I found those answers quite illuminating as to the thought process the candidate would apply. For me, it's not the regurgitation of polciy wording that counts, it's the "well, here is how I would start to think about it". SPhilbrick did burn on 7b, some IP "individual"s know that "haha, I can just cycle my modem" trick, so you have to go to sprot - but you learn that soon enough. Franamax (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Stream of consciousness

 * Support Excellent contributions, trust the use will use the tools well.  I've reviewed contributions in general and made an attempt to slog through the controversy that appears to be at the center of many of the opposes.  I don't have any skin in that debate, but what I will say is that it appears to me that any editor who wades into a fracas of that type will end up getting at least a bit muddy, and I see at worst a little mud, not a lot. I feel more strongly about my support (although I'd support even were it not for this) for another reason: I am very concerned about the possibility of a result here that will push editors away from trying to improve controversial articles. We will always have controversial articles here at Wikipedia. It is essential that we try and find ways to create great articles despite that controversy. That process is hindered, not helped by pushing experienced editors away from where their help is most needed. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 17:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your support comments are at the crux of where my thought process is regarding this nom. - In my experience, those who "wades [sic] into a fracas of that type", eventually learn or have learned about what the "right answers" are to game the system. And I'm not saying that the candidate is. But I somewhat agree with hans adler, that something feels odd about this. the timing, and all the rest. And speaking as one who has waded into a fair number of contentious situations myself, it's not an uncommon assessment by others. You can be accused of bias, smetimes from each side of an issue, simultaneously. People shouting that IWANTIT, talking past each other, and so on. And these can be long standing contributors, who in other venues have exemplary work. So, I can see both sides - this could be sincere (and I sincerely hope it is), but to be fair, this might not be. And what I think everyone would like to avoid is giving the tools for gamesmanship. (The current seeming vagueness and gray areas of the implementation of enforcement of the topic bans only further indicate that categorising what the topic bans are'' and who can associate with who, is going to be a mess for at least the near future.) So I apologise in advance for my stream of consciousness comment, but besides my concerns of timing (A mistake imho, but one that could be overlooked, especially since this wasn't exactly a self-nom.), and a slight disagreement about consensus forming ("Ideally, consensus represents a position that all can accept" - not really, no.) This nagging concern - which seems to be bothering several others, as I note from other opposes, neutrals, and even supports, is (probably unfairly) what I'm struggling with. And (as I think most know who have interacted with me) I'm a HUGE proponent of AGF. And reading the candidate's contribs hasn't helped in deciding (I'm still looking though). To reiterate, I know it's not fair to have your sincerity questioned. And I know how stressful RfA can be. And for both, I'm truly sorry. But at this point, I'm just looking for some reassurance of trusting the tools indefinitely. And what's even more not fair to the candidate, I'm not sure how it's possible to allay these concerns. Maybe if there are some (threaded?) exemplar diffs/edits? Anyway, sorry again for the lengthy comment, but your comments just hit my brain on the nose, at it were : ) - jc37 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I copied the above comments here because Ibelieve that, while well-intended, I may have miscommunicated what I was attempting to convey.

WP:GAME was very much NOT was I was thinking about when I wrote the comments above. In hindsight I realised that what I wrote could be construed that way, which is why I've now moved them here.

(And no, AFAIK, not one person has commented (to me or elsewhere) on the post above.) - jc37 06:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your post contains every letter of the alphabet except "z". You may no longer assert that no-one has commented on your post. :) Franamax (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ROFL - Thanks for my laugh of the day : ) - jc37 03:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, JC37--I just saw this, I'd missed your response on the page before as my mind has been fairly distracted by real life. :)   I respect this gives you an odd feel, while that is not my intuition, this is definitely a question of trust, and I have no objective reason to think your intuition is worse (or better) than mine, we just get different answers.  Didn't read to me as if it were about WP:GAME either. Just my 2c. Cheers! --j &#9883; e deckertalk 04:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad timing
Can someone please explain the references to bad timing. Is it due to this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, yes.
 * And that the drama has not apparently as yet subsided. (Due to other events which I think, for now, I'll just point to WP:DENY, though applying it to seeming attempts at disruption rather than vandalism, of course.) - jc37 03:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * At the risk of overstepping that deny thing, yes you have found a good starting point to figure it all out. It goes in both directions for a signifcant period of time from that. In articles, in community-space and in arb-space, a vicously fought battle occurred (and is still occurring). The idea that this is "too soon" is worthy of consideration. I personally feel it can be dismissed on its merits as I find the candidate suitable and I suspect that the opposes would happen no matter how much time passes. But that is solely my own opinion. Also in my opinion, if there was any possible way for some of the other opposers to explain their position using diffs as an exemption from their topic bans and not have it turn into an absolute circus, that would be a good thing. Franamax (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)