Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philg88

In short, I have confidence in my "Keep" !vote despite the current paucity of references in the article, which is why I said "Needs improvement but that is no reason to delete" as part of my !vote. Should the need arise, I will resort to a

concensus

to delete.

Additional questions from

John Cline

7. I've noticed that at times you stipulate an article at AfD should be deleted, and then [recreated] as a redirect.[1][2] What criteria do you use to distinguish when an article should be handled in this manner opposed to redirecting with its history intact?

A: I have to admit that "Delete then Redirect" was overly draconian in the examples you provide. At the time, I opted for that for these single line/paragraph articles, which stood no chance of being expanded to become

notable or contained content that could be merged into an extant article per the appropriate licensing requirements. I believed that the approach avoided the problem of potential recreation by well-meaning editors from a simple click on the page history. That said, Wikipedia isn't short of disc space, redirects are cheap and the article would be on my watchlist if anything happened to the redirect, which is why I no longer advocate that course of action. (see [3], [4], [5] and [6]

)

Additional question from Salvidrim!

9. Can you think of any reason why someone would not support this RfA? Are you perhaps too perfect?

A:Yes, if someone feels that my contributions, actions or attitude make me unsuitable for the admin role then they should not support me. I don't think it's grammatically possible to be too perfect—you're either perfect or you're not. And I'm not.

General comments

• Links for Philg88: Philg88 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Philg88 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. As nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Amazing record at AFD. Definite support.
   Sign my Guestbook 09:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Support I did notice at first that his most recent speedy deletion tag was declined and so set about looking for substantial reasons to oppose, but was unable to unearth any. That leaves me in this section. Antrocent (♫♬) 10:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support as co-nominator. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support -- I see Phil around very often, and I agree with the nominations. Unhesitating support. --Stfg (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'm unfamiliar with this candidate so I checked a random sample of their contributions. I found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - trustworthy and experienced editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Like S Marshall, I don't know the candidate at all. So, as the candidate will know from his watchlist, I've been looking at contributions. I've found evidence of a capable content contributor. Moreover, I've found that the candidate is a strong participant in AfD who should make a very easy transition to his principal nominated task of closing AfDs. Good luck. --
   Mkativerata (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Support strives to produce quality content - pretty much my definition of a good editor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - no problems found, excellent AfD record, "Teahouse host" means experience when dealing new editors. Also, a nomination by Anna Frodesiak carries much weight in my book. Huon (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, per
    WP:DEAL, considering such substantial work. I had a quick look at talk page interactions too, which has reaffirmed my position. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. It makes me happy about the state of the project when good editors I don't recognise show up here. Courcelles 12:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - no concerns, a great editor who will make a fine admin. GiantSnowman 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per Mr. Stradivarius and Anna Frodesiak. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support No concerns. benmoore 13:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. 100% Support Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support I can't resist someone who participates and provides sensible comments at AfDs for academic journals... --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Lots of content, apparently has common sense too, which is a plus. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Happy to see this nomination. I have observed firsthand Phil's skill in mentoring. Clean record, lots of clue, and obviously here to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia will benefit if he has admin tools. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Conditional support, this candidate must expand his horizons and bring his glorious knowledge to all of the administrative areas.
    talk) 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. Support. Q1 says AfD, and AfD looks great (and I realized homeopathic suppliers benefit from high dilutions). Would like more detail/links in Q3, but it shows perspective. Glrx (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - Writer. Large amount of good edits, commons sense and decent people skills. -- Taketa (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Without reservation. Always glad to see content editors become admins, and his AfD work is nothing short of stellar. ceranthor 15:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. 'Support I too was not familiar with the editor, but I see only good work and good judgment, and a sufficient amount of it. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Spot checking of commits looks good. Answers look good. I trust the judgement of the nominators. PaleAqua (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Meets nearly the entirety of my RfA Standards. Mkdw^talk 16:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Kraxler (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29. ///EuroCarGT 17:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Clean block log Y...Sustained level of activity Y...Great content creation Y... I usually don't !vote this early in RfA's, but there is nothing I see about this candidate that says he cannot be trusted with the mop.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support The awards blind me! The user has really put incredible effort into improving the encyclopedia, and there are no issues that I can see. He certainly deserves to hold the mop. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Seen around. Thankful editor. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support No issues with this one. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Absolutely! He coached me from quivering newbie to having DYK and GA nominations in just three months. Imagine what he can do as an Admin. w.carter-Talk 19:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong support Phil: I know him for quite sometime now. He is one of my best Wikifriends as well. Great content creator with more than 200 articles created. Very kind to newbies, provides perfect answers to difficult questions at Teahouse. Have great knowledge of deletion policies (see Afd stats). Great copyeditor, he also have copyedited articles I have created on request. Matured enough. Great mentor. Have good knowledge when to use the block button. No issues. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
36. There are some editors I am willing to support at RfA as soon as I see their username, without any further review. Philg88 is one of them. Go Phightins! 19:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support No reason not to.--BarsofGold (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Kind copy-editor, really? :) At any rate, I wish you all the best, and thank you for all the rest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
40. Strong Support - You're not an administrator already? wow. I strongly support this user. A great amount of non-automated edits, friendly, and is accurate in AFD discussions. I skimmed through one of his recent votes and they were very reasonable with a detailed description. TheQ Editor (Talk) 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strong Support I have no concerns. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Absolutely. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Looks good to me. Peridon (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Excellent all-around editor who will do well with the mop. Miniapolis 23:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Well it's about time! -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support More admins knowledgeable in the field of Chinese history is always needed and welcome, and few are more qualified than Philg88 based on my experience :) _dk (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support A mere look at Philg88's talkpage shows that the mop will be wielded well. Piguy101 (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. Copyediting looks good, talk page looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. This is an easy one. I echo the favorable comments above. Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
50. Stephen 03:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support, based on above comments, until I can do more thorough checks. Cheers and Thanks,
    Talk Ping when replying 04:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
52. Support I've seen this editor around as a copyeditor. No concerns from me! - tucoxn\^talk 04:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Has good understanding of policies, seen in AfDs. Nice copyediting and content creation.--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
54. Why not? Jianhui67 ^T★C 05:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support We need more admins, and having a high-quality candidate for adminship is a real bonus. Minima© (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
56. It's funny, I was just recently thinking to myself that Philg88 ought to consider giving adminship a shot. He is a well-rounded contributor who has done so much for the project. I think he would do an excellent job as an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, having contributed "Giving victims a voice" to the barnstars for a reason, and in pleasant recent content talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Good Content creation and good policy knowledge.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Sure. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - I have only encountered Philg88 tangentially, and I form the basis of my support from my review of his strong work at AfD. He gets it, and he will be a good addition to our active admin corps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
61. Secret ^account 16:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support I learned something today; glad I asked the question. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support with a shout out to a couple of excellent nomination statements. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support, I could have easily cast my support based on the collective strength of the co-nominators. I'm not entirely certain why I did not. My only hope is that we don't lose such an excellent voice at AfD, to gain an excellent Wikipedia admin.—
    John Cline (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
65. Support I am One of Many (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support – while I don't make GAs or FAs a requirement, it is always heartening to see an RfA candidate who is both active in admin areas and a great content creator. I only saw him before at AfD, where he is a highly competent !voter; his cluefulness and, as others have said, friendliness will make him an ideal sysop. BethNaught (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support logs look good and so does recent deleted content. However there have been some dubious speedy delete nominations such as Special:Undelete/Jejomar_Cordova_Alda nominated the same minute it was created, and Special:Undelete/Joseph_Forgas an academic who has written 20 books (possibly should be restored), and Special:Undelete/Possum_beaver_raccoon_new_species nominated as nonsense G1 (it was a clearly written hoax and deserved to go). But this was over three years back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I'll restore Forgas and do something with him. With an h-index of 62, it shouldn't be too hard to find a source for what was eventually deleted (after the A7 was declined), within policy, as an unsourced BLP. And, to be clear: this was three years ago, and it doesn't mitigate my support for this candidate. Ahh, he already had an article under a different title. Redirect, and old version restored under redirect. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd call it an extremely badly written hoax... Peridon (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

68. Support -Have seen him around AfD doing good work. -
    Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
69. Support. Trustworthy nominators, and a very impressive portfolio of editing accomplishments: content, copyediting, and helping new users! I find the answer to Q3 to be rather superficial, but that is not enough to dissuade me from supporting a very well-qualified candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Seen this editor's participation around quite a bit, at AfD in particular, and I have no doubt that the encyclopedia will benefit from this promotion. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support, overall looks very good and will be an asset as an admin. (But, in relation to the first sentence in your answer to Q6, note that
    WP:N is a guideline, not a policy). Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
72. Support Philg88 has clearly made substantial contributions in a wide variety of areas including AfDs, article creation, copy-editing and map creation. I see no reason why this user would not make a good administrator. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support I see no reason not to.
    talk) 04:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
74. Support. A very helpful editor. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 04:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support - the mop will help the project. --DHeyward (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. Good contributions and a lot of potential to become an excellent admin. Beagel (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support of course! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support: Contributions look great, with no major issues that I could see. Very nice nomination statements, too. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Everything looks good. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
81. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support name sounds familiar and while I can't place our interaction, I have no memory of it being a poor one. Encouraged by his answers and other observations StarM 00:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Great with newcomers, prolific content creation, knows the ins and outs of how things are ran, I'd be foolish not to support. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. Pile on support. I have had no interactions with this candidate, but based on my reading he seems to have clue plus substantial community support. Exactly the sort of individual who we hope will make a good sysop. BusterD (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
85.  NQ  talk 07:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Contributions, noms' statements, and other users' statements are enough to make this candidate an admin.
    Japanese Rail Fan 10:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
87. Support – Seems like an all around great editor. I've not directly interacted with him, but I've seen him around quite a few times. It seems to me like only good things have come from his presence. United States Man (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support - I didn't know him before this nomination, but checking his contributions to Wikipedia, I'm astonished that he wasn't nominated before. JoJan (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support, no concerns. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
90. "As the big supports go, it was bigger than most." Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support - Great contributions to the projuct, Philg88 should already be an admin. Good luck! -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support. Per Anna!! -- œ^™ 09:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - Phil has made fantastic contribs to the project and I've seen him around in many areas. He should be an admin already! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 15:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. Phil does good work. We need more dedicated admins like him. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support. Great work and attitude. Olivier (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support A great candidate that I'm happy to support.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
97. Per noms. Looks like an ideal candidate and I'm happy to support. Will be a great addition to the admin corps. Connormah (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
98. Yes. I am seeing lots of positives and no negatives. We need more candidates like this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support. 当然！Λυδαcιτγ 07:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
100. 支持。 —Kusma (t·c) 08:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support I suppose it's all been said and this being the 101st support on a completely unanimous RfA it leaves me feeling kind of pointless here ;) —Frosty ☃ 11:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support. In my experience, he has always been highly competent and drama-free. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support. Congratulations on joining the exclusive
     RFX100 club! – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
     ]
104. Support - Glad to pile-on. Great demeanor. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support as there is zero evidence they will misuse the tools or position.--MONGO 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support What 100% support!?!? Anyway I though you were an admin already. Looking at your records, you can make fair decisions, which gains my support.Forbidden User (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support - as above, thought he already was. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
108. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support - Awesome candidate, will be a great admin! StevenD99 04:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support - No concerns. Awesome content contributions to an area that needs attention. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support - Having just spent the best part of the last 36 hours in airplanes, I like Anna Frodesiak's analogy. The candidate's name did not immediately ring a bell so I steeled myself for an hour's worth of research until I reached this discussion whereupon I realised I could just as easily have done what Go Phightins! did (!vote #36). In spite of one of the strangest edit count summaries I've ever seen for an established editor, this is one candidate that the community needs to have the tools more than Phil himself realises he needs them. AfD is a place where many admins prefer to !vote in order to help ensure a policy-based closure rather than doing the actual closing, or even shy away from complex issues altogether - the dilemma for the closer is when the numerical consensus is exactly the opposite to what policies and guidelines say it should be, and this is one area where Phil is going to be a huge asset; there is a monster backlog of such AfDs just waiting for him. I hope this RfA will serve as an encouragement to some of the admin don't-wannabees of the same calibre out there to come forward and run for office. Welcome on board, Phil ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support - this candidate worth coming out of wikibreak so I can pile on. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support - Per Anna. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 13:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support - Great contribs, great candidate! --
     talk) 14:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
     ]
115. Support Amazing contributor.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  14:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support great editor who will be a great admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support I am happy to support this candidate due to the exceptional history of good work.
     Chillum 16:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
     ]
118. Shameless pile on support ~
     talk) 20:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
     ]

     Is there such a thing a

     WP:SNOW closing for an RfA? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

     ]

119. I've seen Phil around and I have a good impression. Copyediting is something I enjoy doing as well, especially as I surf the site reading about whatever it is I'm curious about in any particular moment, and is often a thankless task. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank him for his work. Collaboration and activity at the Tea House looks good as well. He's an editor who writes content, maintains the encyclopedia, and makes others' experiences here positive ones. He'll do well as an administrator. I fully support. Good luck, Phil. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support Great contributions at the Teahouse. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support primarily because of the way I've seen Phil handle AfDs, which I've found to be both thorough and polite. As is always the case in my support for RfA's, unless the editor has shown irresponsiblity (which Phil has not), then the tools should be made available if he's willing to take on the workload. Was going to go "neutral", but decided my desire for irony is outweighed by the genuine deservedness that Phil has for the mop. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support Solid and reliable at AfD and the Teahouse, the areas where I've encountered this outstanding editor most frequently. This nomination has exposed me to their broader work. An excellent candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support - Solid contributions at AfD. A trustworthy editor who will make a great admin. TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.