Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PhilHibbs
Vote here (1/5/1) ending 15:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have been around for only three months, but I'd like to nominate myself anyway. I have over 300 edits to my name, including new articles, new text, factual corrections, grammatical corrections, vandalism-reverts, and have also contributed to a Wikipedia: article (tips on how to do Page Moves). I have only raised my voice in anger once against a troll.
I intend to use the powers for easier reversion of vandalism.
PhilHibbs 15:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
- Too early, especially for a self-nom. Maybe in a few months and a few hundred edits. Andre (talk) 15:35, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- The user himself indicates his tendency to wander off after initially being enthusiastic about a project (such as Wikipedia). This is not something being looked for in an admin. Will probably support after the user is around for a longer while.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:16, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Not enough edits, not enough time. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 19:55, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Phil, even by my normally permissive standards, you have not been around long enough or edited enough to make me comfortable with the thought that you know how policy works here. You seem a nice enough fellow, and as Ezhiki says, if you're around for a while longer, I imagine I'll be voting in the other column next time around. Jwrosenzweig 20:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I can see the grunt work initiative within you. Give it some time, and it will flourish into a drive that will send you to 10,000 edits and beyond. As I see it though, you don't quite have the level of true dedication yet to warrant becoming an administrator. Besides, the rollback button isn't that much of a time advantage, and you've already said that you wouldn't do anything with the rest of the admin abilities. :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:41, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
- Unlike others, the amount of time doesn't concern me. The number of edits, particuarly in the talk and wikipedia spaces, does. Get a bit more involved, and sure. Shane King 23:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
- I'm inclined to agree with anthony with regard to the ability to revert easily, although I haven't formed a real opinion yet on whether *everyone* should be able to revert that easily (with one click) - I imagine it may make it too easy for vandals to do their work if anon users or newly-signed up users immediately could utilise this feature. That being said, though, I don't think there's any risk that you'd abuse this feature - I think you've definitely shown that you're a good and valuable contributor to Wikipedia. At the same time, though, I'm not sure whether you have enough experience and are familiar enough with the administrative procedures yet to be an administrator; and of course, your admission that you tend to wander off again after an initial phase of excitement doesn't help, either. Admittedly, I often act/feel the same way, of course, but I think it'd be better if you waited for another while to see whether you're really permanently hooked on Wikipedia (which I sure hope you are! ^_~) or not. -- Schnee 02:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comments
Questions for the candidate
Phil, why do you want to become an administrator? -- Schnee 16:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A1: I am led to understand that Admins have access to a "revert" button. I do a fair bit of reversion of vandalism, and would find this useful. I can't see myself using the blocking or banning functions just yet. PhilHibbs 16:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A2: In more general terms, I would like to contribute to Wikipedia as much as possible. Having access to more system functions will allow me to contribute more. I am currently in a quiet period of a project, which is likely to get more busy after Christmas, so would like to make the most of the time that I have in the next couple of months. PhilHibbs 09:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)