Phantomsteve (talk·contribs) – Here's another fine candidate for adminship. This user has been my admin coachee for several months now, and during that time, we went over the basic functions of the sysop bit. While some people are opposed to admin coaching and similar processes, I feel that I was able to "coach" in a responsible, neutral, and productive fashion. With that said, here are some stats on his editing career: 17,589 live edits—of which 43.13% are to the mainspace—910 deleted edits, 86 account creations, 85 page moves, and 9,510 unique articles edited. Phantomsteve has edited nearly every month since May 2005, and became much more active in June 2009. Since July, he has made at least 1,000 contributions each month.
The candidate has quite broad experience, and participates in many, many distinct areas of the project. He has contributed one GA, William Stanley (Victorian inventor), and actively improves various other articles. In terms of behind-the-scenes work, he is a prolific voter at RfA, an active participant in discussion boards like RfC and ANI, and a helpful clerk at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Steve has account creator and rollback rights, showing that he can be trusted with additional responsibilities. I believe overall that his comments and contributions demonstrate a high level of maturity that is more than compatible with the admin role. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is my pleasure to co-nominate User:Phantomsteve for admin. I have mainly seen his contributions at the Help desk, the New Contributors' help page, ANI and in Afd discussions and he shows an excellent grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have absolutely no doubt that he would exercise admin tools appropriately. – ukexpat (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate your acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words, JulianColton and Ukexpat. I gladly accept this nomination. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: If I were to gain the bit, I would ease myself into the new role. I would start by attending the New Admin School. I would expect to work mainly in closing AfDs - starting with the "easy" ones at first (the ones with a very clear concensus to keep or delete). I would also work in the area of CSDs - again, starting with the clear-cut cases, where the article is obviously nonsense, a personal attack, etc. Another area in which I would work would be that of UAA. As you will see in my contributions, I will sometimes do a "run" through the new users, and tag some names as being against policy. Most of the time, this is when I look up and find that the name is that of a company. If I had the bit, I could block them if they had been inserting promotional material (using ((Uw-ublock))) - I would give them a warning (using ((uw-username))) if they had not made any contributions yet.
In any admin areas in which I got involved, I would ease myself into the role, starting with "easy" or "obvious" cases. I would continue to look at more complicated examples dealt with by more experienced admins, and learn from those - and gradually work on the more complicated ones myself.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Most of my work tends to be little changes here and there. However, I enjoy helping at the Help Desk and the New Contributors' Help Page - sometimes I know the answer, other times I need to find it - which helps me to learn more about Wikipedia! I have created a couple of templates for the Help Desk (Template:HD/not-saved and Template:HD/re-attribute). I am very happy to have created the article William Stanley (Victorian inventor) from scratch (having researched it) and get it to GA status (with a bit of help from others, especially Ealdgyth). I am also happy with the work I did on the Gilbert Thomas Carter article (my only DYK so far), which was a 1-sentence stub when I first saw it (again, I did some research, and then I could expand it). I enjoy looking for information to verify facts in articles - although if I cannot find this information, I am willing to tag the article for deletion.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I haven't really been in any conflicts. I've had disagreements with other editors - everyone who edits here for any length of time will have that - but no conflicts. If I was to begin to feel a bit stressed about Wikipedia, I'd walk away for an hour/a day/a week - at the end of the day, although I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, and feel that it is an important website, it is just a website, and ultimately not worth getting stressed about! I'd just spend time with my family instead for a while - that'll show me what stress is really about!
Additional question from myself
4. Is there anything else you would like to say?
A: I'm glad you asked that question! Yes, there are some things:
(1) If anyone would like to look at the admin coaching that I received from JulianColton, it can be found here
(3) I am male - I am happy to be called "he" as well as "Phantomsteve" or "Steve"!
(4) I have an alternative account (Phantomsteve.alt (talk·contribs)) which I created for use on public computers. This is my only other account apart from this one, and I have never had any other accounts in the past.
5. You're interested in CSD work, and have over 100 deleted contributions. You have patrolled 155 pages as of this comment. Do you believe that new page patrolling is important to CSD work? If the answer is yes, to what degree do you think familiarity with the new pages of Wikipedia is necessary?
A: I do believe that NPP is very important - but when I've done it, I tend to start with the oldest unpatrolled pages (which are usually about a week old). This means that the creator has had time to work on it, and you can better judge whether it is nonsense, unverifiable, etc. I often come across newly created pages which are tagged for deletion within a couple of minutes of creation - when the creator may still be working on it. Obviously, if a page found by a NPPer within a few seconds of its creation is obviously an attack page, or a copyvio, then it is correct to tag it for deletion - but if it is a very minimal stub, I think we should AGF that they are going to do more work on it.
Familiarity with new pages of Wikipedia is helpful, as this helps you to see a whole variety of pages which both meet and do not meet the criteria for inclusion or CSD. Even if you do not have time to tag it yourself (some of the NPPers are very quick!) then you at least get to see examples of pages which will meet the criteria, which will continue to help you to understand those criteria better.
6. How many articles have you created from scratch? How many pages for articles, templates, redirects, etc. that you've significantly worked on have been nominated for deletion? Could you link to a couple?
Off-hand, the only article/template/etc on which I have substantially worked which has been nominated for deletion was the Manish Pitambare one - it was nominated (here) for deletion through AfD on 10 August 2009 as not notable per WP:BIO, but the nomination was withdrawn on 13 August.
7. Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close [1]
As the discussion is now closed, I will now comment on this:
A: Although I understand your feelings about the deletion of this redirect (and the closure of the DRV which said that the deletion was correct), I feel that had I been !voting at the RfD discussion then I would have suggested deleting it. My reason would be from Wikipedia:RfD#The guiding principles of RfD - namely The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.. The fact that "T:" could be used to redirect to Template space is not a reason to use it. If the name of the template itself had been a lot longer than "cite news", I would have been more inclined to agree that it would be useful, but in this particular instance I do not feel that the Redirect would have been used much. If you look at the T: redirects currently in use (see here), you will see that msot of them (31 out of 37) are not to reduce the typing of the word "Template" but the typing of the target (e.g. T:AC -> Template:ArbComOpenTasks); the 6 exceptions are: T:AIV -> Template:AIV for responding to AIV queries; T:CENT -> Template:CENT (the 'Centralized discussions' list); T:FAC -> Template:FAC for FAC candidates; T:HD -> Template:HD for the Help Desk templates list; T:RFPP -> Template:RFPP for replies at RFPP. These are all used for high visibility areas.
If I want to use the "cite news" template a lot, I will just have another window open at the documentation for the template. Without even looking it up, I know the basic parameters: cite news|url=<url>|last=<surname of author>|first=<first name of author>|title=<title of article>|date=<publication date>|work=<newspaper name>|publisher=<newspaper publisher>|pages=<pages>|quote=<quote from article>|accessdate=<today's date>. OK, it takes a minute to type it up, but if I am repeating cite news a lot, I type one, and then copy and amend. Yes, I know there are other params - in which case I would just go to Template:Cite news and look them up. I do not feel that even if this was publicised that it would get much use beyond yourself - and as such, it is not a redirect which is required, especially as it goes from main space to article space.
8. What are your thoughts on Wikipedia Review? What influence do you think it has on some of the more controversial Wikipedia policies? Do you participate there? Leaky Caldron 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: I am aware of the Review, but I have not had any dealings with it. I have a vague recollection that a thread on it was referred to in an AfD, an RfA or an ER, and that I looked at the thread - but as far as I recall, that's the only time I've ever visited the site. I read the Wikipedia article on it before responding to this question, and my opinion is that I think that discussions about Wikipedia (whether policies, editors, admins, etc) should really be done on-Wiki. Beyond that, having had no experience of the site, I cannot answer any further about this question.
A: As with all policies (and guidelines), its aim is to improve the encyclopedia. It should be something which is rarely invoked, and when I had to think of examples of when I would invoke it for my coaching, I was hard-pushed to! Ironically, in some instances the invoking of IAR is actually against the aim of improving Wikipedia - in which case, one of the rules that should sometimes be ignored is IAR itself. The other thing that I was going to say here will be covered by your next question.
A: As an editor and a user of Wikipedia, I am against all abuse of what policies and guidelines say. It doesn't matter if that abuse is of IAR, BLP, NOTABLE, etc. It doesn't matter if that abuse is by editors, admins, 'crats, OS, stewards (if we had any native on enwiki), or whoever - and the fact that you have the bit does not mean that you can do what you like. However, I do not think we are going to find anyone who will actually place their name and say "oppose" for two reasons: firstly, any admins who is likely to "invoke[s] IAR as an excuse for using their tools as a form of militancy or activism on Wikipedia" is unlikely to admit it; secondly, almost all users and admins will agree with that statement. Any admins who may be seen as acting in this way will say that they are not being militant or an activist, but they are trying to improve the encyclopedia, they are acting with good intentions. So I feel that although it may make people feel better for signing this petition, I do not think that it will really have an end result.
11. As an admin, would you or would you not use the WP:IAR policy as an explination for any administrator-related decisions (blocking, deletion, ect...)?
A: To be honest, I can think of very few circumstances where I would use IAR. With regard to blocking, there are clauses for blocking without 4 warnings. For deletions, I would say that IAR would never be applicable in the case of CSDs or PRODs - the procedures show when an article may or may not be deleted in those situations. In the case of xfDs, as a closing admin my task would be to work out the concensus - not to make my own decision. If the result was too close to call, then I would either relist or close as a non-censensus. In the case of BLPs (before anyone asks!) I would go by the version of WP:BLP in force at the time of the closure. If the BLP policy says that no-consensus AfDs result in a keep, then I do that; if the policy says they are deleted, then that is the result.
The only time I could possibly use IAR would be if an AfD had been open for a day and there were 15 well-reasoned arguments (especially if there were several different arguments) to 'keep' from non-SPA/non-CoI accounts, with no 'delete's - then I could consider closing it early - but even then, I would actually leave it to run its course. On Wikipedia, there is no need to rush a discussion. If it should be deleted urgently, it would be covered by the CSD. Otherwise, it should be kept open for the full seven days, for precisely the reason for which we have that time scale: it allows editors who only edit on one day a week (perhaps they are at work all week, and only have one day when they can do some editing) to still have a chance to have input on the discussion. To close the discussion early means that you are preventing those one-day-a-week editors from being able to present an argument for keeping/deleting the article.
12. In lieu of a recently passed ArbCom motion, that said the burden of proof in BLP deletion rests with the editors who want the article kept, merits an interesting new question. If you were to close an AFD, on an unsourced or badly sourced BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus, how would you close it, and how do you think your view conflicts or agrees with the motion?
A. To be honest, unless I was a very experienced admin, I would be unlikely to close it! However, assuming that I had to close it, I would carefully read the BLP policy currently in force at the time. The motion you mentioned does not actually overturn the current BLP policy, and as such, the policy says Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard.. I would look at the article, and make a decision based on the contents. When (or if) the policy changes and states that such articles should be deleted, I would obviously follow the policy, but at the moment the policy seems to indicate that non-consensus defaults to a keep.
Postscript I was reading this again on the bus (on my mobile phone, it is easy to read, not very easy to edit!) and was thinking about it some more. As an admin, my responsibility would be to follow the consensus. In this case, looking at the article would not be doing that - it would be making my own decision about the article in spite of the arguments at AfD. That would not be my role. At the moment, the BLP policy seems to say that no consensus means default to keep. Another thing to take under consideration is the subject themself has requested deletion (and especially if the reason(s) for the request are along the lines of the arguments used for deletion at the AfD) then this should be considered as well, and I would be more inclined towards deletion (assuming that the subject had identified them in a suitable manner to either the WMF directly or to the OTRS team) in such a case.
13. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A. Obviously, following the events of a couple of weeks ago, BLP is an even more contentious issue than it was even before that! On the whole, the current policy is a good working document. It is not perfect, but then again it never will be - one of the characteristics of Wikipedia is that everything (articles, essays, guidelines, policies) can be changed - and this is a good thing for policies, as it ensures that they do not become fixed, never-to-be-changed rules. The community changes, as does the expectations of that community. It will be interesting to see the results of BLPRFC will be. As anyone who has read my comments on that RFC will know, I believe that the policy's current "deletion is the last resort" approach is the best one. I think that if someone wants to delete an article out of process, they need to ensure that they have looked for sources at least - my fear with mass deletions is not the loss of articles per se, but that they will be deleted without attempting to find sources, which seems to be against the spirit of BLPDEL. If sources cannot be found after a search, then I agree that the article should be deleted - but then it would be on notability grounds (I'm assuming here that none of the information can be verified - if only some information cannot be verified, then only that information should be removed).
With regard to which BLP work I've done: the answer is, not much! Most of the biographical articles which I've worked on have tended to be about people who are dead! When I have worked on BLPs, it's normally been little tidying up jobs, finding references where possible, and using information from current references to expand the article- such as Pooja Gor, Samuel Zoll and Dhvani Desai, to name the ones I've worked on in the last couple of weeks.
BLP is not an area in which I would expect to get heavily involved with on the whole - but if I see one which needs working on, I'm happy to do so.
14. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?
A. For the sake of ease, I will refer to editors under the age of majority as 'children', but this is not meant as an insult to any such editors, merely recognising that in most jurisdictions, people below the age of majority are normally referred to in such a way.
Although it is only an essay, WP:CHILD has good advice: Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate. This would initially involve communicating with the child, referring them to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. If I felt that the information was too identifying (eg email address, phone number, etc) then I would remove such details and request oversight to have them permanently removed from the page's history, leaving a message on the talk page explaining why I have done so. Other information (such as the town they live in) I would probably leave in place - unless I find that the 'town' has only 20 inhabitants! In general, any information which could easily narrow down the editor's location, name, etc, I would remove and request oversight. Anything else I would discuss with the editor on their talk page, but if no response was forthcoming, if I was in doubt then I would delete the page and then restore with selected revisions as per Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. This would ensure that no one (other than admins) can see the removed items. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: This is any page which is 'obviously' advertising or promotional in nature. As it's a "G" CSD, it covers all pages (articles, user pages, talk pages, etc). If it reads like it is an advertising brochure, then it is covered by this criteria. The kinds of things that I look for before using this criteria for tagging is "Our company...", "We ..." (showing that it is written by the company involved - although this may also indicate that it is a copyvio - see next question). I also look for language that is overly praising of a company and/or product (something like "This widget is the best in the market, performing at least 20% better than any of our competitors"). Incidently, I would also look at the creator's user name, and see if it was against the Username policy, as I would suspect that this page was written by a member of the company, and so the username may be a 'company name' - either way, I would leave a message about conflict of interest on the creator's talk page, and explaining why the page has been deleted.
Again, this is a "general" catgory, and so all page types are covered by it. I think this is the joint first most-important CSD (along with attack pages) in that they need to be removed as soon as they are correctly tagged - the other categories generally cover material which may be inaccurate, whereas the copyright and attack criteria cover pages which are morally and legally wrong, and which cannot be kept on the site.
A1
A:No context - basically, if you read it and you are left thinking "who/where/what object is this about?" then the context is unclear. This would only apply to very short articles - generally, a long article would have enough context to identify the subject, even if it is not explicitly mentioned. For example, if there was mention that "He was the only recipient of the WikiAwards for Excellence in 2008", then I would look that up to find the information - if I could find the information, I would correct the article and decline the speedy. If I could find nothing about this after a search, I would be inclined to delete the article.
A3
A:No content - with the exception of disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects - all articles should have content (we are an encyclopedia after all). If the only thing on the page are links (whether internal or external), tags, images, questions or 'chat', then the article does not contain anything which would be content about the subject, and so does not belong on Wikipedia. If it contains an infobox (even if there is absolutely nothing else on the page) which contains non-trivial information (i.e. not just a repeat of the article title) then it is not eligible under this criteria. For example if the article had the title "River Wikistream", and the only content was ((infobox river)) with the only parameter filled in being |river_name=River Wikistream, it would be eligible under A3. If it had an entry for the parameter |origin= as well, then this would be non-trivial information (you cannot work it out from the title), and so the article would not be eligible (in this case, I would probably remove the tag and look up more information, even if it was just more information for the infobox - and if that was all I could find, I would leave a message on the talk page of the appropriate WikiProject(s))
Addendum: I forgot to mention in the replies above that if the page would be eligible for deletion, I would check the page history first, as there might be a useable version there, in which case I would revert to that.
15. Do you have a strong password? If your request is successful will you pledge to change that password periodically?
A. I believe that my password is sufficiently strong enough. I have been using passwords online since about 1987 (when I was using JANET), and to my knowledge, none of my passwords have ever been broken. My main account on Wikipedia (Phantomsteve) is only ever used on two computers - my own, and my partner's. As I make sure that both of those are up-to-date with anti-virus, trojan detection software,etc, I know that they are as secure as any computer can reasonably be. If I use any other machines, I will use my alternative account (Phantomsteve.alt) with it's password. I also have a Committed Identity, so that should my account be compromised, I can prove my identity (for other editors: see Template:User committed identity if you didn't know about this). Incidently, your query about Committed Identities on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship is an interesting one, which I intend to respond to soon.
Edit summary usage for Phantomsteve can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve before commenting.
I've seen you in a wide variety of places, and you've been consistently helpful and sensible. Definitely someone I'd trust with the mop. SS✞(Kay) 09:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I've seen him around doing good work; seems to be sensible and dedicated. Works for me! ~ mazcatalk 09:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've always been impressed with his replies at the Help Desk. Will do well as an admin, I think. Maedin\talk 09:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Calm, collected, tirelessly helpful: will be an asset with the mop. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no doubt about it. Steve is a very experienced user who is fit for the tools, and one that is also willing to invest time in helping others. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 11:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most definitely. ThemFromSpace 12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, I didn't expect Phantomsteve to appear at RfA this soon. Even though (in my probably inaccurate impression) he's only been actively editing administrative-type areas for a few months, Steve has proven to be a helpful, sensible, and experienced editor. I've seen nothing to be worried about - I think the phrase "no problems here" helps me. :-) JamieS93 13:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. Congrats on WP:100Buggie111 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per noms. In reply to Throwaway in the neutral section, as a semi-regular admin at AIV I can vouch that Phantomsteve's AIV submissions are appropriate and extremely helpful. Tan | 39 13:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know this sounds cliché but I'm very surprised to learn that you aren't already an admin. Your work at editor review is commendable and looking at your contributions at the help desk I'm certain that you will remain an asset to the project. J04n(talk page) 14:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Based on the fact that through my encounters with this editor every time I see his signature I get the instant feeling that here is an intelligent sensible editor making a good contribution to the project. Polargeo (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic Support I know Steve mostly from the help desk - where he is one of the most prolific contributors. --SPhilbrickT 15:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full support as co-nominator. No reservations whatsoever. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Great contributor, it's about time he was nominated. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards, as no one has opposed, candidate has rollback, candidate has a GA and DYK credit, this argument was thought out and reasonable, and candidate has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an excellent candidate. --Taelus (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I cannot express how much I support this canidate. They are an asset to wikipedia. The work on the help desk is above and beyond the call of duty. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport - No question, I've seen many examples of Steve's good reasoning skills and help in areas related to admin work. -- Atama頭 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support My first time ever giving out a strong support, but this user has shown significant contributions and clue in admin-related areas and this is long overdue. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust both nominators, and know that they would not nominated unless they felt the user ready. I've only had positive interactions with PhantomSteve, leading me to support.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have a slight concern about the low CSD hit rate (70%) but this is more than outweighed by the positives. In any case, the candidate has indicated he will take it easy with the deletion trigger to start off with. I also think its great that Steve keeps tabs of his CSD tagging. It shows he looks to learn from mistakes which is an excellent trait for an admin to have. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Add one to the "thought he was already an admin" list. In addition, i'm breaking my semi-wikibreak to cast this vote. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I did a double take on this RfA and honestly thought to myself "that's a mistake he's already an admin". I have worked with this user before and have absolutely no reservations as to him getting the mop (especially since I already thought he had one) -- RP459Talk/Contributions 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be cautious and thoughtful in his speedy deletion tagging, which is a particular concern/pet peeve of mine. I can see no problems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support. I would hope that I don't have to justify that, but I will. I've seen Steve around at... er, just about everywhere! When I see his name on a special page or his signature somewhere, it gives me great confidence. Steve has proven himself to be a useful, helpful and thoughtful editor and I don't doubt he'll make a great admin! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Add me to the 'I thought you were already an admin' pile. Great candidate. - JuneGloom07Talk? 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent candidate. Knows what he's doing, grasps policies and procedures, civil. A green light from me. Useight (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Add me to the 'I already thought you were already an admin' bunch. Will make a great admin. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - undoubtedly and unarbitrarily. Arbitrarily0(talk) 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clueful and competent candidate. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no issues here. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pretty easy decision, this one - great answers, very good understanding. -- Boing!said Zebedee 06:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Your contributions at the help desks demonstrate a patient, kind and knowledgeable editor. Liquidluck✽talk 07:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I've been expecting this. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see this guy's name around frequently, which to me shows dedication to the site. My personal experience with him is brief, but his help is both kind and immediate, and he keeps his promises! Admin quality. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 09:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steve was the first person to welcome me to Wikipedia and since then I have spotted his name in a lot of areas. Quite apart from his dedication to the site his demeanour is fantastic and brings a calm considered element to many discussions. Overall I think Steve has the potential to be a great admin and a worthwhile mediator. Weakopedia (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No serious issues. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clueful contributions at ANI and elsewhere, civil, courteous, and with a good range of activity. No concerns. EyeSerenetalk 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good answers and contributions. Phantomsteve will make a fine admin. Rje (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This guy reminds me of myself when I was contributing in full swing. And since I'm an admin, I guess that means he should be too :) But seriously, he's a well qualified editor and will be very useful to the project as an admin. ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI have had the occasion to crossed paths with Steven over the past several months, in-addition to popping up frequently on my watchlist while he assist inquires at the help desk. What makes me support him is being able to watch how he has conducted himself from the first time I crossed paths with him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taco (musician) till now. It was here that I saw his sense of understanding consensus, ability rationalize the points raised, demonstrated courteous behavior, and ability and willingness to accept a change in his stance. I have observed that these enduring characteristics have not wavered since. Trustworthy, clue-full, and modest. Great potential to become a great administrator. CalmerWaters 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see Steve at the Help Desk quite often, and his comments there always reflect an understanding of WP, general common sense, and a desire to help out. Best of luck! GlassCobra 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keep up the good work. Steven Walling 17:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great history, great answers, great editor. This one is a no-brainer.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding "strong" to my support, as I've spent a good amount of time looking over Phantomsteve's contributions to editor review. Editor reviews are an incredibly valuable and frequently underserved part of the project.--otherlleft 20:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Among all the potential admins out there, I trust Phantomsteve's judgement perhaps the most. His comments always add to the discussion at hand, his article work is excellent (I very much enjoyed reading his GA, William Stanley (Victorian inventor)), his answers to the questions show very good policy knowledge, his AfD contributions are respected and thoughtful, and his CSD tagging is solid. I trut him with the tools at all the admin areas he mentioned and at others as well. And as Calmer Waters wrote, Steve always seems modest and is all kinds of civil. Let's promote him, shall we? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support User has a lot of clue and is always active in all admin areas. --Unioneagle (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A good candidate and good editor, judging from his responses to the questions, what I remember of having seen him in action, and a sampling of his edits. He has and is continuing to gain experience in the necessary areas (deletion, vandalism, and new users); has shown a willingness to write and improve articles, such as William Stanley (Victorian inventor) (which he created) and Pavel Popovich (which he improved from this to this); and has demonstrated an ability to constructively engage others (e.g., here, where he engages AfD participants until a reasonable compromise emerges, or here, where he offers a detailed and constructive editor review). Based on his responses to the questions, my impression is that he is a calm, balanced, mature but not unhumorous, and informed editor, and the fact that he created and maintains User:Phantomsteve/Editor/Deletions suggests to me that he is detail-oriented and cares about transparency. My only suggestion would be to be slightly more conservative when it comes to considering articles for speedy deletion; however, based on his expressed intention to "ease ... into the new role" and his other apparent traits, I have no reservations or hesitations at all about supporting his candidacy. –Black Falcon(talk) 09:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really liked his answers and as user was a teacher they already have maturity and control. Good lucky, my friend. ScarianCall me Pat! 12:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mega huge strong support which isn't something I say very often. I've been waiting for this RfA for ages, in fact I'd have happily co-nomed. I can't remember exactly where I first came across PS, but he's clueful, level-headed, logical, and befitting his former profession, an excellent communicator, all essential for when the inevitable pokes come along. GedUK 12:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support User has been around since May 2005 and with tools will only contribute to the project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seen user doing only good work. Give him the mop. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steve is one of those "I thought he was already an admin" candidates. Should be a net positive to the project as a calm and clueful admin. Good luck, UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness, should have been made an admin ages ago. Support per answers and for all of the work Steve puts in at ACC. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - fully meets my standards, and practically over-qualified: huge numbers of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, Barnstars, account creator, great user page, etc. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on excellent answers and an excellent record. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, I second most of what has been said above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thought he already was. As such, no concerns, I support this request. Cocytus[»talk«] 02:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Candidate worthy of adminship. I've seen him around here and in ACC. Trustworthy. BejinhanTalk 05:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per many of the above. —SpacemanSpiff 08:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been wondering for long why Steve hadn't applied till now. And I have to say, Julian's put him through a rock solid test already. I've interacted with Steve in the past and have found him to be extremely helpful. He's a role model in the specific area of supportive communication that a few other editors should try and follow. I don't think many, including me, contribute as sincerely as he does. It's wonderful to have you here with us Steve. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 09:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Per the crowd above. Ks0stm(T•C•G) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing really new to say, that hasn't been said above. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reasonable, kind, thorough, and well into net benefit to the project territory. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a reasonable choice...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent user, one that I've ran into a few times. Would be a great and civil admin. The Arbiter★★★ 01:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, support Steve, all good no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: An ideal candidate. His edit record shows him to be reasonable, kind and thorough. I also like his answers above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support: I have ran into this editor many times, has helped me everytime. Lots of different edits around Wikipedia. Very good knowlage of CSD. Support per User:MWOAP/RfA voting. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Phantomsteve has a lot of useful contributions, and could certainly do with the new tools. --The HighFinSpermWhale 22:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just for comprehensively answering the myriad of pointless question presented. You will make a fine administrator. Blurpeace 03:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like what I have seen. Steady, calm, and intelligent. Is prepared to explain actions when challenged, which is important for an admin. SilkTork *YES! 13:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support His efforts at the Help Desk are appreciated. It also demonstrates the amazing amount of knowledge regarding this project that we should all be attempting to gain.Cptnono (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The answers to the questions are good and I have not seen anything from Steve that would make me assume that he has any other motivation than to improve the encyclopedia. Specifically, from all I have seen, I have no doubts at all that he will be willing to learn anything he does not know yet and not use his new tools in an area that he has no experience in. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've frequently seen this editor around, and I have no concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - don't see anything to make me think he wouldn't be a good admin. Sort of thought he was one already. J.delanoygabsadds 02:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything looks in order.--MONGO 03:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per all of the above.--Zvn (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to disagree of course, but XfDs are a sensitive area. Overweighting and narrowly focusing on it is warranted per my experience. I trust the rest of you will look at other factors and give them their due weight. Lambanog (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per answer to question 6 originally oppose but due to your explanation on the talk page I'm waffling from weak oppose to neutral. Per answer to question 7 I'm asking myself whether I'm unduly being an stick in the mud on the point considering the overwhelming support of other editors that have commented. But then you add the last paragraph. Here's an objective test to show you are qualified to give me such advice: Please point to a single article where you've had to reformat 10 references that were created by other people (not your own---that's easiergreater variability in the kinds of citations required to reformat is better). Answer to this will help me arrive at more conclusive opinion to question 7. As an alternate to help me arrive at a more conclusive opinion to question 6: point to three instances in XfDs where you would have closed in favor of the side with the lesser number of votes. 2 Edits. Lambanog (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a lot of AIV reports. While more vandal-fighters are certainly welcome, I'll hold off until I see how the regular admins there assess your contributions. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Switching to support Throwaway85 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to explain that most were in September-November when I did quite a lot of reporting through Huggle (if you look at my contributions, you will see a few "blocks" of reports along these lines). Since then, there have been 2 reports in December and 2 reports in January - both manually reported rather than through Huggle. Also, the 262 edits to AIV represent about 1.5% of all my edits (as of the stats on this RfA's talk page) and 9% of all the edits I've made to Wikipedia: namespace. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The reason I'm holding off to see how some of the AIV admins vote is that they, more than any other individual editors, have to actually examine and deal with your submissions. 262 subs is plenty to get a feel of how clueful an editor is. If they think that you've shown due care and consideration when making submissions, then that gives me confidence in your abilities both at AIV and in other parts of the project. If, on the other hand, they feel that many of your submissions were improper, then that would suggest that you don't have as firm a grasp on things as I would like. As a huggle user myself, I know that the submissions are often out of our hands, but I'd still like to have someone from that area say "Yup, I remember Phantomsteve, he's a great help at AIV" or "Dear God no, not Phantomsteve, you wouldn't believe how many erroneous reports of his I had to clean up" before I make a decision one way or t'other. Either way, good luck with the RfA! I'll be keeping an eye on it. Expect my !vote to change. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't see it, please note my support comment. Tan | 39 14:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. The anal-retentive part of me wants to hold out for more, but the part that's connected to my brain sees an overwhelming sea of support for a very good editor. Switching to Support. Throwaway85 (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.