Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Doczilla

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Doczilla

Final (92/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 12:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla (talk · contribs) -

• Doczilla came to my attention through our shared membership of WikiProject Comics. I think various people have badgered him to become an admin, and finally it appears he has succumbed. He has been a Wikipedian for 2 years, totalling a well distributed 29541 edits in that time. Judging from his contribs he will make good use of the various tools, and judging from his talk page he is more than calm and rational enough to handle the extra few buttons. Hiding T 13:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have to start out by saying that I'm just impressed by Doc. Even though we're both members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, I first encountered him at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Civil, thoughtful, informed, insightful, and often researched comments. (Note that he and I often disagreed back then, but then, that's the way of the wiki : ) - And that's something else - One thing I just can't recall ever seeing is the explosion of vehemence in a discussion regardless if his perspective was being supported or opposed. Just more reasoned discussion/debate. Yes, he (like the rest of us) could be frustrated in a discussion, however, he, unlike many, just showed it mildly, and without the "explosion" I mentioned above, without the negativity that such discussions can draw. I mention this, because this is one of my main reasons for wishing to see him an admin. Yes, the comics project could sincerely use more administrative help. It, like many topics, tends to draw quite a bit of ownership issues, and, we need more who are willing to close polls, and discussions. And yes, CfD - and other XfD/RM/RFC discussions - could use more closers. But I want to see more admins like Doc, who are reasoned and calm, even in the face of all the things that admins face, and doesn't return like in kind. And if it isn't yet clear enough in the above: Strong Support - jc37 10:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and co-nomination. I feel very honored to be nominated by two editors/administrators whose work I regard so highly. Doczilla (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to help clear XfD backlogs, make appropriate edits to protected pages, fight vandalism more effectively, and deal with persistent block-evaders. I hate asking admins to do some tasks for me (like page moves and history merges) when I would have been able to do those things for myself if I had accepted some of those same people's previous offers to nominate me.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I hope I have helped Wikipedia and especially WikiProject Comics in many ways by trying to strengthen the style of writing, increase objectivity, and present encyclopedic information logically. I've done a lot with XfD (especially CfD) and a fair amount of vandalism patrol. Specific contributions I feel good about include cleaning up Amalgam Comics entries in the DC/Marvel character articles; promoting person-first categories (People with epilepsy instead of Epileptics) not for "political correctness" but in order to make more sense, be more consistent with professional style guidelines, and have greater consistency across categories; and the creation of a couple of quirky little articles on topics I felt had been long neglected.

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: If you do a lot of editing, you're going to encounter some kind of conflict because there are people out there who do not want to back down from making inappropriate edits.

We can disagree with people without skirmishing. When the other person is genuinely and stubbornly wrong, try patiently to explain. Try to be polite but not patronizing, and really think about what the other person is saying. Assume good faith. Look for the best points in whatever they're trying to contribute. Sometimes we have to express frustration (civilly) to make a point, but not usually. Don't keep making the same argument in the same way over and over if it's not working. Cite policy, guidelines, and the reasons behind them. Failing all that, we can ask for help, in which case we should resist the temptation to bring in somebody who will automatically agree with us. Find someone who knows Wikipedia well and who intends to help figure out what's best. Be ready to learn. We must all keep in mind that we could be the one who's wrong (and sometimes assuredly will be), whether we're wrong about the content or in how we handled the situation, but I also endeavor to be brave enough to stick up for this encyclopedia's quality and for Wikipedia's way of doing things.

I generally get along very well with the few editors with whom I've had big disagreements (not counting those who could't work with anybody and simply got themselves banned). For example, I've made 3RR reports and contributed to AN/I discussions about someone who has asked my input numerous times since then, and when that person has been in disputes with others, he/she has suggested bringing me in as someone who would strive to be objective. Not long ago, two comics article editors in a prolonged and sometimes heated dispute with each other both asked for my input because they knew I would try my best to be fair and objective.

Optional question from Tim Vickers (talk)

4. - If selected, will you add yourself to the Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A. Yes. I've even posted a userbox stating that I believe all admins need to be open to recall. I have concerns about the recall process, though.

I'm uncomfortable with the possibility that the category's very existence might give some users the mistaken impression that other admins are not accountable.

I'm sure some troublemakers could use recall as yet another way of disrupting things around here. But aren't they likely to create trouble one way or another anyhow? So why should we deprive ourselves of a potentially useful process because of what some users "might" do?

I've investigated the history of how recalls have worked in the past. At first glance, many of those outcomes give me the impression that the process often wasted everyone's time, but I'd like to know more about long-term results before making such an assessment. A failed recall might help vindicate admins as well as teach them important lessons for the future.

Despite potential problems with admin recall, I would nevertheless join the category as my way of showing clear support for admin recall. Doczilla (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at what others have specificied at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. You'll definitely want to have criteria established from the beginning. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have very seriously been examining what others have specified. If I had to choose criteria on the spot, I'd say "per Lar" like so many others have done for good reason. If I become an admin, I will post criteria right away, but I'll continue studying everyone else's criteria and the history of past recalls so I can refine and personalize mine. There's also a lot to be said for Firsfron's approach of keeping it simple. I like details, but I do know that every additional detail creates loopholes. Doczilla (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from WBOSITG

5. When should you inform the Wikimedia Foundation when blocking an IP address?

A. Any admin who blocks any pages that are sensitive due to public relations implications must notify the Wikipedia Foundation because of potential PR issues and political concerns. Doczilla (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Jay*Jay (talk)

• I am asking the following questions in part because you indicate a wish to participate in deletion activities. Despite being a relative newcomer, I have found that actions in these areas can provoke controversy, and so I would like to ask about a couple of cases. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC) _{Note that question 6 has been modified following discussion elsewhere. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)}

6. You recently took part in an MfD discussion about a section on a user page. I understand from elsewhere that you are of the opinion that the section in question violated WP:SOAP. Whilst I understand the position you took in that MfD, I'd like to explore whether you might have acted differently as an admin.

(a) In your response to that MfD, and paraphrasing, you indicated that the page should be kept as MfD was not the appropriate forum for the issue raised. Did you consider also noting your view in relation to the policy problem? Would you act differently once you are an admin? If so, how? If not, why not?

A. For numerous reasons, I did not consider expressing my opinion that yes, the material in question violated WP:SOAP, because that wasn't the forum for it. Expressing a judgment like that in the wrong setting can prompt people to accuse you of being biased during later discussions and blowing off everything you have to say. In fact, committing oneself to such a view publicly can actually bias that person toward justifying a specific position which can detract from discussion of other important issues. Consider the following (admittedly extreme) analogy: A judge should not say, "This is the wrong court for this particular case, so I can't agree to hear it. You are guilty, by the way, but now get out of here." Not only does the judge damage his/her credibility, but that judge could actually impair the prosecution's ability to get a later conviction. When people contemplating an issue here in Wikipedia get the impression that it has already gotten out of hand, the most efficient and most appropriate outcome becomes even less likely to follow. So for the sake of the integrity of the "case", I'd like to think that as an admin, I'd have been even less likely to have expressed an additional opinion. Doczilla (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(b) Suppose that you were closing a similar MfD, where the consensus is 'keep', and no response has commented on the relevance of WP:SOAP to the section in question. What action would you take, and why?

A. If I'm reading any XfD conversation and discover that nobody has raised a critical policy issue, then even if I'm an admin, my responsibility is to join that conversation as a regular discussant in order to raise those issues and get people to talking about them. Once I join the discussion of the topic, I would not play an administrative role in that XfD.

But you need to hear about some things I'd do as an admin, so let's consider this related situation: A minority of discussants have raised a critical policy issue and yet a strong majority, perhaps even a consensus, !vote the other way anyhow. Is the admin's duty to rubber stamp that consensus? No, not when it conflicts with the greater consensus of the Wikipedia community as a whole, as indicated by our policies. An admin has to consider the weight of the arguments, not just the number of them. In a case like this, an admin who hopes to avoid deletion review (or to simplify any deletion review that might follow) would be prudent to explain that decision very carefully and to show respect for everyone's views. The admin might even tell discussants where they can find the appropriate talk pages to discuss policies with which they disagree.

(c) Suppose that another similar MfD had related to a user's sub-page where the entire content was WP:SOAP-violating advocacy. The nominator notes that the user had declined to change it after a talk page request. What should happen, and what (if any) action would you take?

A. A user subpage that is inappropriate and which the user refuses to fix would get deleted per Wikipedia:USERPAGE#Removal_of_inappropriate_content. This is pretty extreme and I hope that a lot of other things have been tried before it reaches this point (see examples), but you have described a situation that has apparently passed the point at which all those other things should have been done. Doczilla (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

7. Please have a look at this deletion review log, and look at the thread on the Queer Wikipedians category. As you can see, there was a lot of comment in the review, and feelings ran high. There are comments near the end from admins (such as DGG) questioning actions of other admins. You may or may not be aware that there were discussions following on from this at AN/I, and on several talk pages. As far as possible, I would like you to put aside what you may know about what followed, and try to put yourself in the position of needing to close this DRv. What decision would you have made and why? Then, would you have taken any further action, and if so, where and why?

A: A new admin should not close a deletion review. My action at most would be to join the discussion like any other participant. I would not take any action on any deletion review until I had acquired a great deal of experience closing XfDs and participating as a discussant in deletion reviews. Doczilla (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla, I would like to ask you a follow-up as your answer does not really respond to the question I was trying to ask - probably because I have been insufficiently clear. My motivation for the question is this: dealing with a circumstance where essentially any action will upset someone requires judgement as well as experience. I like the fact that you want to gain experience before using admin tools in such areas, but it is your judgement and your approach to decreasing tensions that I am looking to consider. So, a different approach:

(a) Looking at the DRv, is there any decision that would satisfy all those involved in the discussion? If so, what would that decision be? If not, how would recognising that you face such a situation influence any actions you might choose to take?

A. No, there is no decision that would satisfy all those involved in the discussion. I would have answered this much earlier, but I've been reading through the history. The case in question is not just about a single deletion review. It involves multiple deletion reviews and many user categories with an interrelated history. It also touches upon real world issues over which people fight vehemently, particularly individuals' rights to identify themselves and be open about who they are (e.g., "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" vs. "Don't ask, don't tell.").

The situation is not at all helped by the fact that Wikipedians interested in user categories have an ongoing struggle regarding how to define or redefine and whether to restrict or expand their usage. The idea that user categories must foster collaboration makes sense but unfortunately carries a great deal of ambiguity with it regarding categories about people's personal interests or other forms of self-identification. Because of this ambiguity, it's very easy for anyone who simply doesn't like a category to stir things up by saying it violates some aspect of WP:NOT. Why does one self-identification category get to exist while another gets eliminated? More people need to get involved in debate at the higher level regarding what Wikipedians really want user boxes for. The ambiguity may not go away because there are problems with the most restrictive (allowing no user cats) and most generous (allowing any user cats) options.

Recognizing that I face a situation in which there no answer will satisfy everyone means that I, as a closing admin, would need to think carefully about how to word the close decision. This will require more explanation than usual when writing the decision. Essentially, the same kind of prudence I described in the last part of my answer to 6b is required here too. Doczilla (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(b) Based on the comments in the review, what problems would you anticipate would follow a "deletion confirmed" closure (in general - no need to talk about any specific editors)? What (if anything) could be done to reduce those problems? Under what circumstances (if any) should a closing admin consider the potential for problems following a policy-based decision and how (if at all) should such considerations influence their actions?

Jay*Jay (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This falls within the area where a new admin should not be rendering the closing decisions. A lot of experience closing XfDs will be needed. I have been involved in a lot of deletion discussions but have rarely had reason to participate in deletion reviews. As an admin who wants to help with XfD backlogs, I will certainly wind up gaining experience in deletion review, although I can hope that I'll be able to minimize the acquisition of such experience by doing the best job I can when rendering the closing decisions. I could speculate on what a person needs to anticipate, but until I acquire the experience of participating in many more deletion reviews, particularly the kind of experience a closing admin would have which other discussants would not have had, I cannot know what I need to anticipate. Reminding ourselves that we don't know what to anticipate in a particular situation can help keep us from getting careless. Doczilla (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Doczilla's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Doczilla: Doczilla (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Doczilla before commenting.

Discussion

For some reason, I always think you're some strange cross between User:Doc glasgow and User:Bishzilla. --Deskana (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one :) sj 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here. :) Acalamari 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Me three. Gads, I thought it was just me! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• On the questions from Jay*Jay, I think they sort of fall under the category of "asked and answered." The reason I say that is the candidate has indicated he would need more experience with admin actions and DRV closing before approaching such a contentious problem. The implication is that he doesn't know which way he'd close it, and I think that is fine. It seems unnecessary, then, to put the question to him again in other words - which is what has happened above. An RfA is effectively an educated guess about whether someone is likely to abuse the tools or show basic poor judgment. Any finer evaluation is really beyond the purview of this process, in my opinion, because of the complexity and variables involved. Avruch ^T 17:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Avruch, I am quite happy to accept that Doczilla doesn't know what he would do. In fact, I'd be more concerned if he had a definitive "the answer is X", as there is often no "right" answer or "best" approach - but there are definitely "better" and "worse" approaches. Admins ultimately face such situations, so I'm interested in his judgement - which will likely change much less in the next 6 months than will his knowledge. A lot of the standard questions asked in RfA give little insight into the reasoning processes of candidates, or the ability to see the consequences that are likely to flow from a given action. I don't doubt that Doczilla's RfA will pass, but I still believe this approach is more likely to differentiate between admin candidates. He has indicated a desire to contribute in an area that can lead to significant disruption and conflict (as you are well aware), and so I thought I had an opportunity to ask something that I see as providing a valuable insight into a potential admin's approach. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, nom beating or otherwise, per previous pleasent interaction. Pedro :  Chat  11:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Will effectively use tools. Spencer^T♦C 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Great track over 31000 edits with over 19500 mainspace ones.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Looks good to me. Good luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Even if I did offer to co-nominate the other month. Rudget. 13:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support what they said.. :) ..--Cometstyles 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Good luck --Oxymoron⁸³ 13:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support per the candidate's work with the Amalgam Comics. Good editor. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Aye, per Jc37. Hiding T 13:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support per noms. Best of luck Wexcan  Talk  13:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Horologium (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
14. To say the nom, "meets my standards," would be a vast understatement. Good answer to Q3. Liked what I read on the talk page. Civil, open to feedback, seems to be able to stand firm with vandals without being nasty. (I switched from VP to TWINKLE because of the problems with reversions and misdirected warnings.)_ Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Yep he can be trusted. MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Admirable history, experience. Disinterested and impartial tone (like a psychologist). The pedia would be fortunate if we could get more candidates like this one. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Yeah, of course. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Superb user; lucky to have him an admin. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 16:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support—there is clearly a positive influence to be had for the project by granting this user administrator status, and I am happy to support to this end. Best of luck! Anthøny 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support I don't even have to think about this one. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. Definitely. --Kbdank71 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong support, definitely passes Level 3 of my criteria. Well done, and good luck with the mop! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support I can think of no reason not to support this candidate. RMHED (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Sure. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - Can't think of any good reason why this individual shouldn't be given the tools. This despite the fact that I have personal reservations about the "zilla" name, and have tried to think of a few. I don't recommend changing the name though, it's more trouble than it's worth. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Jmlk17 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support - Yep, give em' the mop. Tiptoety ^talk 22:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Sup Doc Majorly (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support good editor :) Good luck :) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support Time to start washing the WP:FLOOR with a shiny new WP:MOP. Kakofonous (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support, good, solid editor. Will weild the mop well. Dreadstar † 02:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support' No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support, looks good! krimpet✽ 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support — BillC ^talk 04:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
37. Strongly. Likes recall, gets it (our only interaction I can recall), and has a good username. Best candidate in a while. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support, excelent answer to question about recall. -Icewedge (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. This is an absolute no-brainer. Outstanding track record. I would trust this user without hesitation. Wisdom89 (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Solid editor, should make a solid admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs) 11:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
41. Support per above. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 13:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
42. Support – I'm honestly very surprised he's not one yet. —Animum (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Everything seems to be in good order--Pewwer42  Talk  18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
44. Support, good candidate. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Appears to be trustworthy, good answers here. VanTucky 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
46. Support — Zerida 21:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
47. Support - trustworthy, experienced, and can keep a cool head. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Interesting, I stumbled across this user just the other day and wondered why they weren't an admin! GlassCobra 23:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
49. the_undertow ^talk 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Only know him from CfD, but seems good. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
51. Isn't-he-already-support sj 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
52. Support the giant atomic fire-breathing dinosaur with a PhD. Pairadox (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
53. Sounds good. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    Move to oppose. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

54. Support Seems like a capable and serious editor. Modernist (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
55. Support With gusto. Doc's a strong, rational editor, bringing that to the Admin plateau will benefit all of WP. ThuranX (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
56. Support A level head and a level manner. - J Greb (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
57. Support with no hesitation OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
58. Support Clearly this is superfluous, given the level of support already achieved. But I have seen this editor around a lot; will make a great admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
59. Obviously. - Revolving Bugbear 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
60. Per Deskana :) Daniel (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. It's about time.--Kubigula (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
62. Support. I know it's the oldest cliché in the book, but I really thought he was one already. Grutness...wha? 09:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
63. No problems at all. Acalamari 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
64. Support indeed! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
65. Support You're not an admin? Burner0718 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
66. SUPPORT! I always thought you were. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
67. Support. Definitely good for the project. Alexf⁴² 01:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
68. Support I want to jump on the dogpile too! (On a serious note, this is a clear-cut case where the user will undoubtedly be a great administrator). нмŵוτнτ 01:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
69. Support - Why not? Bark! Bark! - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
70. He isn't an admin already supportBalloonman (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
71. Support - A very experienced editor who could well benefit from the extra tools.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
72. Support: I've seen this user around, everywhere, and have no complaints. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
73. Pile on. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
74. Support: Good editor. --Bhadani (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
75. Support Avruch ^T 22:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
76. The Transhumanist 01:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
77. If what Deskana says is true, you must be all kinds of awesome. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
78. Support an obvious choice to become a sysop. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
79. Support Obvious choice. Courteous and always thorough. Congrats on the landslide! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
80. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
81. Support - a solid candidate --Calabraxthis ^(talk) 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
82. Support Courteous and will make a good admin. Woody (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
83. Support definitely. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
84. Support What they said. Razorflame (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
85. Support. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
86. Changing to support. I am still unhappy with Doczilla's judgment, but his explanation on my talk page is sufficient to make me believe it was not a serious error and that he is careful enough with his thought that his judgment will improve as situations like this come up in the future. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
87. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
88. Support - No Reason not too. PookeyMaster (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
89. Support Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
90. Strong Support - he is quite professional and courteous. To my reckoning, he is what an admin should be like. A lot of folks could learn much from this guy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
91. Support. See no reason to anticipate tool abuse. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
92. Support -- a valuable editor. No reason to oppose. - Longhair\^talk 08:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Strongest possible oppose. Anybody with poor enough judgment to take Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Phil Sandifer as a remotely serious accusation and to voice support for it as in this edit [1] does not have the judgment to be an administrator. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Phil Sandifer, and suggest this RfA is extended to take account of this. We've had enough drama from admins assuming bad faith already. Black Kite 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, including the astounding bad faith shown toward the maker of the original accusation. Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but irrelevant; I would expect an admin to look at a case far more deeply before casting aspersions like that. There's just practically no evidence. I'd be quite happy to AGF and pull this oppose with a reasonable explanation though.Black Kite 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Struck (as promised) per Doczilla's reply on Phil's talk page. Black Kite 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (moved from support) per Phil & Black Kite. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems to have been clarified now. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose per Phil Sandifer & Black Kite. Singopo (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

   Both crossed out their opposes, do you want to reconsider your vote? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Inclined to support, but remaining neutral while awaiting answers to questions posed. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Procedural issues

I request that this RFA be extended for at least 24 hours. I was previously unaware of Doczilla's support of a spurious and malicious accusation of sockpuppetry against me as expressed here: [2]. I apologize for pulling an October Surprise here (I'm frankly floored at it), but I would like sufficient time either for Doczilla to explain what on Earth he was thinking with that comment or for others to weigh in on this issue, and I'm concerned that there is not sufficient time for this information to be substantively considered in this RFA. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Simmer down Phil; it's one comment to one user a month ago. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And as I indicated on Doczilla's talk page, I hope that I can remove my opposition. But this was a shockingly bad faith and ill-conceived sock puppet accusation that I do seriously question the judgment of supporting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think the issue is now settled, and I'm glad to see Doc respond to me so quickly. I have no burning desire to see this extended at this point, though if other people feel there's still an issue here I would support their wishes to have it extended so whatever that issue is can be discussed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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.