Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/P.B. Pilhet 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


P.B. Pilhet

Final (38/20/8); Ended 03:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

P.B. Pilhet (talk · contribs) - This user has been editing since August 2006. Since then he has shown maturity and a good knowledge of policy. An excellent vandal fighter while also being conscientious and kind, I feel that he would make an excellent admin —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination: P.B. Pilhet (talk · contribs) is a user who is not only civil but dedicated to the policies and goals of Wikipedia. I offered to co-nom PB a long while back, and I gladly support him here today. Unlike myself, P.B Pilhet does not have a large and distracting signature. He has been nominated before and now he is here after having addressed those points that were brought up during his last RFA. I strongly believe that P.B. Pilhet (talk · contribs) would be an excellent sysop here on Wikipedia. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored and very surprised at the nomination, and I accept. I wasn't planning on running again for awhile, but maybe the community has had time to see that I'm trustworthy and have gained more experience since my last RfA. -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 16:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement from candidate: First off, I'd like to say that Malber's nomination took me completely by surprise; I was not intending to run for RfA again for a few more months, and I'm honored to think that he believes I'm ready now. However, I recognize that his view may not necessarily reflect the view of the entire Wikipedia community. I'm fully aware that my edit count is under the usually expected amount for an admin, and I've only been here six months. If this is a problem with anyone, please do not hesitate to oppose. I will not be discouraged to fail this RfA, and it will not effect my level of activity here. I will continue with my vandal fighting work regardless. But, even so, I would really enjoy being able to help Wikipedia by being an administrator. As stated below, I will use extreme caution with the tools if I'm given them, as the last thing I want here is to disrupt the site. Just have a look at my user page if you feel I may not be a trustworthy person. And as for having a knowledge of policy, I believe vandal fighters have more knowledge of policy than editors who mostly just write articles, because we have to be thoroughly familiar with our policies in order to do our job, which is to keep Wikipedia clean of junk. I recall not too long ago a user was given the mop and broom when he only had an edit count of about 2,000. I would really appreciate it if the community would look at me in the same light. Thank you, everybody.

Positive points about me:

  • Born and bred vandal fighter.
  • Good knowledge of policy due to the above point.
  • 2,700 edits. (see the talk page for edit count)
  • 6 months experience.
  • Active e-mail.
  • I always remain civil and cool.
  • No large and distracting signature.
  • Already have experience with the tools at a private wiki, [1] (though I know that this point doesn't mean much, I thought I'd list it anyway).

Negative points about me:

  • Lack of article writing.
  • I use VandalProof (not sure if this is negative, but it seems that way on other RfA's).
  • Not as much AfD participation as I would have liked (including a lot of "delete per nom" votes, which I now know are frowned upon for their shortness).
  • Already failed one RfA.
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I've been involved in AfD discussions, and I would love to be able to help close them. My first and foremost passion here on Wikipedia is vandalism patrol, and therefore I would take an active participation in WP:AIV, requests for protection/unprotection, and any other vandalism-related sysop chores I can think of. I believe that adminship should not be taken lightly. If the community feels I'm ready for the mop, I promise to be very careful at first. The last thing I want to do on Wikipedia is cause a disruption, and the sysop tools can do a lot of that if misused.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As stated in the question above, my first love here has always been and always will be the janitorial work. I will freely admit that article writing has never been high on my interest list at Wikipedia, though I have written several articles. Of those articles, I would say that the Taliesin Orchestra has been my favorite. I understand that many editors feel that article writing is a requirement for adminship, and if anyone here feels that way, I'm sorry, but it's simply never been my passion, and I can't promise that it ever will be. Some editors think that to have a good grasp of policy, one should focus more on article writing than on vandalism patrol; however, I disagree. Vandal patrollers have to have a good knowledge of policy in order to do their work. Since 90% of what I do is keep Wikipedia free from junk, I believe I am fully familiar with all of our policies and guidelines.
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: Absolutely. As a vandal fighter, I've recently been involved in several disputes (you can see my talk page). As I stated in my previous RfA, I always handle them cooly and civily. I have found that communicating with overly obnoxious vandals is futile, as you will almost always simply make the situation worse. There was an editor that vandalized the Juan Gonzalez (journalist) page awhile ago, and I reverted him four or five times. Each time, all I did was simply leave him a standard warning message on his talk page, starting with level one and working my way up to the final warning. During these warnings, he repeatedly left personal attacks on my talk page. After the final warning, I reported him to WP:AIV, and he was blocked for his actions.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs):

4. What do policies of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean and how would you apply them?
A: Well, to start, WP:IAR was created to allow editors the ability to break policy in certain rare instances in order to "better the site" (see the blocking example in the question below). This policy should only be used when all else fails, and then only with great caution. When sysops apply this rule, double the caution should be used. As for WP:SNOW, it is neither a policy, nor a guideline. It is simply an essay on how to apply WP:IAR. It's basic premise is that "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." However, I disagree with this idea; processes are important, because otherwise editors may sometimes skip ahead and do something that was completely wrong. Everyone has common sense, but not everyone is good at using it.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: 99.9% of the time, absolutely no. According to our official blocking policy, and I quote, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure." There are, however, a few (and rare) exceptions to this rule. An example would be the time when Essjay blocked an admin for changing the text of the "my watchlist" button to read "stalked pages." (it was April Fool's Day) Was this block used to "prevent damage" to the site? No. Was it used as a punishment for intentional disruption from someone who should have known better? Yes. And even though the block was punitive in nature, I believe Essjay was absolutely correct to place it.
6. What is one exception to the three-revert rule?
A: There are actually five exceptions to the three revert rule. They are, 1) reverting simple or obvious vandalism. 2) Removing blatant copyright violations or clearly libellous material. 3) Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons. 4) Reverting actions performed by banned users. And 5), reverting by a user within their own user space (most of the time). Of course, WP:IAR also may make room for other exceptions, but only on very rare occasions.
I was only asking for one, but thanks for showing your knowledge of all five. :-) —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 16:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Trebor Rowntree (talk · contribs):

7. Under what circumstances would you protect or semi-protect a page?
A: There's only a few situations where full protection should be used. The two most common are 1) to protect a page that has been deleted in order to prevent recreation, and 2) to let things cool down in an edit war. There are other less common uses, such as to lock a page for investigation (like to detect a bug in the wiki software or to prevent talk page abuse by an editor who has been blocked (I would only protect a page in this case if the editor repeatedly vandalized his/her own talk page). As for semi-protection, this should be used when a page has been repeatedly vandalized within a short period of time by multiple IP addresses, or when the page is at an exceptional high risk for such vandalism.

Optional question (or questions) from Eagle 101 (talk · contribs):

8. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. You can have a look at the full counter spam efforts on meta at m:User:Eagle 101/Spam.
A: First off, let me say that I am fully aware how bad spam is. While helping to clean up a private wiki a little while ago, I noticed that the poorly managed site had basically been overrun with spam (sometimes, entire articles were replaced with external links). And even after I finished cleaning it all up, it returns every few days or so (I can see how it would be so much worse here, as this site is so popular). Therefore it is safe to say that I have a personal disgust for spam. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not a database of links to other sites (even if those other sites contain additional information). I think that one or two external links in an article is plenty enough, and only if those links are for well known, notable sites. Any more links and it borders on spam. I'll support the occasional link to myspace (I'm being very kind with the word "occasional"), but YouTube, Blogspot, etc. are a bit much. I may be stricter than the average person about how many external links should be in an article, but I detest spam as it disrupts and perverts the true intention of our site. Wikipedia is not for advertisement. "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." -- from Wikipedia's External Links Policy.

Optional question from Llywrch (talk · contribs):

9. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sure. I can easily see myself doing that, as I've done it before in the past. Sometimes it's good to switch tracks every once and awhile. Vandal-fighting can cause people to start assuming bad faith after a long period of patrolling. And for those of us that simply can't walk away from Wikipedia when this happens (we're too addicted), switching to article writing is a good way to continue improving the site. And that's not the only reason; sometimes I just feel in the mood for creating articles. It depends on how I'm feeling, but I can assure you all my efforts in the future will not simply be admin-related tasks.

Optional question from Doug Bell (talk · contribs):

10. Do you think an admin should have experience writing articles before closing AfD discussions?
A: No, as long as that admin is fully aware of all the policies surrounding articles and their deletion. I just want to make it clear (if I haven't already), that I do not want to get involved in controversial sysop issues until I'm ready. I would like to help clear up the AfD backlog, but not those discussions in which I feel I have even a chance at making a mistake in; I will leave those to the more experienced admins, until I think myself capable of handling those controversial situations. Again, since I'm a vandal fighter and frequently propose articles for deletion (speedy, prod, AfD, the whole nine yards), I have a strong knowledge of our governing deletion policies and guidelines.
General comments


Discussion

Support

  1. Support —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 16:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Shows good understanding of policy. Active. Lack of article creation is not a deterent for me. Dan D. Ric 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support That's funny - Malber said six months on your last RfA, I count October - February as five! You've taken on board my comments at that RfA and I see no reason to oppose or go neutral on this one. (aeropagitica) 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After careful consideration, my standards have changed since then. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 14:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support A solid, civil Wikipedian. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, could use more vandal fighters, you seem to know policy. I like, how much (/borat)⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Edit conflict support per noms. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I like your honesty in your concise list of pros and cons. bibliomaniac15 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, your honest approach and keen anti-vandalism shows me you're more than qualified for the tools, good luck. The Rambling Man 22:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support The user is a good vandal fighter.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A fine admin you will make. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, I think good XfD participation more than outweighs any perceived scarcity in the mainspace contributions. AfD involves making sometimes tough evaluations of articles in the mainspace. Seems like a fine user with little risk for abusing the mop. IronGargoyle 00:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support -- Semperf 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Displays good communication and understanding of policy and shows a reasonable approach to things. Khodavand 03:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak support per above and below. Cbrown1023 talk 03:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - not going to abuse the buttons, article writing (or lack of) is not a big concern, I think I almost failed over the same thing.... let history show itself -- Tawker 07:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per tawker. ViridaeTalk 11:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Quite excellent answers to questions, and shows a good all-round understanding of policy.--Anthony.bradbury 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Edit history presents no concerns, issues raised by opposition are trivial. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Candidate has solid knowledge of policy. YechielMan 20:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Article writing has little to do with adminship. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Mainly per Tawker. Objections about a lack of article writing are not compelling since the areas the candidate intends to use admin tools do not require a lot of experience in that area. JoshuaZ 00:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Per replies to questions. Every admin is not an article writer, some people do have to clean these backlogs up, as well as stand guard on vandalism and spam. As long as P.B. Pilhet knows his policy, and won't go nuts, I trust him. Remember adminship is not a big deal ;) —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, although not an article writer, he will help clearing backlogs. His answers suggest he is level-headed enough not to rush into controversial uses of the tools, and that he is already well aware of his weaker areas. Trebor 11:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - no reason to oppose has been given. --BigDT 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak support, supporting just because I was so impressed by some of your answers. However haven't done a careful detailed check of you, so I'll just give this a "weak" support. Sorry. Mathmo Talk 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Would make a good admin. Unlikely to misuse the tools. Not concerned bout edit count. --Aude (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Solid answers to questions. Might lack some experience, but does not seem the type to jump into controversial admin actions. Civil and unlikely to abuse tools. --Fang Aili talk 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Benefit of the doubt. I don't believe in editcountitis. >Radiant< 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I appreciate P. B. Pilhet's responses to the questions and and his other comments above -- they reflect self-awareness of his strengths and weaknesses. We don't need perfection -- just good judgement, a steady temperament, enough experience (>2000 edits is plenty for me) and a willingness to learn and adapt. Thanks for agreeing to serve and I hope this RfA succeeds. --A. B. (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support; why the hell not? Plus, I agree with the comment on Essjay/april fool's- in that case, the block was certainly deserved. Ral315 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. After nosing through his editing record, I am satisfied he will not misuse the tools. Proto ► 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support My only question, indeed the only question for RfA is "is their a significant possibility that this candidate would abuse the tools?". No sign of problems here, and not an untested n00b, so I support.--Docg 15:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. The candidate gave good answers to the questions. Experience isn't measured by edit count. PeaceNT 06:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per answer to questions. Seems to be well versed in policy. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Seems like a good admin. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

  1. Oppose. P.B. Pilhet is quite a helpful user at AIV, and an active participant in XfD discussions, but I still feel a little worried about the lack of mainspace experience. This user is clearly a vandal-fighter, and I have no problems with that. I do have a slight worries in regards to this user's capabilities as an admin to handle disputes, and how he/she will act in tough situations regarding articles. I feel that AIV, XfD and vandal-fighting can help you a bit to prepare for such situations, but getting involved in the article namespace is the only true way that will show me that you know how to handle yourself in disputes and conflict resolution. It's a tough decision, but without seeing you actually get involved in the nitty-gritty, I cannot make a formal evaluation. Nishkid64 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, regretfully. I feel that experience in article writing is important for an administrator to have, because (as I've said on several RfAs recently) admins should be able to understand how disputes develop between users, and how they might best be avoided or resolved in a civil manner, because admins may be called upon to mediate between users. I made a special exception in another RfA for someone who had very dedicated and specialised experience in fighting complex spam campaigns, but I generally do want admins to have experience in writing articles. Probably related to your inexperience in article writing is what I see as very low usage of mainspace talk pages, 19 out of 2761 according to your stats at when I typed this message. I notice that your edits seem to fall into three general areas: vandalism reversions in the mainspace, vandalism warnings in the user talk area, and welcoming new users in the user talk space. While these are important, these can be done by any user. I also see limited AfD experience (more than me, though), and inconsistent usage of edit summaries when VandalProof isn't involved. I applaud you for being mature enough to admit your weaknesses, and I think that you're a nice person and wouldn't abuse the tools, but I just think you need more varied experience, and more experience overall. If you address these concerns, I might support you in the future. I'm very sorry if I have hurt your feelings. --Kyoko 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose sorry lack of article writing, your best article Taliesin Orchestra is a little more than a unsourced stub. Jaranda wat's sup 06:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose. I respect and applaud your desire to become an administrator. However, I think you could do with a little more experience, both in number of edits and areas in which you focus your efforts. Being an admin is by no stretch of the imagination easy, and broad expertise in a wide array of areas on our wiki will greatly benefit you when you do receive your tools. – Lantoka (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Generally low contributions, in particular low projectspace contributions do not inspire confidence in user's policy knowledge. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose - sorry, your vandal fighting is very impressive and your knowledge of policy relating to blocks is excellent, however in Q2 you only give one article, which isn't properly sourced. Addhoc 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose nice guy with a well-thought-out statement, but he has shown very weak engagement with content creation. Many dedicated vandal-fighters end up viewing every content-related spat through a vandal-spotting lens. Opabinia regalis 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Oppose. I have two concerns, both of which stem from the lack of article writing. First, admins make judgments all the time about whether an article meets WP:CSD criteria, and article building experience really rounds that out. More importantly, I haven't seen evidence so far that this user has experience with content disputes, as opposed to straight vandalism. I see content disputes mischaracterized as vandalism all the time. I am sure this user would never abuse the tools, but I'm not convinced he has the experience to use them properly. --Ginkgo100talk 22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CSD criteria are very very narrow, and I don't see how any amount of article writing experience is going to help. You either read it and understand it or you don't. ie CSD A7, states no notability "asserted" I fail to see how article writing could help you determine wether notability is asserted or not...? Content disputes are most often characterised as vandalism by those involved (as noted by the reports that turn up on WP:ANI and WP:AIV) and I feel it is once again a fairly self explanatory concept that you either get or you don't. Since you haven't turned up any evidence of this user characterising a content dispute as vandalism and considering they are a prolific vandal fighter (and would therefore come across content disputes in RC patrol) wouldn't the benefit of the doubt/AGF apply? ViridaeTalk 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for defending me, Viridae, but Ginkgo100 has a point that many other editors share, and so I respect it, though I don't agree with it. I've been in many vandalism-related disputes, but very few content-related ones, if any. That's why I said above in my statement that, if I was given the keys to the janitorial closet, I would be very careful of how I mopped at the start. If I had to do anything that was controversial, I would either let it go (if I could), or seek help from a more experienced sysop. But thanks for the nice, long explanation anyway, Ginkgo100. Even if I don't agree, I think it's very kind of you to take your time and explain your reasoning as well as you could. -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 01:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Relatively low level of project-space activity suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose would like to see more article contributions. --Tbeatty 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Needs more article experience. I disagree with part of his answer to question 5, I believe the block was inappropiate, I believe the proper course of action would have been to ask the admin to undo the "April Fool's Day prank". Dionyseus 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, low level of contribution all-around. Aside from user/usertalk pages he barely has a thousand edits. — CharlotteWebb 06:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, at least until that signature is shortened. Proto::► 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Struck out, will reconsider now it's been changed. Proto ► 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose having a relatively low number of edits for RFA is not a problem - the main problem will be the very low number of Mainspace talk and Wikipedia talk edits - need to get more involved in articles and wikipedia discussions, and if you keep up the good vandal fighting work I am sure will be an Admin in the future. Cheers Lethaniol 18:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per [2]. I wouldn't like to see someone who !votes with such flawed arguments close XfDs. -- Steel 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask exactly why my argument was flawed? I would appreciate a clearer answer. Thank you. Please note that the result of this XfD was keep, which was exactly how I myself voted. -- P.B. Pilhet 01:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replied to you on my talk page. -- Steel 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to other voters: please see my response on Steel's talk page. -- P.B. Pilhet 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to neutral. -- Steel 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Not enough experience. -- Vision Thing -- 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Doesn't convinve me that he needs admin tools to anything that he isn't doing already. A good enough looking editor but his edit count is lacking in several areas and six months of interaction with the community and process is not long enough for me. Maybe in six more months. NeoFreak 07:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Too new. 1ne 07:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose at this time: prefer more experience first. Jonathunder 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose vandal fighting is well and fine, but I would like to see more mainspace edits. Darthgriz98 15:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. While I appreciate his honesty, I feel the lack of mainspace edits is a serious problem.--Aldux 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak oppose. Great answers, but half your edits are in user talk. Not quite enough experience elsewhere.--Wizardman 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I think this user has some great qualites going for him, but he should do some more article work. It seems like he's improved a lot since his last time up, and that's why I'm not opposing. But he could get some more done.--CJ King 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Kyoko, oppose #2. Frankly, I believe you need to gain some more experience and work on some articles. - Anas Talk? 12:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Edits in both the project and mainspaces are low, particularly mainspace, the most important bit of this encyclopedia. However, I've seen you about doing good stuff, and I cannot oppose based on a lowish edit count. Good luck. --Majorly (o rly?) 14:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per Kyoko. I like my admin candy with article writing on top. I'm afraid pure vandal fighters may have problems grasping the issues of real content disputes. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moved from oppose. -- Steel 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral (mysteriously my neutral comment didn't make it the first time). I really appreciate the nominee's straight-forward answers to the questions and his statements. I think the nominee has the makings of an excellent admin. While I'm willing to look past edit counts, I do value article participation. Only in exceptional circumstances do I normally support people who are almost exclusively vandal fighters. I was impressed enough by the nominee's statements here to look past that, but am unable to support at this point because in addition to the low article contributions, there is very little participation in project space. The total number of edits and time here are not an issue, but the narrow focus is. If this nomination is not successful, I encourage the nominee to get more involved in other areas of the project and apply again. —Doug Bell talk 05:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, I am not sure how well the candidate understands the policies. Shyam (T/C) 06:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I'm really leaning towards support here, but controversy can arise due to lack of communication from an admin. Like to see more interaction/article writing. IronDuke 17:42, 17 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/P.B._Pilhet_2&oldid=1078958985"