Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Go Phightins!

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

Go Phightins!

Final: (138/0/2) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 10:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) – has been active in the project for several years already and got over 15,000 edits to his name. I first encountered him in discussions at WP:BASEBALL, where usually keeps a calmest and rational mind in a rather hectic and busy WikiProject. He got one featured article to his name in Jim Thome and a number of good articles. He is active in AFD, particularly baseball related, where his comments are policy based. Also, he works at prod, and CSD, though not as active on CSD recently because he decided to work on content instead. He is also active in helping new users as well with sound, policy based advise. I been convincing him to run for a few months now and I'm glad he decided to accept this nomination. Go Phingtins! is long overdue to join our administrative corps. Thanks Secret ^account 22:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Dennis Brown

I've worked near and around GP for some time so I'm glad I finally get to be here, nominating him for admin. Go Phightins! asked me for an admin review in November of 2012, 18 months ago. What impresses me is that instead of being eager and asking again in 6 or 9 months, he listened and followed the advice given, waited until he was confident he was ready, all while working diligently on learning the ropes in policy and in editing. He has matured into an excellent, well-rounded Wikipedian. As for content, he's created over 30 articles, he's kept his article contribs to 45% of the total even while he has been very active helping other editors. I find his contributions to be very balanced, all 17,000 of them. He's been here over 3 years but really active for the last two. He understands the basics of policy well, and where to FIND the policy when he isn't sure. In short, I think he will make a very thoughtful, cautious (but not timid) admin. I'm confident that he will grow into the role in a way that inspires confidence from the community. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from TParis

To say that I can recall the first time I ran into anyone on this project would be a blatant lie. I can't recall who I meet or the specific things that surround them. All I remember about people are the gut feelings I get when I see their names. As far as Go Phightins! goes, I've always had good feelings whenever he's around. And there is good reason to. I could tell you about his content contributions, but anyone can plainly see the FA and over a dozen GAs on his user page. I could tell you that a look through his CSD deletions shows a clear understanding of A7, amongst others. But what I really find commendable is that we have a user who has enough of a taste of admin related areas but it's clear that he doesn't revel in them. I looked through a random dozen of his ANI contributions. I'll note first of all that he rarely responds to threats on ANI. In 2013, he had a total of 43 edits to ANI. 2014 - none. But looking at the 2012 and 2013 ANI edits, what we can see is a thoughtful editor who collects his facts before making claims. Even when in a topic area he is involved, his responses are polite, calm, and directly on the matter at hand. I think that speaks to his character. We've got a well rounded candidate here that would be an asset to the admin corps.--v/r - TP 04:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Go Phightins! 10:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As an editor whose predominant focus is sports and secondary focus is politics, I have experience with page protection requests in those areas, and would like start working at WP:RPP. Additionally, though not as much recently, I have done a fair amount of work at CSD, and can help in that department should there be a backlog. AFD is another area in which I have a decent amount of experience, and my success rate is about 80% as far as being with consensus. For fairly cut-and-dry closures, I can help there, but I would leave the controversial big ones to more experienced administrators, and learn on the side, eventually easing my way into those. Finally, when and if there is a backlog at AIV, I can help there, as almost all of my reports there have been successful.

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

A: Jim Thome, my first and to date only FA, is by far my best article, but I have also contributed several other GAs (17 to be exact plus 4 pending nominees) predominantly Philadelphia Phillies baseball players (e.g., Cole Hamels and John Mayberry, Jr.) and some college football bowl games and seasons (e.g., 2013 Penn State Nittany Lions football team). I also have a bunch of DYKs, and during their respective seasons, I write the season articles for the Phillies and Penn State. Outside of content, I have thoroughly enjoyed working in the adopt-a-user program, though my participation there has waned recently. Also, I have done a lot of work at the Teahouse, answering questions over the years. I also sporadically participate/have participated at DRN, NPP, and AFC. (I promise, that is all of the alphabet soup I plan to list ).

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: The short answer is yes; it is inevitable when working in a collaborative encyclopedia to run into disagreement, but when I do, I strive to handle it in such a way that I promote a collegial atmosphere. However, I am not always successful. A recent example is the Thome FAC, in which, particularly through edit summaries, I expressed some disagreement with one reviewer who was undoubtedly acting in good faith. We just happened to disagree on a few components of the article, but ultimately, we worked it out, and it is now a featured article. In the future, I will ensure that my edit summaries address solely what I changed, not what I thought of changing something. I know that in the past, when reverting vandalism over and over on a page, I have likely also utilized some less-than-ideal edit summaries. As far as a bona fide conflict, the closest I have come is an encounter with User:Fjozk several years ago, in which, while patrolling new editors’ contributions, I fixed a format error in an article he created, which caused an edit conflict for him, which caused him to lose text, and which ultimately caused him to be frustrated and subsequently be blocked. Since then, I have sought not to edit any brand new articles if possible to avoid a future situation like the aforementioned.

Optional question 4 from John

In retrospect, what do you think of the stance you took here?

A: Hi John; thanks for the question. The short answer is that I stand behind my sentiment at that time. The longer answer is that I believe Wikipedia must walk a fine line between maintaining its strict stance on remaining uncensored while at the same time, recognizing that being one of the top-10 most visited websites in the world entails ensuring some decorum, particularly on pages that younger readers may see, such as the main page. It undermines our goal of fostering a global open educational resource for anyone to access when we have content on the front page that some might find egregiously offensive. As such, while I have no problem with the article itself existing, and commend those who worked hard to bring it to featured status, I think it is important to tread carefully with what we place on our main page. Thanks again for the question. Go Phightins! 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from Carrite (Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA; 52; BA Economics Oregon State University 1983.)

5. There unfortunately is no good mechanism for real-life self-introductions at Wikipedia. Perhaps you'd be interested in availing yourself of the opportunity here. What's your name, your age, your educational background, where do you live? How did you first discover Wikipedia and what motivated you to stay and contribute? (Failing that, a short essay on why you think anonymity is important would be of interest.)

A: Hi Tim; thanks for your questions. One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute, and in order to do so, need not even register an account, much less provide real life identification. Personally, I prefer to separate my "wiki-life" from my personal life, and do not wish to disclose my real name at this time. That said, as you may be able to tell from my username, I am a Philadelphia Phillies fan, which likely makes it no surprise that I live in south-central Pennsylvania. I am a student, and my academic interests include government, business, English, and economics, which admittedly is somewhat of a stark juxtaposition to my editing interest of sports. To me, however, this underscores the importance of separating the two "lives". I will save my answer to the second part of your question to number six, as they somewhat relate. Thanks. Go Phightins! 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If I may, asking someone to divulge their real identity at Rfa is inappropriate and should be identified as such at WP:AAAD Well handled by an excellent candidate. I hope Carrite will not continue to ask this at Rfa.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

6. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name or names? If so, what were these? Thanks. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A: Right now, I have the alternate account of Phightins is Gone, which I use when at alternate editing locations. Now, to the more interesting part :

Several years ago, I was that annoying teenaged vandal we have all come to know and hate. I would watch my sports teams lose (which unfortunately happens frequently), and would blank the page of the opponent's hero, and stupid stuff like that. I probably even registered an account or two (the usernames of which I have long since forgotten), as my IP address was probably blocked. I remember that once I got somewhat of an ultimatum from an editor asking me to stop undermining the encyclopedia, and I think I ignored it, and probably was subsequently blocked. That ultimatum, however, planted a seed.

Three years ago, I decided that it would be cool to write articles on some of my favorite players and teams and whatnot, so I registered this account, and have sought always to edit productively with it, and think that I almost always have. So I guess, in some respects, I am a success story in the sense that I am a vandal turned featured article writer. It is that experience that has driven my interest in helping new editors, and has made me hesitate to "give up" on a vandal or new editor, as I empathize with them because I was them. Thanks again for the question. Go Phightins! 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers! —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Optional question 7 from Hawkeye7

7. WMF edits the page on a Phillies player to add material that you believe to be untrue. What would you do? What policies apply here? Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Hawkeye, how ironic you would ask a question right now as I watch a M*A*S*H rerun . I am not sure I accept the premise of the question, as office actions are predominantly to remove content deemed libelous by the legal team from a complaint, not an addition of content, at least per my experience and reading of WP:OFFICE. If a WMF staff member were to add something to an article, it would carry no more weight than an edit I would make or an IP would make, and as such, the principles of WP:V and maybe WP:BRD would apply. However, as you said it was WMF, I would probably err on the side of caution (as per Jimbo, reverting office actions is blockable), and contact Philippe or Maggie for a clarification on the reasoning behind the edit. Nevertheless, WMF staff editing have the same policies by which to abide as we do, so I would of course, just as for any other editor, request a source for the information. If it was contentious, and to a living player, I would revert per WP:BLP. So to summarize, I would first check with Philippe to ensure it was not an office action (although that should be obvious as the page would have the black lock icon), then revert if the information violated BLP, and if it was uncontentious information, I would just request a source through a fact tag, or in all likelihood, look for a source that supports the information, as I am pretty good at finding sources for Phillies stuff. I hope this answers your question, but please feel free to follow-up if I misread it. Thank you again! Go Phightins! 00:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Optional question 8 from Jim Carter

8. Hi Go Phightins! I support you but I have a simple question.

The users under the support section in this RfA trusted you. A.) Are you willing to give other users that same trust when it comes to blocking? In other words, are you a believer of second chance? Why or why not?

Hi Jim, as one who once asked a question at an RfA that set off a firestorm without meaning to set off a firestorm, I empathize with you :-) In regards to your question, yes, I believe in second chances. I spoke above (question six) about the fact that I once was a vandal, and though I did not come out of it through the normal unblocking process, I simply created another account years after the fact, I think I am proof that vandals can change, so while I would clearly exercise caution, yes, I think genuine remorse does warrant a second chance, and if elected an administrator, I will seek to afford "problematic" editors a path towards becoming a constructive editor, if (and only if) they truly want to be one. Go Phightins! 21:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

B.) I will create a multipart question to get a good understanding of the candidate. "What on Earth makes you think that you are qualified to be an admin. You are a bad editor and always have been. I can't believe you were nominated." Please note that this is not a real personal attack and is merely trying to test the candidate.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and one of the quotes I rotate on my talk page is about respecting the minority. Therefore, if someone were to say this to me, I likely would respectfully remind them that requests for adminship are decided by consensus, and right now, nearly 100 editors have supported my request for adminship. However, should an editor have a concern (as some thus far have), they are welcome to raise it in the oppose, neutral, or general discussion sections, or on the talk page, and, as consensus is not a vote and should seek to appease the concerns of the minority, I will do the best I can to address that concern in hopes of having the support of the entire community. Thanks again for your questions, Jim; sorry for the minor ruckus it caused ... I am always willing to answer questions regarding my editing, provided they are asked in good faith, which this one was . Happy editing! Go Phightins! 21:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from Northamerica1000

9. If granted adminship (which appears certain), would you subject to recall?

A: Hi NA1K, and thanks for the question. Do I believe all administrators should be subject to recall for egregious misconduct? Yes. Would I support a community-wide policy that addresses this important issue? Yes. Would I be willing to help draft such a policy? Yes. Do I plan to impose arbitrary standards on myself that ultimately have little weight, as I would be the judge and the defendant, which usually doesn't work out well (even though I would try to be impartial, I would be intrinsically defensive, which I am not sure is a good idea)? Probably not, at least not right away, as I would prefer a community-wide standard. That said, if we fail to achieve consensus on a community-wide process, then yes, I would draft some standards for myself that would seek to avoid the problem of me being judge and defendant, though I would have to figure out how that would work. Ultimately, I feel admin should be accountable to those for whom they wield a mop and bucket, and without the support of those people, they are doing their job in vain. To reiterate, however, I would prefer all administrators being held to the same standard, and thus would support (and be willing to assist in drafting) a community-wide process. Thanks for the question, NA1K, and as it is glorious here in South-Central PA this morning, I am going to take the dog on a hike, and answer the remaining questions probably this afternoon. Go Phightins! 13:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

10. How much experience do you have countering vandalism on Wikipedia?

A: Sufficient, though it hasn't been my main focus for a long time; right now, I basically revert what appears on my watchlist that looks nefarious. However, at one point, it was a focal point of what I did, and I have made 615 edits with Huggle, and a few thousand with Twinkle (though I don't know how many of those Twinkle edits are vandalism ... a decent portion though, I suspect). Ultimately, vandalism is an area in which I feel I have enough experience to block those repeated vandals when there is a backlog at WP:AIV. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

11. What is your opinion about supervotes?

A: I'm against them. I know that sounds simplistic, and to some may seem as if I am evading the question, but after stewing over how to answer this one for the better part of this afternoon, that's the best I can come up with. If elected, I will seek to avoid them, and if someone disagrees with how I close something, there are no shortage of avenues through which one can seek review, and that is a good thing, as no single administrator's opinion should be worth more or less than one IP editor's opinion, or frankly anyone's opinion, for that matter. Sorry for the simplicity, but essentially, that's my opinion of supervotes – I think they undermine consensus and should be avoided, and if anyone ever disagrees with how I close something, they should feel free to let me know why, or take it to a relevant review venue. Go Phightins! 21:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment Good answer, candidate. Irondome (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

12. I noticed that in the 311 AfD discussions you have participated in (per Statistics for User:Go Phightins!), you !voted to delete articles roughly three times more than to retain articles (52 keep !votes, 145 delete !votes, 2 speedy keep !votes, 3 speedy delete !votes) and have a 71.6% match rate in which your !votes matched the closing result. In AfD discussions, do you tend to gravitate toward deletion or articles/topics that warrant deletion? What are your opinions about AfD statistics being used as a metric regarding user activity?

A: I would disagree slightly with your prior assessment; I have voted in consensus 72% of the time, and there has been no consensus 8% of the time, meaning I have been "out of consensus" only 20% of the time. Also, I believe more articles that land at AfD are deleted than kept (though I am unsure as to the proportion), meaning I am not sure my propensity to support deletion is atypical ... I don't really classify myself as a deletionist, if that's what you're asking. Digressing from the numbers, there are a lot of gray areas in sports notability, particularly as baseball players, for instance, draw a ton of trivial mentions, and it is always a point of debate as to how many trivial mentions in tandem with coverage of transactions and injuries as well as quotes and whatnot constitute "significant coverage", and I think most of my fellow WP:BASEBALLers would agree that we all have slightly different interpretations of WP:BASEBALL/N and WP:GNG, which leads to editors, including myself, landing on both sides of the result of the discussion. I believe it was Miniapolis who, at her RfA, said it is intellectually dishonest to change your opinion just because others disagree, and I wholeheartedly agree - it's okay to have different opinions, and I have never held anyone's opinion on an AfD against them, nor have they held it against me, and I think it is that mutual respect my friends and I at WP:BASEBALL (and WP:SPORTS in general) have developed that have allowed us to speak candidly in AfD discussions, not being afraid to offer opposing views.

As for how this pertains to judging consensus, I think my record on that is pretty clear. Several times, when I have nominated an article for deletion, and there have been numerous keep votes and no other deletes, I have just withdrawn my nomination and closed the discussion. So I don't think occasionally being on the "other side of consensus" 20% of the time at all inhibits my ability to evaluate consensus. Go Phightins! 20:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for the responses. Regarding the percentage I provided above (71.6%), it was provided by the AfD statistics page. I agree with your stance regarding no consensus results in discussions as not being directly applicable regarding !votes matching results, because the percentage is low. However, in cases where users have a high percentage of !votes of either keep or delete within discussions that were ultimately closed as no consensus, it could be. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from K6ka

13. Do you know the difference between a "block" and a "ban"? A lot of users do not know the difference between the two, and it's important that admins know the difference before they get tangled between the two at WP:ANI.

A: Hi and thanks for the question. So basically, a ban is a prohibition on editing a certain set of pages, or, in the case of a site ban, all pages, for a predetermined period, or an indefinite period of time. A block is the technical mechanism by which one enforces a ban. Also, a block is used to restrict vandals, for example, from editing. In a nutshell, there you have it. Go Phightins! 02:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Connormah

14. When might you use the block button in absence of four warnings present on a user/IP's talkpage?

A: Hi Connormah, and thanks for the question. Are we talking only about vandalism blocks? If so, then some obvious circumstances would be egregious BLP violations and obvious cases of repeated vandalism (e.g., someone has made 10 vandalism edits, yet received three warnings). If we are talking about any circumstances, one should be blocked for socking, making legal threats, etc., and none of these circumstances require four warnings prior to being blocked. Basically, a block should be used to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. I hope this answers what you were asking. Go Phightins! 00:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Go Phightins!: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Go Phightins! can be found here.
• Editing statistics are posted on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Go Phightins!.—John Cline (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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

• This will be listed at WP:RFX100. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (deliver) @ 08:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. TBloemink _talk 10:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Damn, I was too busy trying to fix the transclusion to get the first support vote in... I've always been impressed by GP's competence, it's about time he got his admin trousers. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - this is an RfA I decided to support long ago; and then waited for this day. I am happy seeing its arrival. I have rarely been more confident in a candidate's strength; or more certain of their potential.—John Cline (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support no red flags, a name I've seen around the place and look forward to seeing more from in the future - likely to be a net positive with the tools and that's enough for me. Bencherlite^Talk 10:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support precious ball rolling, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
6. Support - Go Phightins! has always been helpful and productive in many areas. He also helps both new and experienced editors in various ways. A great addition to the admin team. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
7. Support No worries at all. --Stfg (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
8. Support I'm going to go primarily from seeing their work around, plus just did a quick skim across their overall contributions. I think the nom's have covered what I personally have always seen the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
9. Support as conom and friend. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
10. Support A great candidate with a level head and superb manner. I'm happy to support. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
11. Support. I have seen the candidate around the project, and trust his judgement. Should have been an admin a long time ago. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
12. Support One of the more helpful and friendly editors around. Definitely fit for the mop. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 12:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
13. Support Having 3 respected noms is a good start. Solid, good manner to all, and with a broad range of competencies. A good admin to-be. Irondome (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
14. Support Excellent! --Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
15. Support A Great contributor to the Encyclopedia and the community. For the past year and a half, he and I have been involved in a project that started with 12 others. He is the only one that stayed involved week after week. A solid person that deserves support. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
16. Support as nom Secret ^account 12:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
17. Support about time! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
18. Support based on review. Kierzek (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
19. Support. Piling on here - have seen this editor around a lot, good impression of them, plus good article contributions ... and stellar nominations. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
20. Support Warrenkychu (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
21. Support - I recall being one of those asking him if he's interested in RFA at the time, and let's just say I was not expecting to see one now. ZappaOKCMati 13:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
22. Support - You bet. --JustBerry (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
23. Support per noms, Buster7, and I've seen his highly positive, clueful contributions around. No concerns. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
24. Support No concerns; thought this editor was an admin already. Mkdw^talk 15:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
25. —Kusma (t·c) 15:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
26. Support No issues here. James^x12345 15:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
27. Support No concerns. I am One of Many (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
28. Support No concerns, will be a useful presence in the relevant areas. BethNaught (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
29. Support Well-qualified candidate, who will be even more of a help with the mop. Miniapolis 16:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
30. Support per above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
31. Support: what? He's not already an admin? Competent and good editor. Thanks, Matty.007 17:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
32. Support - A case of you're not already a sysop? Will fill the role well. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 18:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
33. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
34. Support as co nom.--v/r - TP 18:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
35. Support Looks god across the board. I've had good experiences with him and I trust the noms to have done a good job vetting. Hobit (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

    Not sure that divinity is a qualification... Peridon (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

36. Support I happily support this RfA. I watchlisted Go Phightins' RfA more than 9 months ago, and for good reason. GP knows his stuff and more importantly if he doesn't he would more importantly do the due diligence before taking action. All in all he is well qualified to wield the mop. —  dainomite   19:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
37. Support With pleasure. One of the best things to come out of the Teahouse experiment is GoPhightins' user-friendly, ever-helpful, thoughtful approach to engaging with this community. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
38. Support I have encountered this candidate in discussions of AFD. The candidate was really helpful too. TheQ Editor (Talk) 19:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
39. Support, finally. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
40. Support. I've seen the candidate around, and it has always been positive. Strong nominations, and good answers to the standard questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
41. Support. Very happy with the contribs I've seen so far. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
42. Support. Very well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
43. Support - Always good to work with the candidate and represents a good net positive for the project. Seeks advice and cooperates with others on a regular basis. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
44. Support - Green flag. I don't see any problems. Good luck! -24^Talk 23:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
45. Support Really friendly user!! ///EuroCarGT 23:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
46. Support Most definitely! I've never seen any problems with you before, and I agree that you are more than competent for the task. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
47. Support. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
48. Support About time. Go Phightins wasd the first wikipedia user to really reach out to me when he adopted me about 18 months ago. He showed me around the place, and really got me what I needed to know. I have absolutely no concerns with him having the tools. Good Luck! Tazerdadog (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
49. Support Active user and has been for years --Lixxx235 (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
50. Support. Solid work in dispute resolution, keeping a calm head in rough waters. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
51. Wizardman 02:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
52. Suppport. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
53. Support Solid candidate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
54. Oppose because you didn't wait for me to nominate you. Nah, just kidding. Best of luck with the tools. → Call me Hahc21 03:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
55. Stephen 03:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
56. Support A solid, qualified candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
57. Support, and happy to do so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
58. Support. Long standing, helpful user. Count me in as one who thinks this is long overdue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
59. Support. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
60. Support. Absolutely the right type of candidate for the mop. — sparklism ^hey! 07:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
61. Support per Miniapolis. - tucoxn\^talk 10:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
62. Support Can't see any reason why not. Can see a goodly number of respected supporters. Peridon (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
63. Support I thought you were a sysop already?! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
64. Support Seen him around. Solid noms and backers. No contribution issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
65. Support I reviewed GP's comments from all the times he's appeared at the Roman Coliseum and he seems to be capable of dealing reasonably with unreasonable people. That's a major plus in my book: he's also got experience of writing content and plenty else besides. I can't see anything going wrong with him having a mop. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
66. Support per noms. One good quality of an admin wannabe is that he/she is easily approachable and keeps calm in spite of threats given to him/her, which Go Phigtins! has. Apparently, I believe that this is by far the RfX with the fastest accumulated support !votes in 24 hours since that of Anned Delong. and (2) I believe one of the noms hasn't voted yet. (Sounds pretty similar?) Japanese Rail Fan 13:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

    Some of the noms may just have voted late. Japanese Rail Fan 04:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

67. Not sure about the whole Phillies fan thing, but otherwise, a fine candidate! Resolute 13:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
68. Support per noms. Honestly I thought you already were! --ElHef (Meep?) 14:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
69. KillerChihuahua 15:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
70. Support - "thought he was one"... Deb (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
71. Support - Always helpful and friendly. Great work at Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention —Anne Delong (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
72. Support I thought you are already an admin lol. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
73. Support (Sorry for the cliche but), I thought you were already an admin. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
74. Support And I do not think his vote against "f" was anything whatsoever to be ashamed of. Collect (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
75. Support - can't see any problematic issues and overall a solid candidate.--Staberinde (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
76. Support Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
77. Support Good answers to the questions and a trustworthy chap I think. I appreciate his honesty even though I very strongly disagree with him over think of the children prudery at Wikipedia. I disagree but I respect and trust, and that is good enough for me. --John (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
78. Support Excellent candidate. Seen this editor in a variety of contexts, most particularly AfD, and I'm sure he's here to build an encyclopedia, and has the competence and personal skills needed to wield the mop responsibly. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
79. Over the past two years, Go Phightins has become an integral part of our community. It is a distinct honour to even sign my name here. He possesses every quality I would think to look for in an ideal administrator — sound judgment, strong communication skills, and a genuine empathy for others. This RfA is long overdue. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
80. Support A positive influence on the project, experience with article work, no red flags. The focus on editor retention is especially important to me. The Interior (Talk) 22:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
81. Support - Thanks for the honest answer to question 6. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
82. Support I've known Go Phightins and his work for a while; his experience with article building, new editors, and understanding of article policy is substantial. He routinely takes a thoughtful approach to discussions here, and I've always thought of his demeanor in controversial situations as one that is collected, mitigates escalation, and gets to the point. I think these are all favorable qualities for administrators, so I'm happy to support this nomination. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
83. Support per TP ("good feeling") and the answers to the questions, even the ones I don't fully agree with. Thoughtful and independent yet accommodating. Besides, I almost always support administrative candidates who specialize in sports. It compensates for people like me who know zilch about them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
84. Support --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 01:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
85. Support - No concerns. You had my support at "Dennis Brown is my co-nominator," actually. Carrite (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
86. Support – I can attest to the quality of the candidate's work, having seen many of his lists pass through FLC, and am fully confident that he would make good use of the admin tools. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

    P.S.: My apologies. The lists I was referring to were by a now-inactive user. Despite this, my point about his work stands, as he worked very hard on improving the Thome article over time. It's not easy to get articles through FAC, much less a significant biography. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

87. Support - good candidate. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
88. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
89. Strong support My only adoptee who hasn't run off yet. And a fine Wikipedian. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 05:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
90. Support Well, I'm happy with the answer to Q7. One of the biggest problems with sports articles is that the players are often alive and BLP comes into play. The other is the short half-life of sources. All the best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
91. Support. I could support based on the nominations alone, but I have also seen them around and have been impressed with what I've seen. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
92. Support. I haven't !voted in an RfA for a long time and I just came out from an exam. Your name is very familiar and we have had only pisitive interactions. Good content contributions, respectible nominators and no red flagd. Good luck. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
93. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
94. Support Widr (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
95. Support should be alright with tools. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
96. Support. It has been a pleasure to work with GP, particularly within WikiProject Baseball. He brings a level head and an ability to work well with others. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 16:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
97. Support Happy to support! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
98. Support promotion of this good all-around contributor.- MrX 20:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
99. Support as long as this user promises NEVER to be a vandal again and to keep doing good, constructive edits, and lives up to the administrator title. I don't know this user, but he sounds admin worthy!Mmddyy28 (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

    You make it sound like he's been a vandal before. ZappaOKCMati 22:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

    He didn't have to, but he was honest enough to admit doing some petty vandalism as a kid in Q6, many years ago. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

    Ah, I didn't see Q6. I guess I don't blame him; I've used to do the same thing as a kid. ZappaOKCMati 23:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

100. Support This editor has been a wonderful person, and from the questions he answered, I support him! Also, he helped me out at the Teahouse, I think, so I got to give him credit for that! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
101. Support - thoroughly satisfied with the responses to my questions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
102. Support This looks like an excellent candidate who has checked all the right boxes on my list. The endorsements and co-nominators are the icing on the cake. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
103. Support; Go, Go Phightins! Excellent record, nuanced and well thought-out responses to nomination questions. Slightly surprised this fellow wasn't already an admin. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
104. Support From what I've seen and the few interactions/passingsby I've had, Go Phightins! will make a great mop wielder. TLSuda (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
105. Support - of course. Stalwart111 03:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
106. Support As I do not edit in the candidate's field on interest, I have never come into contact with them before today., but I am remarkably impressed by the good judgment and honesty of his responses to questioning. He is someone I would trust. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
107. Support - No concerns, looks like he will make a fine admin. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
108. Support - Satisfied with his answers and very much trusted, see my talk page. BTW he is also a good friend. Jim Carter ^(talk) 06:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
109. Support From what I've seen, the candidate will do useful work as an admin. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
110. Support. Outstanding candidate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
111. Support I know do Go Phightins does good content work and have a lot of editing experience. I've also seen being kind and helpful at the Teahouse. And they have three nominators, all of them experienced admins. What's not to like? (although sadly, I didn't get to be the 100th !vote) --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 13:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
112. Strongest Support Like Ever - I heard about this RfA and had to find time to log on so I could support. First, he is an excellent content creator. We need some admins who build content. Second, he is a great leader and loves helping people, which makes him the perfect fit for an admin. Best of luck, GP! Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

     I hate wishy washy votes. Don't mince words man. Tell us what you really think! -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

     That comment above was unnecessary and somewhat impertinent, but I can elaborate on my experiences with him. My first major interaction with him was when he reviewed Major League Baseball, an article me and another editor, EricEnfermero were working on. He gave a very detailed review, carefully scrutinizing every bit of the article while giving lots of optimism and encouragement towards us and indeed, it became a GA. Ever since, he also has renewed WikiProject Baseball, gathering teams of editors interested in helping improve baseball articles and it has blossomed. This demonstrates leadership skills and a personality desirable for an admin candidate. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

     I think he was just being sarcastic, Sportsguy17. At least that's how I read it the first time. Go Phightins! 02:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

     Based on the above reaction to my rather sad attempt at humor, I am guessing I should not give up my day job. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

     Oh good god! I wish I had read your commentary one more time before typing haha. Hope your day job can accodate extras. If so, I'm hopping aboard. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

113. Strong support – known Go Phightins for at least 1.5 years now, and I have nothing but positive things to say about him. Great content contributor, took a leading role in reviving WP:BASEBALL's newsletter, friendly and always willing to help. To sum it up, it's been a great pleasure working with him in the baseball WikiProject. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
114. Support. Go Phightins! is mature, competent, friendly, and humourous, judging by his recent contributions and his userpage (and of course, his username XD). Admins should be serious in their work, but a stodgy admin is no more beneficial to the encyclopedia if they take things too seriously. Wikipedia has another mop-wielder to keep it clean. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
115. Support. I have seen Go Phightins! work and some of his explanations which are quite good. With this as background, his answers to the questions give me great confidence in his maturity and ability. I think he will bring special experience and competence to the job. With all of the above comments, there is no need for further elaboration. I only regret that I did not get here sooner to be further up the list! Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
116. Support. I personally do not know this editor, but reading all the commentary and answers above makes me strongly feel the mop would be in excellent hands! ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
117. Support for being a reformed vandal. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
118. Support. Candidate has my trust. Spencer^T♦C 18:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
119. Support – even though I don't know the candidate that well, he's pretty trustworthy from what I'm seeing. Epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
120. Looks all good to me. Should be a great addition to the admin corps! Connormah (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
121. Support - I'm slightly embarrassed by this, but since several others have already admitted it, I might as well do the same--I thought he was already an admin. I'm confident he'll do a great job with the tools, and his answers to the questions here only further my support of giving him the tools. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
122. Support - A reformed vandal doing great work here.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
123. Phillies suck TCN7JM 21:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
124. Support It's a bit of a runaway, but hey another support !vote won't hurt. Nothing seen to say they won't make a good admin. Someone order a mop...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
125. Support - an experienced user with good contributions and whom I am confident would us the admin tools responsibly and to the benefit of the project. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
126. Support Oh gosh, I almost missed this one. Strong support for a trustworthy editor doing great work. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
127. Support. Haven't voted in an RfA in a looooong time; glad to break that silence to support this candidate. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
128. Support -- Have noticed their contributions and always been impressed. Happy with answers to questions. -- Shudde ^talk 10:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
129. Support This is my first RfA !vote and I'm glad this to say that it is all worth it. I wish you all the best! FairyTailRocks 14:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
130. Support A great contributor. Faizan 14:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
131. Support appropriately sane and competent. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
132. Support - I think he would make an excellent admin. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
133. Support - meets my usual standards; no red phlags. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
134. Support – One more vote can't hurt. Get this guy a mop! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
135. Support - Am happy to support one of my favorite Wikipedians :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
136. Pile-on support --Mz7 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
137. Support - He should make an excellent admin. Good luck with the mop! :) StevenD99✉ 04:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
138. Support All-around great candidate. LittleMountain5 05:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose speedy deleted my page --Metropajihb (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Metropajihb: Can you provide a reason for your oppose? You haven't edited in months and this is your seventh edit, so I would like to know more information on why you are opposing this RFA, since it appears to otherwise be disruptive and clarification would help dissuade that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

How could the nominee have "speedy deleted" your page, Metropajihb, when only administrators can delete pages, and the nominee is not yet an administrator? If the nominee flagged one of your pages for speedy deletion, and an administrator agreed, then it is highly likely that your page was non-compliant. Do you want to tell us more? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I was curious so I looked at the edit history. The article was Disco Singh and the original article in December 2013 was a partial sentence which identified the two stars and director of an upcoming movie of that name. User:MrScorch6200 tagged it for speedy deletion but it was not deleted. User:Shirik, who is an administrator, tagged it for AfD, but it survived. Metropajihb made no further edits after creating the article but 82 others have made edits. The article still exists as expanded. It has a template stating that the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for films. This was placed in December 2013 so it seems to have been made obsolete by later edits. I see no other article created by the user under that user name and thus no other article of theirs which could have been deleted. I don't see any edits or tags by User:Go Phightins!. There are no edits in the history of the editor's user page after its creation. For what it's worth. Donner60 (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the research, Donner60, which accords with what I see as well. But if another page was deleted, it wouldn't be visible to non-administrators, would it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Would there not be a message on the user's talk page or in the edit history of that page about a proposed deletion, now shown with a red link? If so, there is not a message on the page or in the history of the page (and thus deleted by the user from the page) about another article. If not, you are correct that since I could not view it, I would not have been able to identify it. Donner60 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The page's log says it *was* A1'd by Shirk. Rgrds. --64.85.216.185 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Metropajihb: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you confused MrScorch6200, the editor who tagged Disco Singh for speedy deletion, with Go Phightins!, whose RfA is featured prominently at the top of MrScorch6200's user page via the RfX report template. LittleMountain5 05:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As I see it Shirik DID delete it in December for lack of content, but it was re-created with much fuller content, and that version survived AfD. At no point has Go Phightins! edited either version or taken part in the AfD. Peridon (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I just had a look at the deleted contributions and that's correct. MrScorch6200's nomination for speedy deletion and Shirik's deletion was—given the rules of speedy deletion—reasonable and in process. And there's absolutely no connection to Go Phightins! This is a non-issue. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing bureaucrat's note While this may seem pointless given this request's clear consensus, I have indented this oppose on the basis that it has been proven to be obviously false. Acalamari 10:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Only 5 CSD tags in the last one year. Historically, CSD tagging has generally been okay. Intermittently active in AfD. Most AfD comments are sensible, although AfD nominations show the occasional anomaly like List of sports writers and Neil Cornrich. Overall, I am not confident that Go Phightins! is sufficiently active and accurate enough in deletion areas to be entrusted with deletion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

   Matters of admin action come with training, experience and cooperation, its not like Go Phightins is going to go rogue and be free from oversight. Deletion may not be something they are interested in, but heck, every case I've seen with Go Phightins is open and welcoming. Sensibility does not require perfection, but the former is still a terrible article in need of care and the latter had COI and was completely redone by its withdrawing. But its your !vote. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

   Agree, that list is one of the worst that I have seen in a long time. Full of doubtful redlinks, lots of dead external links, no clear inclusion criteria, and apart from a list of names absolutely no information. It's a category masquerading as a list... --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

2. Cloudchased (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

   Care to explain why? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

   It's not a big deal if someone chooses not to support. Let it go.--v/r - TP 05:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

   It's a general practice to give a rationale, even if it is just Per (Name of Editor) above. Especially when only one vote has been made in this section and the rest in another, an explanation should be expected. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral is not so much a !vote as a form of abstaining. (Note that Go Phightins! currently has 100% of !votes.) Although it is customary to offer some explanation for a !vote either in support of, or opposition to a candidate, it is not required. However, in the case of an abstention I think an explanation is less important since there is no real !vote involved. On the other hand, if one has sufficient reservations that you want to go on record saying you don't feel able to support a candidate, it would seem peculiar not to offer some explanation. But to each their own. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

   Then it seems there are a dozen or so people above you could remind of that general practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2014 (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.