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

Christopher Parham[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 18:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC) at (65/4/5); Formal end time 18:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Parham (talk · contribs) - I first edited here in November 2004 and have been active since mid-2005, though somewhat cyclically. I feel that this is an appropriate time to request adminship. I have deliberately kept my responses here relatively brief to encourage people to examine my contribution history directly. Thanks in advance to all participants here. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I anticipate using admin tools mainly to deal with various minor issues that I encounter during my normal editing (reversion, speedy deletion, blocking or protecting highly repetitive vandals, viewing of deleted pages). Generally, it is nice to be able to clean up messes when you find them. Aside from that I should be able to devote some time to the speedy deletion backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Blaise Pascal, Point Park Civic Center, and Federalist No. 10 are featured articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been involved in various conflicts over the past two years; the most serious one, as well as the one most connected with editing, was that over Shock and Awe (see talk. I couldn't say that another user has ever caused me stress, though some have certainly been annoying (e.g. User:-Ril-). On the whole I try to maintain a philosophical mien during disputes, engage in discussion to whatever extent is possible, and avoid personalizing the dispute. Should I succeed here, users querying my administrative actions could be assured of a thoughtful response, which is the first step in defusing a conflict with another reasonable person.
Optional question from Oleg Alexandrov.
4. Given the concern raised at my oppose vote below, and looking at the future, rather than at the past, how important is for you that an administrator be civil at all times, even with problematic users, or when you find some other editors' opinions misguided? Note: I am not asking you about turning the other cheek to problematic users, or about suppressing your disagreements with users whom you find misguided, I am asking only about a civil attitude in such situations. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: A civil demeanor is of substantial importance, though I think it is of greater importance in personal conversations where an affront is likely to end the discussion or exacerbate the dispute. Following from that I would reiterate my assurance in question #3: that in any personal communication, particularly queries about my use of sysop tools, users could expect a thoughtful and polite response. With regard to the material you cite in your comment below, I regret the language used in my comment at Danny's RfA, though I stand by its substance. Please let me know if this does not address the substance of your question. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that civility is more important in personal communication. But just to clarify, do you believe that incivility or a dismissive attitude towards other users is acceptable in non-personal communication or when commenting on a general situation? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not, which is the reason I regret the language I chose for my remarks at Danny's RfA. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. :) I still disagree with you as to how the outcome of an RfA should be interpreted, but that is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from PrestonH (talk · contribs)
5. As an admin candidate, why do you think 3RR and NPOV is enforced in Wikipedia?
A: The 3 revert rule is enforced to limit undesirable edit warring. We enforce a neutral point of view because that is the #1 fundamental premise of the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Walton.
6. Imagine the following hypothetical situation. You are closing a contentious AfD, in which none of the participants were SPAs, sockpuppets or complete newbies; they were all established good-faith users. The majority of participants (say 6) !voted Keep; however, most of them just said "Keep per FredBloggs21" or "Keep, it's useful info that might be sourced one day". The minority who !voted Delete (say 4), on the other hand, expressly referred to policies and guidelines in their rationale. How would you close the AfD?
It would depend on the weight of arguments made for deletion. Assuming there is no response to serious policy-driven concerns raised by those arguing for deletion, the article ought to be deleted. Obviously there are other important questions, the answers to which are not contained in your premise. But if your primary question is whether a minority can "win" an AfD debate by having policy clearly on their side, the answer is yes. To clarify a related issue, I would make a distinction between administrators/bureaucrats using discretion to impose their own opinion or interpretation of policy, and administrators/bureaucrats using discretion to support community norms and policy. The first is unacceptable. The second is necessary if our policies and community norms are to have meaning. The important point is that there is a difference between the opinion of the community (as reflected in policy and norms), which we are trying to execute, and the democratic will (as reflected by averaging out the views of all regular editors). Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your honest answer. However, I completely disagree with the approach you've outlined, and therefore cannot support you. WaltonAssistance! 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)
7. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sites that attempt to "out" editors through the publication of personal information that the editor himself has not made public are anathema and should never be linked; even ignoring the arbcom ruling to that effect, such sites do serious damage to the collaborative environment here and ought not to be supported. As for other forms of personal attack, a similar policy could be applied to sites making egregious personal assaults on Wikipedia editors. But just as on-wiki, a lot of things are decried as personal attacks which are actually nothing of the sort. So as with most things this requires a case-by-case approach. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Christopher Parham before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support. Literally was surprised to see this here and learn that Christopher isn't already an admin. Very strong record of contributions, fully qualified. Newyorkbrad 18:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Excellent candidate. In my experience has a good temperament for the job and his contribs show all the right experience. WjBscribe 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Durin mentioned here that he should be an admin, so I'll take that as an endorsement. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I often see this editor doing good work on the project. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I see no problems in the last 500 edits. Gutworth 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wow, great stuff! :) Majorly (talk | meet) 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious Support. Walton Need some help? 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - as per Majorly..----Cometstyles 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Great editor. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 19:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Looks good to me! I see no problems. Best of luck! --Trumpetband 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Looking good! I'm glad to support. Jmlk17 19:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. While the examples brought up in Oleg Alexandrov's oppose comment are concerning they aren't very recent and they seem to be isolated incidents.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mopify surprised he wasn't a janitor already. --Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, why not. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - sure, we should all be civil 100% of the time, but we're human. If Christopher's been editing here since 2004, and the below diffs are the worst incivility he's ever dished out, then hell, he deserves not only the mop but a halo and a seat on ArbCom. In all seriousness, his track record viewed as a whole demonstrates a commitment to civility and inspires a lot of confidence that he'll use the tools well. MastCell Talk 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Everyone loses their cool at times, and I have no reason to believe that Christopher Parham will not make a fine admin. —METS501 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, we all make mistakes, and I think that Christoper's good edits and experience outweighs the few mishaps he's had. Christopher's editing isn't what I'd call consistant, but I'm sure that it adds up enough to make him a fine administrator. *Cremepuff222* 00:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as experienced as they come and I don't think that Oleg's diffs below are representative of the candidates usual demeanor. Pascal.Tesson 00:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support Although Oleg's diffs are minor negatives, one lapse in judgment cannot gainsay an impressive history of thoughtful work in every area of the project. This day has been loooooong in coming (I first offered to nominate Chris 18 months ago, as I'm sure hundreds of others have also), and the project will be forever better now that is arrived. Xoloz 00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support with pleasure. Where is this lapse of which you speak? — CharlotteWebb 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Excellent record as an editor, will be a credit to wikipedia as an admin. Nick mallory 02:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Overall acceptable record as an editor and has a firm grip in policy.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 03:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Edit Conflict Support. One heated contribution in an already heated debate isn't enough to sway me against over 2 years of grade A encyclopedia writing. Good luck. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, changed from neutral in the light of answer to question 4 above. --Guinnog 04:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. More support. Christopher shows dedication to the ideals of Wikipedia, and moving to correct past mistakes is a noble goal for any person, Wikipedian or otherwise. The featured article contributions are impressive, but these other qualities are what remain most useful for an admin. --Edwin Herdman 05:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Absolutely. —Encephalon 05:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, I first met this user in the school debate. He had a lot of sensible things to say and kept his cool. Definitely admin material. David D. (Talk) 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support good editor, good luck. The Rambling Man 07:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. strong support agree with whoever said cant bevile that Chris is not admin looking at his edits he created many fine articls he fights agaenist vandleism he works with templeats my feeling we need more admin working in temepleatesOo7565 07:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Easy Support Answer 5 was concise. the_undertow talk 08:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support not likely to abuse the tools. Everybody makes mistakes. —Anas talk? 13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Unlikely to misuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 14:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support excellent contributor. Tim! 17:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Seems like a great editor who will make a great admin.--Alabamaboy 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support WatchingYouLikeAHawk 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Rettetast 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, Meets my criteria. --Random Say it here! 23:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I strongly oppose Christopher Parham's views on RfA and would oppose his RfB candidacy. However, his views on RfA (aside from the general dispositions they reveal) have nno bearing on his qualification for adminship. So, given that and the quality of his contributions, I am tentatively supporting his candidacy. Regarding the civility issues, the comment at Danny's RfA was inappropriate, but I think we can take that in context of the rather heated atmosphere of that particular RfA. It doesn't excuse the incivility, but it may explain it. This I am more concerned about. I agree with the belief conveyed in the second sentence, but reject the conclusion arrived at in the first. The mentality that "If we ignore dumb people, maybe they'll be smarter" can very easily become "If you disagree with me, I'll ignore you." In the absence of other possible concerns (which I was not able to find), I will support this RfA. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The trouble is, what makes you think this candidate won't apply the same thing to XfD closures? The mentality of "If you disagree with me, I'll ignore you" could apply equally to contentious XfDs as to RfA. His answer to my q6 above has affirmed my worries. WaltonAssistance! 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It could extend to XfDs as well but, then again, I think admins closing XfDs ought to have more discretion than bureaucrats closing RfAs. If in closing XfDs the candidate indeed draws a distinction between "using discretion to impose [one's] own opinion or interpretation of policy" and "using discretion to support community norms and policy", there should be no problem. I think that the critical element to drawing such a distinction is the ability and willingness to consider the possibility that one's personal interpretation of policy may be wrong (or, at least, not supported by the community). Despite the two diffs, I think the candidates possesses these. If I'm wrong, then I hope that he will at least keep in mind the concerns raised in this RfA. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - thoughtful, good judgment ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --Spike Wilbury 14:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I have generally been impressed with Christopher's thoughtfulness, and in addressing his flawed choice of language in the comments complained of. I think that incident wholly out of character, though understandable given the heat of the moment, and it does not change my evaluation of him. We all (and I certainly include myself) should encourage better contributions to discussion, not simply criticize empty ones, to show the positive alternatives available. --Michael Snow 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Overdue Jaranda wat's sup 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per Newyorkbrad. ElinorD (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support news to me that he wasn't one. But then again, I'm usually clued out -- Samir 19:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - I thought he already was one. Biruitorul 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - seen him around, sounds cool and rational. Nice contribs too. NikoSilver 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. –Outriggr § 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. seems thoughtful and generally level-headed, and the article-writing is great. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Thought he was one. I don't really see a problem with civility overall. Maybe a few pointed comments, but he's only human. And, though I voted oppose over there, some of the other opposes were pretty idiotic... — Rebelguys2 talk 05:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Good answers and everything else seems pretty much ok, too. —AldeBaer 07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support--MONGO 10:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. AW 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support for his good edit summary useage and for his edit count on Wikipedia name space. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 18:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support since while the Talk numbers seem a bit odd, I am confident in his faithfulness to policy per his questions. TewfikTalk 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Weak Support Major concerns in the oppose section, but I think that this user wil stil make a good admin. Captain panda 22:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Terence 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Great editor! PeaceNT 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support He seems a bit true to the policy and knowledgable. I like it! •Felix• T 17:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, no problem. Trebor 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - I agree with Oleg below that admins should remain civil and respectful at all times (especially in the face of adversity). And since you have stepped forward to become a sysadmin, I assume you are ready and willing to accept this responsibility. Good luck, The Transhumanist    20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. The two examples cited below were perhaps a bit uncouth, but not, in my opinion, a blatant breech of civility. Parham is an excellent contributor, though anyone who's around for as long as he has is guaranteed to make a few statements that upset people. If this is his worst, he's far better than most. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I was very surprised to learn a while back that he isnt one already! — Lost(talk) 02:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. A great editor who cares about quality. I'd like to see more article talk-page interaction in future, but otherwise Christopher's an excellent candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per answers, and above Modernist 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose per this comment at Danny's RfA and per this post on the mailing list. I believe admins should be civil and respectful at all times. You may disagree with others, but characterizing other people's opinions as idiotic and worthless is couter-productive and rarely achieves anything useful. An admin ought to know that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah come on. I know you had strong opinions on the Danny RfA but it was a heated debate with lots of people on both sides crossing the civility line. Now of course that does not mean that these are acceptable but perhaps it would be best to consider whether this is part of a wider pattern of incivility or condescension on Christopher's part. If it isn't, I suggest we leave the wiki-drama behind and move on. Pascal.Tesson 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pascal, you make me look as if driven by revenge for a long-ago lost battle. Come on. :) (And I voted support for Danny anyway.) My view is exactly as stated, incivility and dismissive attitude towards other people is inappropriate. People look up to admins for guidance, and rude admins are damaging to the project. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice that I have two diffs in there, not one. To me, they show a trend of dismissive attitude towards others, rather than an isolated incident. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Oleg, wasn't trying to portray you as a revenge thirsty maniac! But I do feel that Christopher's comments, however unconstructive, have to be put in the proper context which is Danny's chaotic RfA and the ensuing drama (and I'm saying so as someone who took part in both). Pascal.Tesson 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my vote in light of Christopher Parham's response to question 4 above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Oppose per this post cited by Oleg Alexandrov above. My problem, however, is not with incivility (it wasn't particularly uncivil) but with the attitude expressed in that posting. The line of argument was basically "well, if closing bureaucrats ignore RfA votes that they don't agree with, then this will make people cast more sensible votes." This principle is what is driving Wikipedia into authoritarianism. In RfA, XfD and all other processes, the vote (not !vote) of an established user in good standing should never be ignored, even if the closing admin/bureaucrat views it as "idiotic". We don't need more authoritarian admins. Walton (alternate account) 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck out some of my comments above, because it's unfair to accuse the candidate of authoritarianism. I want to clarify that I have nothing personal against this candidate. I just disagree with their attitude towards the correct way to close discussions, and since closing discussions is an important part of an admin's work, I feel I have to oppose. This candidate is, nonetheless, highly qualified, hence why I originally supported before changing to oppose. WaltonAssistance! 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I tentatively object, first because of civility concerns as above, second because of a lack of interaction with other editors (evidenced by a near-total absence of Talk or User_talk edits throughout 2007, other than vandal reverts and "subst:test") and third because his usage of AFD is quite specifically limited to debates on schools, where his response generally boils down to "the other side doesn't have an argument". Not participating in AFD is fine; only participating to push a particular agenda casts doubts upon one's judgment. >Radiant< 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, incivility problems and worrying views, as noted by Walton. Everyking 10:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Arrogant. "Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization." — MichaelLinnear 04:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral per Oleg Alexandrov. We can disagree without being rude about it. These incidents seem uncharacteristic so I cannot oppose over them, but they are sufficiently serious to prevent me supporting. --Guinnog 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to support.[reply]
  1. Neutral leaning Support. Looks very strong to me, but I'd like more information along the lines of what Oleg Alexandrov brought up. 2 diffs could still be 2 isolated incidents, but if they truly are indicative of a trend toward incivility I would have to oppose on the principal that admins should be nearly always civil. GoodnightmushTalk 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. It is not so much the incivility in Oleg's diffs which concern me, it is more the thought behind them, where opinions diverging with his are labeled as unworthy of acknowledgment, and that approach has led to a lot of the grief and the flame wars we have seen the past year. I cannot see that Chris has been the biggest offender in this regard however, and I hold his contributions in high regard in general, so I won't oppose, instead I'll just recommend that he takes some of the real concerns onboard. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm with Sjakkalle. In addition, though, you have shown that you are very capable generally with discussion, although there has been a marginal lack of it for my liking. Otherwise, no real problem. Daniel 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. neutral per Sjakkalle. Belittling people one disagrees with has become common and is a major reason discussions are so acidic and polarized nowadays... WP:CIVIL exists for a reason. --W.marsh 01:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per concerns cited by Sjakkalle and Daniel. Riana ⁂ 03:51, 27 May 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.
Category