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

Philip Gronowski[edit]

Final (2/15/5); Ended Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:27:34 (UTC)

Philip Gronowski (talk · contribs) - I — zero » nominate Philip Gronowski. Has joined Wikipedia since February 26, 2006. He has help our community by cleaning up vandalism. — zero » 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination Although Z.E.R.O. got it pretty much covered in his nomination, there's a few points I'd like to clarify in my co-nom. Phil is a very active vandal fighter, his reversions are quick and always follow with an appropriate warning - often stopping vandals in their tracks. Phil contributes to AIV and his reports are always valid, giving him the tools would allow him to skip the AIV step and block prolific vandals before further damage is done. He has also got some very good contributions to Afd allowing him to gain a good experience of consensus, something which is key to an admin. Phil has recently come under severe harrasment from a Statin Island IP which was most probably down to his personal details being listed on a public website, he has showed true proffesionalism during this and acted in a way befitting of an admin which can only be congratulated, his suggestions of page protections and other appropriate actions during this have always been correct, and leads me to believe he has a firm grasp of policy. Phil would never abuse tools, it would only further his contributions. His dedication to the project since joining in February 2006 shows he has a real passion for wikipedia. I now leave it for your consideration Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Philip Gronowski Contribs 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Well, as a vandal fighter and new page patroller I can easily see myself at Administrator intervention against vandalism, candidates for speedy deletion, and requests for page protection. These are some of the more important administrative jobs on Wikipedia, without admins working on them Wikipedia would quickly lose its credibility and fun. I got out of AFD for the longest time, but I am still familiar with policy and look forward to going back. Later on, if the community decides I am worthy to be an admin, I would like to be a Checkuser clerk. I also plan on familiarising myself with copyright and fair-use policies.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My contributions to vandal fighting and new page patrolling are probably the things I like most about my Wikipedia activities. Wikipedia can never function with vandals and non-notable pages floating around. I feel that my contributions and patrolling raised the credibility of this project in the eyes of many users. Also dealing with persistent vandals and spammers is a thing I am pleased about. Some of the things I have had to deal with in real life because of vandals/spammers I crossed on Wikipedia are annoying, but the satisfaction that comes from editing Wikipedia makes up for it.
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: Oh yes. Don Murphy is probably the guy that has caused me the most stress, with the Verónica Castro spammers coming in a far second. There was also the Tate-LaBianca murders spammers that caused a bit of stress. In most of these situations I just ignored whatever the vandals/spammers said and carried on with my proper editing. I also try to respond with humour, but that usually doesn't work. I will continue to respond to future vandals in the same way I have done previously, civilly and calmly. While I try to deal with the situations myself, other editors often lend me with support, and I thank them all for it. I also try to see things from the other POV, and am willing to admit my mistakes. If worse does come to worse, a RFC is what I will use.
4. Optional questions from Richard Cavell. How would you close these two AfDs? How would you vote on this AfD?
A: I would keep List of television shows set in Las Vegas. It needs a definite clean-up, using articles like these as a guide for that clean-up. I would avoid closing the Cwatset due to my inexperience in the subject, and would probably contact an administrator with more knowledge on it. If that option was not available, I would merge into closure with a twist, as it only something that is closed with a twist. I would vote keep, on the grounds of it being a useful and proper list that is too long to be on the subjects page. It also needs clean-up.


General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as co-nom, best of luck Phil Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. seems trustworthy and could use the tools. Good luck!:) --James, La gloria è a dio 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support. Looks fine. YechielMan 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral.Reply[reply]
    Support. 2716 total edits, 1210 mainspace edits. You've got my vote! Kntrabssi 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to Oppose.Reply[reply]
    Support. Good experience, good answers to questions. -Mschel 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to Oppose.Reply[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I'm sorry but I have to oppose. Almost all mainspace edits are vandal reverts, giving you no real experience of contributing content or dealing with disputes over it. Answer to Q.2 is weak as a result. Only about 200 talk contributions (user & article - including warning vandals) show that you haven't engaged much with the Community. And actually the answer to Q.1 is a little dubious- I would expect admin candidates to familiarise themselves with copyright policy before accepting an RfA nom. Just 163 Wikipedia space contribs are rather difficult to try and glean your policy knowledge from, and combined with lack of experience elsewhere suggests to me you need to get more involved in policy discussions before I would be comfortable supporting. You're doing great work as a vandal fighter, but I think you need to broaden out elsewhere. WjBscribe 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose, sorry. Your Wikipedia space count is just too low, there's not enough evidence that you're experienced enough beyond vandalfight, which by the way I commend. Periods of rather low activity also denote that you might not have real need for the tools. I'll be happy to support in a month or two if you increase and diversify your flux of contributions.--Húsönd 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose per Husond and WJB. I would definitely support in some time, with a more increased and varied output. Sorry. – Riana talk 02:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose Nearly all the edits are to mainspace or user talk. Also, I cite the points above that Wikipedia edits are low. I don't like to vote against a person that I think will use the tools and can be trusted with them, but I just think you need more Wikipedia edits before I can be certain you have the experience to be an admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose - to be an admin, you need to have knowledge of deletion policy. The candidate does not demonstrate involvement in that. The core deletion policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:ISNOT etc) have applications way beyond the AfD debates - an admin must be in a position to judge edits and adjudicate edit wars, etc. By the way, what's this? [1] - Richard Cavell 03:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: I do not understand the first part of your opposition, I think I have plenty of knowledge in those policies. In the second part of your oppose, I later said that I got carried away with that particular user: [2]. While it was stupid of me, you can notice that I did no thing like that after the incident. Philip Gronowski Contribs 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose. Upon seeing your handling of 207.6.209.233, I believe you still have a bit to learn about handling vandals. This was only a few months ago, so it's not like you didn't know the way to go about dealing with vandals. It is never neccesary to feed the trolls or to bite back. If you are to be an administrator, you need to always keep a cool head. Your edit counts are enough to get you by (despite what the above say), but you need to be as professional as possible in handling vandalism to be an admin. All the best :) Kntrabssi 03:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See the response above. I admit that I got carried away. Everybody can make mistakes, and that was one of mine. Philip Gronowski Contribs 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose - Per this [3] edit summary. --After Midnight 0001 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment Although it's inappropriate, it sounds like he was making a reference to Samuel L. Jackson's line, "I'm tired of these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane" from Snakes on a Plane. Just providing context. I agree that he shouldn't have said that. Leebo T/C 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment We need to report that link to Wikipedia:Oversight due to personal information. Real96 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: In which way was I uncivil to that user? I swore during an edit summary and quoted a popular line from a popular (yet unsuccessful) movie. It was a joke! Did I ever call the user a motherfucker? No, I said I was tired of the motherfucking spam. Not of the user. The spam. How was a summary like that inappropriate? That is one of the incidents where I tried responding with humour. Philip Gronowski Contribs 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment It's inappropriate because it sounds like you're angry, and it's a very easy comment to misinterpret. Like you said, the movie was unsuccessful, so the chances that someone is going to recognize it as humor and not incivility are slim. Leebo T/C 04:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment Also, if the subject of that article were to see the history at some point, would they be view their article being called a MFing page as humor? --After Midnight 0001 05:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment They do not own the article, and I am not calling the article itself a motherfucker, I am calling the page that contains the article a motherfucker. While I can now understand that a person who has not seen the movie will not be able to accept or understand the humour, I stand by my decision to use it. If I had instead said "I am tired of this spam on this page", would it be considered uncivil? I don't think so. But as soon as you add one word (or two, whichever way you look at it) it becomes uncivil. It is only considered uncivil because of those words? If it is, then understand that those words in no way call anybody a motherfucker. They call the spam a motherfucker. I can't be expected to explain the meaning of every word in every edit summary I use. If those words cause offense to anyone, I apologise. But I stand by my use of them. Philip Gronowski Contribs 05:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment I think that what everyone is trying to say is that you have to think about how other people might interpret your comments, and choose your words more carefully. I understand the movie reference now, but your edit summary still makes you sound as if you're angry. Humour doesn't always translate well in plain text, especially when not everybody is aware of the context. Perhaps something shorter and less controversial like "removed spam" or "spam is bad" would have been better. Although it may feel as if everybody is picking on you, this RfA is a measure of how the community judges you as a potential administrator at this time, not as a person. I don't think anybody has said that you're a bad person. Please think about what has been said here and treat this RfA as a learning experience and an opportunity for growth. --Kyoko 06:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC), modified 12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose. The diff cited by After Midnight really says it all. Admins must be able to act with civility, even when under stress. As many admins will attest, administrators face criticism and abuse on a daily basis, and the spam seen in this diff doesn't even approach the rude comments that admins have to put up with. I suggest that in the future, please refrain from expressing yourself like that, and if you feel very stressed by something or someone, consider stepping back or at least pausing before making hasty comments. Even if this was a reference to Snakes on a Plane, it was inappropriate and shouldn't have been said. Another thing: as others have said, more involvement in various policy pages would also be good. I hope you take everyone's advice to heart. --Kyoko 04:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose per above. Real96 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose. that comment pretty muchknocks you out of contention for this rfa, try again later.--Wizardman 05:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose can't support a user who can't resist flame bait. [4] [5] Plus lack of edits outside pure vandal reverts. Suggest withdrawal.--Jersey Devil 06:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose, a quarter due to the actual edit (would have been neutral just on that), but the responses above give me little confidence that this user appreciates what extra standards of behaviour administrators need to behave to, and that attempting to Wikilawyer your way out of what the objection was for rather than accepting that you made an error in judgement is not befitting an administrator. The ER comment tops the cake, really. That, and the low experience in policy and process. Nope, not this time. Daniel Bryant 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I scrolled back two pages of contribs, and in them found these edit summaries which I consider totally inappropriate: [6], [7], [8]. Administrators need to be careful with what they say, and to especially not feed the trolls. This is in addition to my main comment above. Daniel Bryant 07:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Strongly Oppose I believe that this user is immature and it has been suggested that he has committed an act of vandalism by making unwarranted edits to the Rossville, Staten Island article. He also seems to be petty and vindictive as he has engaged in a campaign of antagonism by engaging in an edit and flame war with another user in that same article. [9] Suggest withdrawal. 172.135.41.206 09:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You should register an account, if you don't have one yet. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you, Kncyu38, I will register an account as you suggested. By the way, I am NOT a "sock puppeteer". My vote has been my one and only vote against the candidacy of Philip Gronowski as a Wikipedia Administrator. 172.135.41.206 09:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose per objections above. I strongly suggest you withdraw this RFA, improve the issues noted above, and come back for adminship in a few months time. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 09:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose. Suggest user goes and does something useful with their life instead – Qxz 09:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was no need to be insulting, there. -- nae'blis 10:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Qxz has left this message on all current RfAs, so this should not be considered a complaint against this particular user. It is rather a protest vote against Wikipedia.[10] So, no need to draw out the discussion in this particular forum. — coelacan — 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was just coming back here to note that discovery myself, thanks! -- nae'blis 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose (Changed from support) My former statements still stand but I am opposing per After Midnight. -Mschel 11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose per reasons listed by others above. I think more experience is required before you receive the tools. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Your experience fits your desired admin post, but I'd like to see some further experience in the other areas. You never know when an editor might need your help with page protection or XFD when you are an administrator, so a bit of prior experience helps. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral On principle I will not change my support vote to an oppose, but I am withdrawing my support based on the civility issues that have been raised. YechielMan 04:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral per some civility issues shown in the diffs and what I perceive as weak answers to the standard questions. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral I remain impartial, as I did not know Philip before encountering this RfA, but the stubbornness related to valid concerns is holding back my support. Leebo T/C 10:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral (from Support) too many concerns brought up by the opposers makes me change my mind. - Anas talk? 10:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[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