Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philip Baird Shearer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Philip Baird Shearer

[edit]

Final (80/4/1) ended 22:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) – Philip has been around since October 2003 and he's got more than 15 thousand edits under his belt. Specialising in military history he has contributed to everything from the Battle of Thermopylae to the Bombing of Dresden. After being prodded several times by different people he has finally consented to being nominated to adminship.

I'm most familiar with Philip through debating with him on requested moves. We usually disagree but I've always found him to be polite and willing to work for a compromise. He is closely familiar with the policies and procedures of Wikipedia and I think he can be trusted to use the admin tools with wisdom and restraint. Haukur 20:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept Haukur Þorgeirsson nomination. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nominate and support. Haukur 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nothing wrong with specalist admins support - sure, he'll mostly focus on moves requiring deletions but its a flag, specialist admins are a good thing -- Tawker 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Bloody good user. A strong enough contribution record that I'm prepared to support even if he doesn't intend to use the flamethrower very much. The Land 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Probably won't use the tools very much, but hard to imagine he will abuse them TigerShark 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Excellent editor. — TheKMantalk 22:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Dedicated and reasonable long-term contributor. Dragons flight 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --digital_me(t/c) 22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I've seen this editor's work for a long time and I believe that he will be a good admin. -Will Beback 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support inteligent, diligent, hard working, experienced and friendly. What other qualities could you ask for in an administrator? Thryduulf 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support looks like he's in it for the long-haul. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per above. Excellent editor. DarthVader 23:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Absolutely nothing wrong with specialist admins, in fact they are, in my opinion, a very good thing in the more specialised area of janitoring. Besides, I very much doubt that Philip will abuse the tools - he's been here longer than most of us admins. Rje 23:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Around since 2003. Definitely committed. -- Shizane talkcontribs 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: excellent role model of an admin already. Jonathunder 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Tawker. ILovePlankton ( L) 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Kwazy good editor. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support per all of the above. —Khoikhoi 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support not enough portal talk edits. Kotepho 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Steal RadioKirk's cliche support Per above. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support Rama's Arrow 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, most definitely. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support dammit where were you hiding till now? ;) Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yep, good candidate. Highly unlikely to abuse the admin tools. Even in disagreement, civil and level-headed. Brief answers to crappy standardised questions notwithstanding, very good editor. Whatever happens, just don't spam my talk page with a templated thank you message. Support. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. How can I not support? I wish there was something brilliant I could say, but I guess the facts speak for themselves. Redux 02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support ForestH2
  26. Support! Fits my criteria (however much that's worth) -- DakPowers (Talk) 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support A strong editor with high level of talk communication. Kukini 03:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I like a guy who writes what he knows and works with people. Give 'em a broom! --CTSWyneken 03:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Merovingian {T C @} 03:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, very committed. He's done alot of good, and could do even more for Wikipedia as an admin. Royboycrashfan 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. S - per above --GeorgeMoney T·C 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, seems like a good candidate. --Rory096 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support who would propose deletion of this guy? (get it? he was prodded by other users, and...oh never mind) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. A "holy-cow-that's-a-lot-of-edits" support per The Land. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. A Buchanan-Hermit support. Computerjoe's talk 08:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Gsl 09:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support from history enthusiast. - Darwinek 11:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Has been around for a long time and knows what he's doing. Zaxem 11:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak support. Concerns about poor judgement are valid, however. The editor needs to revise some of his practices. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support--Jusjih 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Tony Sidaway 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Long overdue. I disagree with him on a lot of issues but then I don't think it's healthy if all admins agree with one another on stuff.[reply]
  43. Support --Terence Ong 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support! OMG Can't believe he hasn't been nominated until now --Mahogany 14:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support seems overdue for adminship. Tim! 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, per Terence Ong. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Thought-I'd-already-voted-already redundant support (oh, must've been the MoP... [grin]) RadioKirk talk to me 19:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support.  Grue  22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support An A+ user. Mr. Turcottetalk 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Accomplished editor, no reason to suspect tools won't be put to good use.--cjllw | TALK 00:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Felt like I'd join the party. Excellent edit summary, particularly in talk pages (shows good judgement and ability to collaborate). NorseOdin 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support – Gurch 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support definitely seems like a good user, would be good with the tools. -- Deville (Talk) 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support; many years of good contributions. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, great contributor to Military History and other fields and I'm sure will be an equally good admin. Leithp 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --Jay(Reply) 20:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, a nice bloke. Thumbelina 22:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, per many of the above --JoanneB 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, I see no problems -- Samir धर्म 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Unnecessary pile-on support. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 01:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, of course.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 03:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support -- very surprised this editor isn't already. - Longhair 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Conscious 09:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support an excellent editor and one who is guaranteed to use adminship sensibly. Stefán Ingi 09:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Hard-working, long-term editor. Just what the mop is for. Marskell 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support seems reasonable. Captainj 11:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support no problems here. --Tone 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support seems like a great candidate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support edits look fine to me.--MONGO 03:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, despite all the unkind things he says about peerage wonks ;) Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. -- Saluyot 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Joe I 06:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Passes my test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 22:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Big Bandwagon With 4-wheel drive Support. I've seen so many excellent edits from PBS. Good editors dont always make good admins. The two require different skill sets and temperments. But I have full confidence he will.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Kafziel 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. support Seem him around. Appears to ber a good wikipedian.Geni 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    support -- have only witnessed good contributions from this editor. No doubt he will use the added tools wisely. - Longhair 06:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Note Duplicate vote. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Philip's a good smart man. Shimgray | talk | 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Has shown consistently poor judgement when supporting the idea of "approval voting" and similar notions that in practice boil down to "consensus is a majority vote" over at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There's also the problem of supporting bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. These actions are in my opinion inappropriate for and incompatible with adminship. Peter Isotalo 10:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. The diacritics issue worries me. Dr Zak 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Significant edits are just 11%. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Does not appear that he needs or wants the tools from his one sentence answer to Q1. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral. I would like to ask Philip to explain his relation to Bombing of Dresden in World War II. While without a doubt he has done a great job policing and expanding this article, it has been my experience (many months ago) that he treats this article as his personal 'turf', and his opposition to expanding lead (to confirm to WP:LEAD) based on the logic (IIRC) that the current lead is NPOVed and any change will POV it is one of the reasons that would prevent this article from going to FA. I'd like to stress here that this was my only negative encounter with Philip, and as many other supporting him show above it was likely an exception than the rule, nonetheless I feel somewhat uneasy about giving the 'mop and bucket' to Philip until I am sure he would not, for example, protect the article just to keep it in the current NPOV shape.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer is 'No'. A slightly longer: There are specific problems to do with this page and historical revisionism (negationism), the whole large section "Points of view", (large in comparison to other articles on WWII city bombing), is an indication of this. This is not to say that everyone who adds material to the "it was a war crime" section is a revisionist, far from it, but it is difficult to expand the introduction with a short balanced NPOV about the legality and the morality of the attack, without it swamping the introduction. In the past when the introduction became subject to a strong disagreement, a straw poll was held over it old straw poll. It is short, because previously, interested editors, could not agree with how to expand the introduction and agreed to keep it brief. I would encourage anyone who wants to amend the introduction to discuss it first, and if agreement on to how to expand it can not be reached, that another straw poll (the old was was a long time ago and opinions change) was held clarify the choices and to help build a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Just a prediction that this user will with certainty abuse adminship to further his bizarrely ignorant crusade to remove diacritics (or "funny foreign squiggles" as he calls them) from Wikipedia. He has been edit and move warring over this, moving Úbeda to Ubeda, Würzburg radar to Wuerzburg radar, José Ayala Lasso to Jose Ayala Lasso etc., and on top of that he makes absurd edits like this one. He is under the illusion that just because some people omit all diacritics (because of technical restrictions or just laziness or ignorance), the no-diacritic version of each specific word or name becomes a valid "alternative spelling" that should be separately (and even primarily) noted in each such article. 70.26.72.99 00:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edit count scares me :) --Osbus 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Philip is undeniably crazy. His behavior at Talk:William of Orange and his editwarring over a redirect (nicely reported at WP:LAME) testify to that. Philip is the guy who is famed for making claims based on original authorship of a redirect. However, his craziness was far surpassed by the WP:POINT roam of his dear opponent, the "psychopath" Francis. All in all, this is a vote over who will be the chief lunatic to mop the lunatic asylum. But that's wikipedia. Sometimes it seems that the major hurdle for constructive work is the fact that this site is full of insanes who need a place to be kings of the hill, to feel "success". Philip is certainly representative of that. If his medication is better these days... When dear Philip will now be assigned to adminship (a thing the majority of lunatics easily do here), I just hope that he can, if needed, be then de-adminned easily.

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Philip Baird Shearer (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 153 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 29, November, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 59.4% Minor edits: 73.19%
Average edits per day: 47.96 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 743 edits) : Major article edits: 68.4% Minor article edits: 80%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.12% (156)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.22% (11)
Superficial article edits (wikify/grammar/spelling/tagging): 36.24% (1812)
Unmarked article edits: 14.1% (705)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1560 | Average edits per page: 3.21 | Edits on top: 11.26%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 11.1% (555 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 43.46% (2173 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 10.62% (531 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 34.82% (1741 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 66.34% (3317) | Article talk: 23.3% (1165)
User: 0.28% (14) | User talk: 2.76% (138)
Wikipedia: 3.44% (172) | Wikipedia talk: 3% (150)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0.54% (27)
Category: 0.1% (5)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.24% (12)
Username Philip Baird Shearer
Total edits 16323
Distinct pages edited 5027
Average edits/page 3.247
First edit 03:16, October 20, 2003
 
(main) 10535
Talk 3504
User 72
User talk 681
Image 24
Template 82
Template talk 51
Category 69
Category talk 6
Wikipedia 686
Wikipedia talk 612
Portal 1
 G.He 23:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Some help with WP:RM, which is a page I watch.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: There are none specifically, but I do like to research an item which does not yet have a page and create one when the links from another article suggest that one would be useful. Some examples are Maritz Rebellion, History of rugby union, and Robert Overton. Recently I have been working on some new articles which tie into immediate post war European treaties and events like the Council of Foreign Ministers. Yesterday I knocked up an article on Chambers Book of Days because it is referenced by several other pages I have contributed to.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Numerous conflicts, some of which show up on my user talk page and its archives. The recent move of Cavalier back to Cavaliers (royalists) annoyed me because I thought it was sorted and then we had to go around the loop again, (See Talk:Cavalier). Probably in the same way, although I have learnt over time on this project, that time is my friend, a month or more away from a disagreement usually makes it evaporate, and besides the disputes are never that serious.

DriniQuestion

Do you think sysops performing actions not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you are asking please elucidate. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are policies regarding deletions, blocks, etc (you should know about them if you're at RFA). Sometimes admins make deletions or blocks for reasons that are not written down at those policies. Should they be sanctioned (punished)? How should they be sanctioned? -- Drini 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no experience of having to consider how or if "they be sanctioned", but like other decision making in Wikipedia, I would expect there to be a consensus building exercise on this, and having read what others wrote I would then express an opinion. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Philip_Baird_Shearer&oldid=1147963380"