Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EncMstr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] EncMstr

Final: (31/1/0); ended 00:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

EncMstr (talk · contribs) - EncMstr has been editing Wikipedia for over two years, during which time he has made over 9,000 edits. He is a good vandal fighter with over 50 reports to WP:AIV, and has good article writing experience, as an active member of WikiProject Oregon. He has also spent much time at the Village pump and Reference desk. EncMstr is an experienced and mature user who can be trusted with the tools. Epbr123 (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I, EncMstr, am pleased to accept this nomination. As always, I will endeavor to improve the encyclopedia and working environment in the many little ways it is done:

  • Value, preserve, and build on positive contributions
  • Undo removal of positive contributions
  • Remove vandalism
  • Make the work of vandals more difficult
  • Make the work of contributors easier

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Blocking vandals is very important, so I'd devote time each wikiday. Also, article move-over requests (or whatever it's called), addressing various classes of WP:PROD articles, but I have not investigated what kind of backlog there is. Perhaps there's a future in WP:3RR followups, but I expect plenty of extended focused compassion and insight is required, so I'd test the waters before committing to it, then do my best. Sometimes it seems like there isn't enough administrator support at WP:DYK sometimes so I'd help there, unless there are too many cooks in the kitchen.
My interests and awareness evolve, so I'll identify useful tasks most suited to me. Naturally, I'll listen carefully to the community.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions help move Wikipedia forward, such as work on Magic Mile, Chairlift, Silcox Hut, Portland Tram, Oregon Garden, and Barlow Road. Another aspect is structuring articles so other editors can learn by seeing. For example List of tunnels in the United States#Oregon is an attempt to add value to an otherwise not-so-informative article.
Another dimension of "best contributions" come from reverting vandalism. This has two effects: frustrate and demoralize vandals (if they don't see their handiwork, how will they feel?), and demonstrate to contributors that their work is valued. Contributions which might be of wider value are answering questions at help talk:table and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (though I haven't done the latter much since June), and improving WP:BYPASS.
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 only incident which comes to mind is difficulty communicating wikipedia policy to Pleasantville (talk · contribs) almost a year ago. She rejected concerns over WP:COI and WP:NPOV as she edited articles about her husband, company, and books. (Here's a typical reply from her.) Several of us (including Jossi (talk · contribs) and Will Beback (talk · contribs)) firmly insisted she follow the rules. My best—and worst—message was this one which might have been a little too aggressive, but seemed to find its mark and bring good results. I see she is now doing helpful, non-combative work.
Otherwise, I seem to have little association with conflict, probably a result of decades of life experience.
In the future, lots of patience for those demonstrating good faith.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/EncMstr before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support, yes beat the nom! Great candidate! Dreamy § 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support (also beat the nom). A good user as far as I can see. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Would make a great admin. Good luck. Timmeh! 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support Looks good! Hiberniantears (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. I work frequently with EncMstr, most notably on Barlow Road and Portland Aerial Tram. I would highlight his intense focus on improving articles; he does independent research, creates maps and visual aids, and deliberates on talk pages, without getting unnecessarily drawn into argument or tangential discussion. An excellent candidate for admin tools. -Pete (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support My interactions with this user have been great, and they're obviously trustworthy. VanTucky 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support per Peterforsyth. SpencerT♦C 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support EncMstr has always been positive and helpful and patient, especially with editors like me who are fairly new.

    Great work on the article. Thanks for the excellent effort. I notice you added the <br clear="all" />, back in. That's fairly unusual to do when the photos are simply interacting with text. See, for example, Oregon which has had a lot of effort applied to make it react and appear well when subjected to a wide variety of browsers, style sheets, resolutions, and font sizes. I recommend removing them. Perhaps a few
    's would accomplish your goals? —EncMstr 09:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    Awotter (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. Per the nom, EncMstr (talk · contribs)'s answer to the nom, and answers to the questions. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support EncMstr has always been patient with and welcoming to newcomers, assumes good faith above and beyond the call of duty, often taking time to civilly explain things to users when most of us would just template 'em. He also knows his grammar and wikimarkup, and though this doesn't appear to be a requirement for adminship, I sure wish it was emphasized more. Great answers to the questions, can start and improve articles--all together a great all-around editor, who would only be better with the use of the tools. Katr67 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - A good balance of talk page to article page. Admins are often the first phase of dispute resolution, and use of talk pages helps. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support: Great work! - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Has been around since Nov 2005 with over 9000 edits with over 4000 in mainspace and no concerns with track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support meets my standards. No problems seen. See no indication will abuse tools. No incivility seen on talk pages. Dlohcierekim 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support Qualified, to say the least. --Sharkface217 02:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Pourqoui pas? Icestorm815 (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support I have seen EncMstr around somewhere, but for the life of me I can't remember nor figure out where. But I do remember it was a pleasant occurance. Great editor, great asset, going to be a great admin. Jmlk17 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support - never had a bad experience with EncMstr. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support - Great editor, will make terrific admin. --Esprqii (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support NHRHS2010 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Great contributor in a number of areas of Wikipedia. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support - --Bhadani (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Don't really see any major issues there.JForget 17:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support - Per above. Gromlakh (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support Seen on watchlist, always with high-quality edits. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support - a fine user. :-) Lradrama 11:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support ready for the tools Royalbroil 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The following vote was added after closing time:
Support - looks good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. Fails JG Test. Anwar (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

#Oppose Doesn't yet pass my requirements. You've easily got the article writing down pat, so you understand why we're here on Wikipedia, but you need more back-end experience. Try working on various back-end issues on Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk for a few months, and I'll be happy to support. Lawrence § t/e 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
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.