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

EncycloPetey[edit]

Final (53/0/1); Ended 01:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) - EncycloPetey has been editing since October 2005. He is a major contributor to WikiProject Plants, and has created hundreds of plant articles and made major improvements to articles on core topics such as Plant physiology. EncycloPetey is also a prolific GA reviewer, and helps with categorisation and stub sorting - a thankless task if ever there is one! Another area he has made large contributions to is maintaining and providing content for the Do You Know template. His long experience of Wikipedia, combined the fact that he is already an administrator at Wiktionary, means I have no hesitation in recommending EncycloPetey as a highly responsible user who can be trusted as an administrator. Tim Vickers 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination for Wikipedia adminship. --EncycloPetey 01:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I am not a "prolific GA reviewer" as stated above. I have reviewed only one article thus far (Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide), and am currently reviewing my second GA nominee. However, I used to be very active at WP:STUBSORT. --EncycloPetey 01:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must be confusing you with somebody else there, weren't you part of the GA assessment drive? Tim Vickers 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. I've only reviewed the one article thus far. I spend too much of my wiki contribution time maintaining Wiktionary:Word of the day selections to review lots of WP articles. --EncycloPetey 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it was a good review as I remember - you failed an article I'd spent ages working on! :) Tim Vickers 02:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I expect to aid with reversion of vandalism and page protection, updating the DYK template (which often seems overdue lately), and assist in the moving or merging of pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to WP are (1) the articles on Bryophytes (e.g. liverworts and Mosses, because they and their subsidiary pages contain far more information now and are up-to-date with current literature), (2) Plant physiology (one dedicated weekend expanding a core botany topic that previously was merely a short history of the field), (3) ((Botany)) (which assists in navigating the core botanical articles), and (4) the endless and on-going sorting of Category:Plant stubs and Category:Botany stubs over the past year (both are down to a managebale size now, in part because I began an effort in late 2005 to split off subcategories).
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've had a couple of minor conflicts over editing, usually a discussion sorts out such problems. Because I edit mostly botany articles, I have to face strong POV less often than editors working in current events, politics, or religion. The only serious problems I've ever encountered was over the edit of Sable (heraldry), for which I provided solid citations to support my edits, and edits of various plant articles (such as Xylem) by User:Brya, who was perceievd as an abrasive POV-pusher and controversial in edits by many in the WP community. I try to talk facts and will have an intensive discussion on an issue if the other participants are willing. I'll walk away from a conversation that obviously will go nowhere. Adminship carries extra options, but also the added responsibility of restraint, so I don't see any change in how I deal with future edit conflicts. That is, unless the edits are obvious vandalism, and not simply POV, I intend to discuss the issue and let another admin or the community be the final arbiter in a disagreement. Using admin powers to push your view is unethical; though they should be used to protect the views of others.
4. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 07:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: WP:BLOCK policy is to contact the blocking administrator first to see what the reasons were for the block, since the reasons may not be obvious. It's a good policy. The blocked account may be a known sock puppet, a repeat offender on multiple wikis, or a user whose contributions have mostly been deleted (and so won't show up in the user's contributions). Most of the time, I'll simply assume the blocking admin had sufficient reasons unless (1) I'm contacted personally about the issue, in which case I'll take the issue to the blocking admin, or (2) I know the blocked user and know that it's likely a case of mistaken intent, in which case I'll still contact the blocking admin before proceeding to take any action. I've been an admin on Wiktionary for a long time, and seldom have had to concern myself with inappropriate blocks by oher admins. I have had to impose blocks where the entire history behind the block wasn't obvious (e.g. repeated copyvios, followed by blatant lies when confronted, and refusal to heed warnings or admit to clear wrongdoing), so I'm well aware of the need to investigate a blocked account with the blocking admin first. --EncycloPetey 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Someone you don't know starts following you around from article to article. Reverting all of your changes. NO matter what edits you make they revert for one reason or another. Do you, A. try to reason with them and find out why, see if there is a reason. B. Use your new found admin abilities to do something to the user (blocking, indef blocking, or something else). What would you do in this situation? --businessman332211 04:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I don't think there's a single specific course of action I could state as my response, since I think my response would be affected by a number of possibilities. If my shadow is an anonymous IP reverting additions of citations, eliminating article assessments, and blotting out comments on talk pages, then I would start adding warnings as listed on WP:VANDAL for deletion of content. In such a case, I'd be surprised if other users weren't already warning the individual, as I seldom find that I'm the first person to post such a warning. I also find that seldom are reverts made without some comment (valid or not) in the edit summary. For a registered user, there will more likely be a reliable edit history, and I would investigate to see whether there might be some clue in the contributions history, and whether comments have ever been posted to the user's talk page about such behavior in the past. If the person in question is not responding in the edit summary, does not respond to vandalism warnings, and simply reverts comments made on article talk pages, then a short-term block probably would be appropriate. Such behavior is included as harassment under WP:BLOCK policy. I would follow such a block witht a concise statement on the user's talk page explaining that the block is simply to give them opportunity to pause and reflect (assuming no prior response was had). I would try to reason, however, before going to any kind of adinistrative action. Administrative tools on Wikipedia are provided to admins as a last line of defence for such situations, not as the front line of attack. Most of the time, I've been able to accomplish things I needed or wanted to achieve here without using any admin tools in the past (some page moves have needed admin help), and I prefer to continue that way as much as possible. I see myself on Wikipedia as a small fish in a big pond. --EncycloPetey 06:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. What is your take on backlog issues,how do you feel when you see backlogs stacked up for over a years worth of backlog, or multiple months?--businessman332211 04:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Backlogs are frustrating. A backlog indicates that a project is either (A) understaffed for its workload, or (B) dying from lack of interest. At the same time, a backlog is usually a long-term problem, so a quick fix should not be expected. If I see continued value in the project, and am not overloaded myself, I'll try to do some work to help. I've done a good deal of that in stub sorting and article assessment over the past year. I might also try to recruit more participation. I've done that on Wiktionary for certain projects I believed in, which weren't receiving due attention. I've done a little of that here as well, such as soliciting help from the French Wikipedia when The Plague (a French novel) was the Novels COTM (a collaboration effort that doesn't always get the participation it deserves). If a project is really dying from lack of interest, the project may just have to go dormant, assuming it's not some vital function. It may have to be subdivided into smaller, more manageable taks, or filtered into more active projects. I don't know that I've fully answered the question, but it's a rather broad question and those are the thoughts that spring to mind. --EncycloPetey 06:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. As nominator Tim Vickers 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support –Outriggr § 01:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I see no reason to not trust this user. The answer to the first question may be short, but you know what? I'm not concerned; being a sysop just means you have extra tools, not that you need to use each tool. If all he wants to do is update Did You Know and help out with Page Protection, so be it. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 01:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - a good 'pedia builder.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I most certainly agree with Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs) - The folks at Did You Know and Page Protection definitely could use more help. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Support per Sasha Callahan.   jj137 (Talk) 02:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support (edit conflicted). Great encyclopedia building. I hope you can join us. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good to see someone dedicated to building the project applying for adminship. Nick mallory 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support A prolific contributor. BorgQueen 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. support No reason not to trust this user. Good luck!--SJP 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SupportStrong Support "Using admin powers to push your view is unethical; though they should be used to protect the views of others." based on this, and an overview of his contributions. I think he would make a good administrator. Also based on his answers to the 2 optional questions (I believed he answered very well) I change to strong support. --businessman332211 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I really think this should have been done aeons ago. Maser (Talk!) 07:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Jmlk17 08:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - We need admins who can take care of the 'plants'. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, very good editor. Neil ☎ 12:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Very strong candidate. Kingturtle 14:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - per Neil. Seems a good editor. Rudget Contributions 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support See no reson not to. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support A very ambitious editor, in the sense that he is a true believer in Wikipedia's potential to improve and keep improving. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Does great work. I have run across him at T:TDYK often.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support My experiences with Petey have always been great; he has a wonderfully positive attitude, knows Wikipedia well, and has good insights into how to do things better. He's also a good motivator; he geased Cronholm and me into working on Acetabularia. ;) Willow 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Per above users positive sentiments. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I've worked with this user on Wiktionary and I trust his judgement --Versageek 00:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Highly motivated Wikipedian who maintains his cool in sometimes tense conversations. Agree with everything Willow has said above. Rkitko (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support--MONGO 02:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support would likely be a good admin. Carlossuarez46 02:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per "no big deal", and the fact that this editor appears to be solid, and we need good editors to take up the mop and bucket. K. Scott Bailey 04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I'm late to the party, but EncycloPetey is good people. He's been a fine admin for a while now, and will continue to be so on Wikipedia. Dmcdevit·t 08:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support No major concerns here. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Yea. Jon Harald Søby 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Will be a good admin. - Darwinek 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No reason to oppose this user. NHRHS2010 talk 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Strong contributions and policy knowledge, definitely trustworthy. VanTucky Talk 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Seen him on Wiktionary too. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Phgao 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 06:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Honest in the answer to question 1. Acalamari 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Very levelheaded and constructive in his interactions with others. Appreciate this editor's fairness and promotion of a positive tone, especially on DYK discussion page. A good guy. Mattisse 10:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support looks very capable indeed --Herby talk thyme 13:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - his habit of being very level-headed on Wiktionary is something I aspire to. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - trusted editor. Shyamal 09:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - this recent few days has brought up countless excellent RfAs. This is one of them. :-) Lradrama 19:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support -- trusted Wikimedian. --Thogo (Talk) 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong DYK support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support John254 03:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support very valuable contributor and admin on en.wikt; also has a clear understanding of the difference between admin policy there and here Robert Ullmann 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Keep up the good work. — Scientizzle 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - This candidate is helping to build the encyclopedia - looks like you chose a good username ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support--Golden Wattle talk 01:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Candidate looks like a competent, pleasant, and trusted editor, and will be a welcome addition to the ranks of mop-wielders.  Folic_Acid | talk  16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Does a lot of good work on plant articles, no real issues that I'm aware of. Alai 00:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral leaning on support. Answers to above questions along with edit count show the user has an intense affinity towards editing and managing articles related to flora, so the editor obviously has a strong work ethic. Only concerns lie in being able to manage edit conflicts and blocking, though I am certain that with the proper training that this can be averted. I am hoping that I can learn more about this editor that demonstrates administrative impunity.--WaltCip 15:36, 7 November 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