Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Encephalon 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Isotope23 (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 20 March 2006 (→[[User:Encephalon|Encephalon]]: Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Encephalon

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Encephalon|action=edit}} Vote here] (31/1/0) ending 07:03 March 27, 2006 (UTC)

Encephalon (talk · contribs) – Encephalon is one of the finest Wikipedia editors I have come across. He is intelligent, courteous, and articulate. Within months of his arrival, I knew he would make an excellent administrator, and informed him of my intention to nominate him once he had a bit more experience and if he were willing. Encephalon has shown himself to be very well-versed in Wikipedia policy, he is able to communicate extremely well, and remains calm and rational during disagreement. He is a highly experienced editor and and has been active in several policy areas. He is well-respected and friendly, and I can think of no better embodiment than he for the qualities we value in our administrators. In short, Encephalon will be the sort of administrator I would like to be. Several of us have been attempting to persuade Encephalon to allow us to nominate him for quite some time; I consider it an honor to put forward this nomination. Titoxd previously tried nominating Encephalon for adminship; I have invited him to co-nominate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There isn't much I can add to Knowledge Seeker's nomination, but I think Encephalon is the standard to set with respect to civility and administrative knowledge all nominees should have. He has excellent grasp of Wikipedia policy, and has a flair for language, using the best possible words to defuse even the most tense situations surrounding the thorniest issues. I've "had my eye" on him since December, but Knowledge Seeker has finally brainwashed him into accepting what he has deserved for at least half a year now. He has already declined two nominations, and as they say, the best administrators are the ones that have to be dragged to get the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored (and more than a little embarrassed) to accept this nomination. —Encephalon 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, as co-nominator. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - He secretly must be an admin, right??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Absolutely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - He's an excellent candidate. - Richardcavell 09:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as per nominator Leidiot 10:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support unquestionably. Steve block talk 10:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC
  9. Support GizzaChat © 11:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Terence Ong 11:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. There's not really much to say. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support by all means. (Aargh! Edit conflict x2!) haz (user talk) 14:13, 20 March 2006
  13. Support A great contributer. Will be an excellent admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support with the expectation that Encephalon will make a fine admin. --Syrthiss 14:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support looks good. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. A steady hand and a cool head coupled with a thorough knowledge of guideline, policy and practise as well as outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia mean that Encephalon will set a standard that most admins will have to aim at. One other important quality he has that certainly some editors don't is actually reading a discussion before adding his commentary to the bottom of it — you can be sure that a comment from Encephalon is one that takes into account all that has already been said and thus is the kind that actually moves things forwards. -Splashtalk 15:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support A fine editor with plenty of experience. --NormanEinstein 15:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Everything I've seen from Encephalon has been good. Paul August ☎ 15:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Looks good to me. --kingboyk 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Seems pretty obvious why :) Petros471 15:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I'm at the point where the adminship is something I would not wish on my worst enemy. But I do wish it on you:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A great editor. mmeinhart 15:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. User:Go for it!/Vote Support he'll do fine. If he wants the mop and bucket, then let's take advantage of that and give them to him! --Go for it! 16:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Will be a good admin. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. SUPER STRONG MEGA GIANT SUPPORT Editor is plainly brilliant, extraordinary thoughtful... just amazing. I think he was certainly qualified for adminship on his first day here. Xoloz 17:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, overdue. Dragons flight 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support as per nom - Aksi great 17:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, user has certainly shown good judgement and willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Haukur 17:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. -- DS1953 talk 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support (insert superlative of choice). Sandy 18:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. SuperduperSupport, good user, works on RC, CP AfDs, been around long enough, etc. I'm happy to support. feydey 18:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: comes highly recommended. Jonathunder 19:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: Excellent nominee for Admin.--Isotope23 19:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Noticable drop in post counts per month. May not be emotionally qualified for the job. --Masssiveego 08:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on 'emotionally unqualified'. Tintin (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Encephalon was only not active for two months which is reasonable, but then continued to make good contributions again. GizzaChat © 11:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

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. Hi. I have some familiarity with Special:Recent changes patrol, and those fora concerned primarily with maintenance of the Main space (for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Copyright problems, Wikipedia:Deletion review, and Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion). I watch the administrator boards whenever I'm online, and therefore usually have a reasonable idea of the daily issues being brought forward for administrative attention.

If I'm granted SysOp permissions, I forsee using them where appropriate in activities related to the above. Of the three permissions (page deletion/restoration, account/IP blocking, and page protection) and the automated tool (rollback) given administrators, I will probably find rollback and page restoration/deletion the most useful. This is probably similar to the experience of most (see for example Haukur's report), with the notable exception of those technically gifted individuals who manage to code and run vandal-blocking bots n' things that do so much to protect our encyclopedia (see User:Curps).

I am less involved with some areas of the encyclopedia to do with more specialized functions, for example Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. While I've observed it with interest and participated in a limited capacity, I do not forsee taking an especially active administrative role there. (I remain quite impressed, however, with how WP's category scheme has evolved via the wiki process; in many areas it compares quite favorably with the schemes in longer established encyclopedias (compare Wikipedia's vs Brittanica's)). I am fairly clueless in the technical side of many things, and have no plans at present to write code (of any kind) or develop (anything).

I think an important thing for administrators to have is the inclination to say sorry, if when they've managed to screw something up nicely (which with most people happens inevitably). I'm happy to report that my qualifications in this regard are quite good, having had many opportunities for practice.


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm fortunate to be member of an informal group of editors involved with Wikipedia:Medical Collaboration of the Week and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine, who pick articles every so often to bring up to featured standard, and address issues related to the very incomplete but steadily improving set of medical articles on Wikipedia. I have never met a nicer, friendlier, more industrious bunch of people online, and it's been an honor to be of some assistance to them. Of the current set of featured medical articles, I made substantial contributions to Asthma and Pneumonia. I also sometimes write shorter, "satellite" articles that help support the main featured article, for example Wheeze and Hopkins syndrome. My modest contributions to the article space will likely continue to be associated with the activities of WP:MCOTW and WP:CLINMED.

The other type of contribution I make to the article space is of the clean-up variety. This includes RC patrol, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes. RC patrol has been an on-off affair for me. When I first started out I reverted manually, but this was often a very suboptimal use of time because of its slowness (most of the time one of you unbelievable vandal slayers would revert ahead of me). After getting godmode things were much better, and I did RC patrol regularly—until godmode started malfunctioning for various reasons (eg. the ampersand bug, contribs page bug, poor function with IE7 etc). Hence, these days I mainly revert vandalism that I catch on watchlisted articles, as setting aside time to do RC patrol using CDVF + manual reverts might mean spending one hour only to manage 1-2 reverts ahead of someone with a quicker draw.


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. I don't think I've had conflicts, which I take to be of a more serious character than disagreements. I don't recall being stressed by something on Wikipedia—surprised yes, and, on two or three occassions, even rather shocked.;-) Conflict on Wikipedia seems to follow some broad patterns. In the article space, most disagreements that attain the sort of intensity we regard as indicating conflict seem to start because of NPOV-related issues. In the project space, conflicts seem often to occur over a background of disparate wiki-philosophies. In the sysop world, they often involve repeated reversals of sysop actions (ie. delete-undelete, protect-unprotect, block-unblock) and can have their bases in many different things. It seems to me that, regardless of the proximate cause of a disagreement, a few common factors tend to escalate conflict, and I try to pay attention to them. The first is suboptimal communication. When faced with an article edit that one does not necessarily agree with, it is a good thing to talk to the editor who made the change, stating the reasons for disagreement and seeking to understand the reasons for the edit. It will often turn out that there were good reasons for it; WP can be an excellent learning experience in more ways than one. If after a discussion it becomes quite clear that the edit was indeed suboptimal, providing the opportunity to the other editor to rework his own edit can be a very positive thing (instead of simply reverting, ourselves). A second factor is impatience, and an unwillingness to relinquish some control to the wiki process. In a discussion that is at an impasse, there is sometimes a tendency to revert war—patience always runs thin when it is needed most. Revert wars rarely result in anything productive. Being willing to allow an unfavored edit to remain in an article or policy page for one more day will not end the world, but instead may help de-escalate a conflict and allow the focus to shift to thinking about solutions, rather than the most biting edit summaries.;-) A third factor is disrespect, which can escalate a conflict very quickly. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should be unfailingly adhered to; the latter is not very hard to do, but the former can sometimes seem impossible for even the best among us. I have found that if I'm feeling exasperated or incredulous at another's behavior that the best thing to do is often to hold off replying for a moment or two. I try to bear the above in mind when editing WP, and so far it has been a positive experience.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Encephalon_3&oldid=44696095"