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

Essexmutant

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Essexmutant|action=edit}} Vote here] (30/2/1) ending 14:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Essexmutant ( talk · contribs) – Self nomination. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over 6 months and have made over 5000 edits according to Kate's Tool. (I was an anonymous user for about 6-8 weeks before that.) Although I have been an editor for the majority of the time I have been involved in Wikipedia, now that I have a large number of articles up to scratch I will have more time to dedicate to Wikispace activities, of which Admin privileges will be a great benefit. If relevant, I have received two Barnstars, and I am also an active member of numerous WikiProjects. I would expect I am particularly well-known within the WikiProject Poker community. Essexmutant 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nom. Essexmutant 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. It's-A-Self-Nom-So-Beating-The-Nominator-Isn't-All-That-Impressive Support. Seems like a good chap, I've seen him around AfD from time to time and he looks to have a good head. Pretty well-balanced contributor, too. Lord Bob 15:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Increasing support by 100% support, why not. Note that you really don't need to be an admin to help out with wikifying articles, though. Proto|| type 17:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support good work on many articles, will make a good admin. -- TimPope 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. Superb contributor to poker articles who has done a tremendous amount of work on WikiProject Poker in the short time it's been around. Can't find any civility issues or evidence of silly mistakes which would make me worry about him being an admin, and if he works on admin tasks half as hard as he's been working on the poker project he'll be a huge asset as an admin. CTOAGN ( talk) 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support -- Latinus ( talk (el:)) 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support. -- Adrian Buehlmann 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support I've seen him on AFD and respect his judgement. I considered nominating him myself but since we don't go back too far I give my full support instead. -- kingboyk 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Supportcheese. Hedley 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support, thoughtful, well-rounded and reasonable, from his opinions in AfD. Clean record and good attitude. This shouldn't be a problem. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 22:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support, he deserves it because he is a good contributor and most of his edits, I have seen, are for the good of Wikipedia. The Eye of Timaeus 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support: because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right? Swatjester 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support-- Ugur Basak 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support -- Ter e nc e Ong ( 恭喜发财) 08:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support Deserves to be an admin. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 13:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support, somebody doing good work helping to write the encyclopedia should be rewarded with the trust of the community, not admonished. No potential for abuse apparent. Hiding talk 19:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support per above abakharev 23:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support-- Jusjih 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support Solid user. User:Adrian/zap 10:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. I've looked through this user's contributions, and he seems polite, hard-working, and non-controversial. I haven't yet seen an example of how he'd behave under pressure when goaded, so I'm a little hesitant, but I see no reason to think he'd behave badly. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 13:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support looks good Mjal 02:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support will be good admin -- rogerd 04:34, 9 February 2006
23. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
24. A thoroughly deserved support. haz _{( user talk)} ^e 13:23, 9 February 2006
25. Support All in 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support will do fine job. Give the mop! Gator (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support. Mushroom ( Talk) 02:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support Looks fine to me.-- MONGO 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support Seems like a valuable and reliable editor. Likely to handle adm tools well. FloNight ^talk 01:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Standing at the rail Support. NoSeptember ^talk 15:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Weak oppose (for now), you say you'd like to be involved more in wikispace from now on. I'd be happier if you'd do that a little more first. -- Doc ^ask? 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. oppose - a whole six months? aa v ^ 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Question. I do not wish to nitpick, but can you clarify your exact length of service criteria please? You appear to have given a support vote to a user who at the time of his RFA had been a user of Wikipedia for less time than I have now. Just to expand on the timing of this RFA, I deliberately held back the time of my nomination until 6 months had elapsed after checking the various standards, where only 5 out of 137 users indicate their desire for people with over 6 months' usage of Wikipedia. Essexmutant 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

avriette: I had less than 3 months experience when I was elected admin... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral, as I can't find much evidence about how (and if) you would use your admin tools (so can't support). Neither can I find anything that suggests you might abuse them (so not oppose). Petros471 18:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Response. Fair enough. I will try to expand as much as I can. As I said below, I am intending to help out as much as possible with any outstanding actions on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I have also indicated below a willingness to help with speedy deletes (like other people going through the RFA process at the moment, I notice numerous articles that are tagged for Speedy Deletion but do not have this actioned for some time.) Furthermore, numerous articles I have on my watchlist experience frequent levels of vandolism, including Phil Hellmuth, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Moneymaker and He-Man. I would like to use the faster revert functionality, be able to block users (should it be the consensus of the community to do so) and hide the vandolism edits from the edit history in order to prevent users from reverting to their own vandolised version. Essexmutant 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 96% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 15:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• See Essexmutant's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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. Up to this stage, I have been concentrating mostly on creating and editing articles. Now I feel I have those articles up to the standard I would like to see them at, I should be able to dedicate more time to Admin activities. I've been preparing for this by being involved on a daily basis with the AFD discussions since December 2005, and would like to help with speedy deletes. I'd also like to help out with Articles that need to be wikified, which can only help Wikipedia's effectiveness as a tool. Further, I would like to help rollback vandalised pages, as I have been doing manually on several articles, particularly with the vandal-prone page He-Man. I would also hope to get involved in ongoing tasks on the Administrator's Noticeboard.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I have originated over 150 articles on Wikipedia, the majority of which have been poker-related. Some of these are event overviews (e.g.: 2003 World Series of Poker) whilst others are articles on players (e.g. Garry Bush, James McManus). I am also pleased with Celebrity appearances in Doctor Who which was originally close to going on AFD, but with the help of numerous edits by myself and others is now a well-constructed list.

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 have tried not to get too involved in edit conflicts in the past. When people have asked me questions about edits I have made (e.g.: The Hendon Mob point on my Talk page ( User talk:Essexmutant/Archive#The Hendon Mob) I have explained the reasons for the edit. In this particular case I went on to resolve the issue and also dropped a note on the user's talk page to update them on it. The closest I have had to an edit war was a simple disagreement about an article's content. This was quite some time ago regarding edits to the Joe Hachem article (see User talk:2005) Whilst I still do not agree with the user's tone or all of his viewpoints, we are still civil to each other (see Talk:World Series of Poker#Main Event Overview.) If I get Admin privileges I would hope to get involved in arbitration of others' disputes as I find I can help mediate disputes. (Perhaps it's something to do with being a Libra!)

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.