Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Henrygb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Henrygb

final 06:26 4 February 2005 (UTC)

Henrygb has been a Wikipedian for more than a year. He has contributed thousands of edits to a variety of articles, and gets along well with other editors. Someone I consider a solid contributor. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am honoured by the nomination and accept it. However it was not sought and not something I am particularly concerned about.--Henrygb 12:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. -- jni 06:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Over 3700 edits, all good. -- Itai 15:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Privacy is not a crime. --Ryan! | Talk 16:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  5. I would like to see more edit summaries, but the blank user page doesn't bother me at all. Of course, this is the opinion of someone with a blank user page (I'll get around to it eventually). Carrp 19:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Useful editor.Charles Matthews 21:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. I do understand the neutral voters' sentiments, but in my opinion, this user's good faith, wikiquette, and hard work outweigh those issues :-). (and yes, I am biased, because I have a habit of not leaving edit summaries... sorry -_-) ugen64 02:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Not having a user page doesn't concern me. --JuntungWu 05:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. User page is unimportant. Edit summaries, the other big concern, are something to work on, but no reason not to be a sysop. Pakaran 20:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support anonymity. Edit summaries and discussion page are far more important than a user page. Warofdreams 17:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. Michael Ward 00:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. Bart133 (t) 01:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No userpage. Neutralitytalk 06:52, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I oppose for a couple of reasons. I don't really care about not having a user page, although I do find it a bit strange. I find the answers to the questions below either very short and uninformative, or non-committed. As Henrygb noted above it is "not something I am particularly concerned about." Páll 00:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. No userpage, no edit summaries, we expect Admins to account for themselves and activley communicate with others. GeneralPatton 07:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Lack of edit summaries is worrying. Tronglewagon 14:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Tronglewagon decided to begin his Wikipedia editing by voting here. (3rd edit). Jordi·✆ 14:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    and it's well within my rights to start here. Tronglewagon 20:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. I prefer admins who want to do admin tasks. Will support if and when user clearly wants to be an adminGeni 01:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. It pains me to oppose a hard worker. But thusfar, I feel the lack of edit comments and the edit war discredit Henry. I'd like to see Henry work harder and try again another time. Kingturtle 07:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is a bad joke. (1) Henrygb was indeed present while User:PolishPoliticians was running amok, but was consistenly well-behaved in the face of provocation. [1] (2) I'd like to see Henry work harder -- just what impresses you, anyway? Would you like for him to swim the English Channel? Cross Antarctica on foot? For crying out loud. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. No user page, rare/uninformative edit summaries. silsor 07:56, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    Note, I wouldn't oppose for not having a user page, but if you don't leave good edit summaries nobody knows what's going on. Communication is important. silsor 18:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. not having a userpage says nothing. I will change to support once Henrygb accepts the nomination and answers the questions below. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. I don't really care for no-userpage users, but at least he has a blank page. I voted against ScudLee because he/she had none at all, and thus her name showed up as a red link. So I won't oppose, but I can't really support someone who doesn't really have a userpage. Also I'd care to see more edit summaries. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 15:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Second Silsor's comments (below). I won't vote support for people lacking user pages. Jordi·✆ 08:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Vote moved to neutral. Edits are good (except for lacking summaries), but I still don't like the blank user page. Jordi·✆ 20:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Agree with Silsor. --Lst27 (talk) 21:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. If "it's not something [he's] concerned about", I am hesitant to offer my support. -- Grunt   ҈  00:44, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Comments

  • First edit at 13:25, November 14, 2003. 3719 edits, ~90% to article space. Leaves edit summaries on about one in ten edits. Got involved in the naming wars (Danzig/Gdansk etc). Mostly does the same kinds of edits that I said I did when I was made admin (dab, minor additions, and so on). Has no user page, which is a bit unusual. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 06:40, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd note that some current sysops have blank/trivial userpages, e.g. The Anome and Dysprosia. Pakaran 01:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It is interesting that I have been editing longer than all of the opposing voters, most of whom are recently created admins. That's life. I'm grateful for the kind remarks about the quality of my edits. --Henrygb 01:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps but the wide differnces in reasons given suggest that the pattern may be entirly conicidentalGeni 01:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That's not impossible, though a conspiracy theorist might note that 3/5 opposing voters nominated each other as admins ;) --Henrygb 02:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • And now I am paranoid. Someone votes (in the wrong place, raising yet another issue, and after the deadline) after an anonymous user who has been accused of user page vandalism updates the vote count to include that vote. --Henrygb 08:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A The two admin powers I would have found useful in the past were quick reverts and the ability to remove the history on minimal history redirects so other pages could be moved there. So I would probably look more at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A No - I love them all.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. As Brockert says, I had a minor battle in July 2004 with ex-User:PolishPoliticians over whether Danzig should redirect to Gdansk, and whether Gdansk should mention Danzig in the first lines. Since he and his re-incarnations stopped posting, I have not been involved, as I am happy with the outcome. The potentially similar situation at Derry and County Londonderry was settled in a rather more satisfactory manner.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Henrygb_eafa.html"