Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EdJohnston

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] EdJohnston

Final: (53/0/0); Ended 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk · contribs) - has been editing since May 2006, made over 7159 contributions, including 1965 WP contributions and over a 1894 mainspace edits. EdJohnston works on a large number of maintenance areas, including Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents , Reliable sources/Noticeboard , Administrator intervention against vandalism and Village pump, (assistance and policy) . EdJohnston's contributions have demonstrated he is a polite editor, committed wikipedian and very knowledgeable about policy. It is my belief hat EdJohnston would make an excellent administrator. Let's mopify this valued and trusted member of Wikipedia.. Proudly nominating and voicing my support. --Hu12 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; thanks for considering me. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[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: I would like eventually to be able to close AfDs, since I've done quite a bit of AfD !voting, but would probably not start on AfDs at first. I have heard there are some areas that beginning admins are advised to start in, and I'm willing to follow that advice. I'd be willing to work on the tasks in Category:Administrative backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've added to the technical content of a number of articles, including RSS, Cladistics, Hellenistic Art, International Standard Book Number, Gregor Mendel, Floating Point and X-Ray Crystallography. I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology.
Talk:Evolution is one of about 6 pages where I've either proposed or helped to set up bot archiving, including WP:COIN, WP:BLPN, WP:WQA and User_talk:ProteinBoxBot.
In my early days on Wikipedia (late '06 early '07) I helped organize a project to fix up invalid ISBNs. Rich Farmbrough had made a collection 2,500 of these that were found by SmackBot. A gang of about eight people worked on this and eventually took care of all of them, usually by finding a corrected form of each reference and fixing up the affected articles. Examples of this work can be seen at User:EdJohnston/ISBN fixing and in Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs/Archive2. I've occasionally answered questions at the Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Lately I've made over 400 edits at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, responding to requests filed there and sometimes trying to investigate the complaint in detail by examining the history of the article and the Talk page. In many cases a consensus needs to be found at the Noticeboard over what's the right thing to do. Sometimes this has led me to go out and work on the article to restore a properly neutral version.
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: Editors who find their work being mentioned at the COI noticeboard are not always happy about the situation. Communication sometimes works; just inviting them to come and give their side of the story may break the tension. I've had people say harsh things to me from time to time, and I hardly ever delete these comments from my Talk page, so anyone is welcome to study my Talk archives.
Starting in April 2007 there was a rather painful COI case involving MDS International that led to some legal threats. (Two companies had been in litigation off-wiki and they were continuing the struggle in our Talk pages). For a while I was attempting to informally mediate this. This gave me a lot of practice on how to be polite to people who are breaking the rules without losing my temper. The first half of User_talk:EdJohnston#Archive8 has a lot about this (search for 'MDS'). See also Talk:MDS_International where you can search for my name. See an AfD discussion that I initiated in hopes of getting closure for the overall problem. A number of experienced admins helped in getting this case resolved.
I also helped out at Herbert W. Armstrong, which was suffering from strongly POV editing and WP:OWN. I found about this from a posting at WP:WQA on 21 July last year. This made me learn about the subject and I contributed new references and some article content in one of the controversial areas. My attempt at diplomacy with the editor who was hard to work with appeared to be useful but it didn't solve the problem, since the issue wound up in formal dispute resolution anyway. As of October 2007 the article was improved and editing had returned to normal, though the editors still working there have active disagreements and tags remain.

Optional question from Iterator12n

4. Seeing the many RFA thank-you notes on your talk page, could you expand on the ethics of sending these notes? Should there be a guideline (and if so, what kind of guideline) in this area? Thank you. -- Iterator12n Talk 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a line Consider not posting "thanks for voting" messages to the voters' talk pages in Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, so this advice is already on the books. I don't know if that is policy, guideline or what. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
4.1 Will you send thank-you notes? User:Dorftrottel 21:18, February 13, 2008
4.1.1Does it matter, if so, why. This being directed at Dorftrottel and not the candidate. Nick (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious like hell and don't like thank-you spam. User:Dorftrottel 00:25, February 14, 2008
So you don't like thank-you spam, I'm failing to see what that has to do with this RfA. Put a notice on your talk page saying "no thank you spam, please" - that solves the problem, rather than putting any candidate on the spot over what they will or will not do. Nick (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please relax. I just noticed this question and thought I'd ask. Also: been there, done that, to no effect. User:Dorftrottel 01:00, February 14, 2008
I am not planning to send out a mass message about the result of this RfA, in case that makes a difference to anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, just what I was hoping to hear. You see, I've regularly regretted participating in an RfA when I was spammed later. It's a childish habit and that's my contention, and I know childish people mistake it for politeness which it isn't it's just plain annoying. I think I'm going to make that my standard question from now on. User:Dorftrottel 01:00, February 14, 2008
<Undent> I checked Dorftrottel's talk page very carefully before not thanking him for participating in my RfA.  :) Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You're the exception, and you know it. User:Dorftrottel 01:06, February 14, 2008

Questions From ChetblongT C

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: Blocking is the technical means by which administrators may prevent a specific account from editing Wikipedia. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Entities that can issue bans are listed at Wikipedia:Banning policy. They include the (a) community, (b) Arbcom, (c) Jimbo and (d) the Foundation. Blocks are per account, but bans prevent a specific person from editing at all, using any account.
6. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
A: You need to have a conversation with the admin who removed the material. That conversation might be joined by others, if it is carried out on a Talk page or noticeboard. These discussions might possibly lead to entirely new options or useful compromises, and at a minimum should give everyone a better understanding of the specific BLP issue that motivated the removal.
7. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A: Never, per Wikipedia:Block#Cool-down blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Strong support. One of the most levelheaded editors around and has a far better than average understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Athaenara ✉ 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Seems like a strong candidate. Ronnotel (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - nothing here to make me believe that Ed would be anything but an asset. - Philippe | Talk 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Meets my standards. <edit conflicted> Reviewed talk page and saw no evidence of incivility or misapplication of policy. I did find Barnstars and such comments as, "at last someone who will help me." Works in an area I don't have the patience for. Seems experienced and wise enough to trust with the mop though not highly active in so-called mop related areas. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    You are welcome on advance. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support per Athaenara. Has significant experience of editing controversial articles and keeping his cool. Addhoc (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - Ed does a great job and would be a huge asset to the admins. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - Extremely strong in all areas, especially Wikipedia namespaces that foster good pre-administrative experience. The fact that he's a science user like myself is kinda a bonus. : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Good user, he is good at participating in noticeboards. NHRHS2010 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support. Re. Question 4, would love to have heard the nom's view of the ethics of sending thank-you notes, but even without it I support candidacy. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Meets Dloh's standards, good enough for me. User:Dorftrottel 21:17, February 13, 2008
  11. Support - Clear evidence of a calm, careful approach and an excellent understanding of WP policies. The level of detail on COI work is particularly impressive - a genuine interest in finding ways to keep notable articles, remove biased material and not drive away any conflicted but genuine editors. Euryalus (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support' No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support' As per Athaenara and Euryalus and over 7000 edits.No concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. Please send me a thank you note. =) Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    HAHA! User:Dorftrottel 01:09, February 14, 2008
  15. Support Level headed administrators are always good. SpencerT♦C 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support. Long-term thoughtful editor with wide experience of the project. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Strong support. Thoughtful, level-headed, and I've always been impressed with his willingness to help out in other disputes here and there. He'll make an excellent admin. --Elonka 04:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Has always been calm and thoughtful when I've run across him. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support I have been impressed with his work at WP:COI/N and think he will be an excellent admin Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Has a good understanding of how to handle situations. MBisanz talk 07:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  21. Strong support -- good judgement. --A. B. (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. Rudget. 15:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  23. WP:COIN patrollers must be supported strongly. Jehochman Talk 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  24. Looks ok to me --Herby talk thyme 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support - Good answers to questions and meets my criteria --ChetblongT C 20:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support--BozMo talk 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support thoughtful candidate who will make a fine administrator. Wryspy (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support I've been very favorably impressed, and think he'll do a great job. :) Willow (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support - good candidate, meets all my standards, very level, probably will be a great sysop. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support - meets my standard... sike, I have no standards. --Endless Dan 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support I think it's okay. Gary King (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support — Zerida 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support Best correlation between article space and article talkspace I have seen in a candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support Appears to be a diligent, thoughtful, well-rounded candidate. My random check of contribs from Dec. 2007 shows good judgment and knowledge of policy. Actively takes care of things in a positive way. Shoobee-dobee do-whah (sax solo goes here) Pigman☿ 23:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support. The candidate helped me get oriented when I was a new user. That's probably enough reason for support right there, but I looked over some of the candidate's contribs anyway, and found a lot of knowledgeable actions, such as reverting a premature closure of a discussion by an involved user; enforcing the BLP policy; an informative AfD vote, a lot of work on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, etc. Coincidentally, in going through this candidate's contribs I happened to run across a support vote for the first RfA I ever supported, Salix alba's. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support Great editor. --Veritas (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support - Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  40. Good editor, good answers to above questions. Support. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support Some good work here; questions well answered--Calabraxthis (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support Good answers to the questions. Twenty Years 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 19:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support Sure. :) GlassCobra 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support - No Reason not too. PookeyMaster (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  46. support Ok, I know this is a cliche but I honestly thought he was an admin already otherwise I would have nominated him. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support Great answers to questions - great editor - Good luck! Midorihana~iidesune? 07:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support. Experienced, level headed editor who can handle controversy. Looks well suited for admin status. Doczilla RAWR! 17:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support Looks good with awesome edit summary usage, and a great amount of edits. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support No issues. Great candidate. нмŵוτнτ 20:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support. Looks like a good candidate. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support--MONGO 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  53. SupportA cool, reasonable individual in complex settings.--TheNautilus (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
[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.