Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Edward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Edward

final (17/1/4) ending 17:45 8 January 2005 (UTC)

I've been here for almost a year, over 3500 edits. I've written articles, made diagrams, uploaded photos and categorised articles. Lots of my edits are dealing with vandals, recently I've been spotting copyright violations. Edward 17:45, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Support

  1. Ryan! | Talk 21:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  2. A lot of experience. Should have been a sysop a long time ago. Lst27 (talk) 22:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Good user, absolutely ready for adminship. |pak aran 22:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. -Rholton 13:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Sure, Edward does good work and has more than enough experience. Sietse 17:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Carrp 01:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Slowking Man 03:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Ben Brockert 05:40, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I'm convinced, looks like another 'should have been one long ago'. Jordi·✆ 07:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. jni 14:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Valuable contributer. --MPerel 18:21, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Squash 08:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. of course dab (ᛏ) 15:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Willief 23:15 5 Jan 2005(UTC) Sensible guy, would make an excellent admin.
  16. Seems sensible and dedicated enough, and shows a sense of humour when dealing with difficult editors Giano 07:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. Cool. --JuntungWu 13:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Doesn't strike me as having good judgment. Either he directed his personal (non-/rarely-editing) friends (User:Jriddell, User:gordonjcp, and User:Willief) to this vote not knowing about the common procedure of us not counting them, or is employing sock puppets himself. Netoholic @ 23:08, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
    • I mentioned to some friends on IRC that I'd placed a request for adminship, I didn't ask them to vote. Feel free to delete their votes if it would help. Edward 00:10, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I'm moving my original support vote to neutral for now, in view of Edward's response to Netoholic's Oppose. Sorry, I just think that's a bit little and a bit late. Admins may need more experience of wiki voting culture than it suggests.--Bishonen | Talk 00:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm really sorry, my friends joke about how I spend a lot of time working on Wikipedia, and I thought they'd be interested. I didn't ask them to vote, as you can see they haven't made many edits and didn't realise that the be bold in updating pages policy doesn't apply to some pages. Sorry I waited to long to clarify the situation. Edward 00:55, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
    Not to lengthen the voting section, I reply under Comments below.-Bishonen | Talk 02:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Gordonjcp | Talk 22:05, Jan 5 2005 (UTC) Decent bloke, known him for ages.
    • Retracted because of inflammatory and negative comments from Netoholic @ - Netoholic, if you are clever enough, then you can work out who I am In Real Life and give me a call on my mobile, we'll see who's a sock puppet then... Gordonjcp | Talk
    • Gordon, just to clarify Netoholic wasn't insulting you, sock puppet is a piece of Wikipedia jargon. Edward 01:22, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  3. Jriddell 21:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) I know edward personally and consider him a very responsible and trustworthy person
    • Retracted positive vote on request, apparantly I'm not experienced enough to vote and some people consider knowing the user personally a disadvantage not an advantage
  4. I am skeptical as to whether or not we need another copyright industry stooge as a sysop, but then I have a pre-stated bias on this issue (see my userpage) so I'll remain neutral --Cynical 17:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edward has made 5183 edits, with his first at 17:48 on January 2, 2004. More than 3800 of those edits are in the article namespace. --—Ben Brockert (42) UE News 20:41, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with having the guidelines instruct me in the workings of human nature w r t to self-nominations ("it is human nature to be more skeptical of those asking for a position than those being proposed by others"), so I'm about to edit them boldly. Feel free to revert them if you think I've been too bold, that's fine. Better still, rephrase the original sentiment to avoid implying that those who disagree with it aren't quite human (but rather animal? or divine? robotic?). If anything, I'm more skeptical of those treating adminship as some kind of club, which they need an invite from an insider to dare attempt to join. That's why I give "extra points for the self-nom" in my vote above, as I've done a few times before. To my way of thinking self-nominators deserve extra karma for bravely disregarding the (apparently common) idea that there's something unbecoming about it. When that idea becomes history, I won't be giving any extra points, either. (If it needs saying, being a self-nom isn't sufficient for getting my vote—of course not—just a plus. Candidates' edit histories are my first consideration. And I do also vote for sponsored nominees, e. g. fvw above.)--Bishonen | Talk 18:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify a point. I wrote the original "human nature" comment (alas! you ruined my perfect prose! I shall have to throw myself to the gerbils!) to explain to self-noms not to feel bad if some voters seemed hyper-picky about them. At the time, it was very difficult for a self-nom to be approved because a lot of people seemed to feel that it showed an unseemly eagerness. Or something. But now self-noms have become quite common and most are getting promoted, so I think your rewording reflects the current reality. -- Cecropia | explains it all ®
  • Jriddell's vote was his 11th edit, Gordonjcp's vote was his 27th edit, and Willief's vote was his first edit ever. It doesn't matter, as everyone is supporting and there are more than enough votes for the usual quorum, but I wanted it on the record. I always encourage new people to be familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia, but that seems a bit early. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 23:36, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Edward, I didn't mean to criticize your newbie friends, nor you for telling them about the voting. I don't endorse Netoholic's comment! It's just that from your belated and, uh, laid-back, explanation, I wondered if you've had as much involvement with the community as (IMO) a candidate needs. If you haven't, for instance, taken part in some of all the voting that goes on in this place, or noticed some of all the intense debate about legitimate and illegitimate votes that breaks out every so often, then you might find it pretty stressful when users start appealing to you for all sorts of snap admin decisions. If you're not worried about that, maybe you could explain why I needn't be, either, I'd be very happy to move back up to Support.--Bishonen | Talk 02:28, 8 Jan 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. Reverting the work of vandals, protecting pages to stop persistent vandals.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Category:English seaside resorts, I think it is an interesting category and some friends helped me build it.
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. Recently, User:Pcpcpc is unhappy with me because I don't think Category:Retailers (non food) of the United Kingdom is a sensbile category. User:DrGnu is upset because I reverted Gangrene to remove a copyright violation.