Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Henrygb2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Henrygb

final (24/0/0) ending 01:53 8 April 2005 (UTC)

I was previously nominated 7 weeks ago. Now I am nominating myself. --Henrygb 01:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some of the reasons a few people opposed me before:

  • No userpage. Now I have something - though it is primarily for my own reference
  • No edit summaries. I have tried to put more in. [1]
  • Does not clearly wants to be an admin. I do - that is why I am nominating myself.
  • Admins need to account for themselves and activly communicate with others. In fact I do and always have, so long as there is something to talk about. But as far as I am concerned Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia - it is not primarily a social gathering.
  • A hard worker who needs to work harder. I am afraid I did not quite understand that comment. I enjoy what I do, and I intend to continue doing so.

Support

  1. Vote was fairly close last time (I would have voted neutral swaying towards support, had I voted). Henrygb has clearly made good efforts to improve the shortcomings noted - enough to sway me all the way to support. Grutness|hello? 02:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Looks fine to me, mind you I'd have supported the old RfA too. --Weyes 02:29, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  3. Earlier arguments against him being an admin didn't hold water --Audiovideo 02:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Looks good.-gadfium 03:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Should have been accepted last time. Rje 12:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. A solid contributor. I nominated Henrygb last time. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 19:44, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Charles Matthews 22:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Cool. --JuntungWu 06:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, as before. jni 12:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. MarkSweep 18:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. --Lst27 (talk) 22:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Sarge Baldy 05:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support --Duk 19:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Rad Racer | Talk 21:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. I think 7 weeks is a somewhat thin interval period for a re-nomination, but I support anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support and comment that it's a tribute to how an Admin nomination can turn a good editor into an even better one. Dbiv 13:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  18. support User clearly wants to be an adminGeni 23:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Looks good to me. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:05, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Wow, you've got a better contrib history than me! — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Henrygb already does a lot of maintenance work. Lack of edit summaries would have been an issue with me, but I saw good, reasonably informative summaries in all recent work I looked at. I want more people like Henry taking the load off my shoulders on rc.
    (Unsigned, but probably Tony Sidaway 16:25, 7 Apr 2005) --Henrygb 01:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Thanks for dealing with vandals and spammers. Pavel Vozenilek 18:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support Zzyzx11 02:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Cares about accuracy. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Pompous ass. Tears out the work of other people for no reason.
    • NB unsigned contribution from anon 66.65.10.45. This was his/her/its first edit. Dbiv 11:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      Only edit as it turns out. And sadly no detail to try to clear up. --Henrygb 01:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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. What seems to me to be missing from others. Recently I have been hitting many orphaned pages starting with E and F, and (1) linking to them from other pages, (2) merging them into other pages, or (3) proposing them at votes for deletion. This doesn't require admin powers - if it did I would not bother. WIth the powers I would probably look to revert vandalism quickly (the last time I tried I had admins doing this while I went the long way round) and delete minor histories to enable moves.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. No - I still 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. I do not get stressed - if I did I would stop. As noted before, I had a problem with PolishPoliticians on Gdansk and Danzig. The two points were (a) whether Danzig should redirect to Gdansk and (b) whether Gdansk should say "Danzig" or "The Royal Polish City of Gdańsk/Our Capital City Gdańsk" at the beginning rather than the middle. I acted civilly, while he did not; I am still here while he is not; the dispute has not been an issue for 10 months; I have not been involved in the petty issue as to whether Dazig should be in bold or described as a former or German name. There have been other articles where I have disagreed with other editors - but in none of these cases has this got as far as a conflict: see the February 2005 page history for STV where a couple of reverts, some talk, a compromise and some tidying up sorted the issue out quickly.