Today: Monday 21 June 2021 , 4:08 am


advertisment
search




Requests for adminship EdwinHJ 2

Last updated 6 Day , 12 hour 59 Views

Advertisement
In this page talks about ( Requests for adminship EdwinHJ 2 ) It was sent to us on 14/06/2021 and was presented on 14/06/2021 and the last update on this page on 14/06/2021

Your Comment


Enter code
  ===EdwinHJ===
final (5/9/5) ending 22:30 18 March 2005 (UTC)
I originally opposed this candidate last year mainly because of his nominator, who was a very recent editor. User:EdwinHJ has continued to provide good content, particularly in religious articles where he seems not to have provoked controversy. He has been a 'hobby user' since 2003, and I feel that he might spend more time on wikipedia as an admin. Pedant 22:30, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

  • I accept EdwinHJ Talk 19:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support
    1. As nominator, of course I support Pedant 22:33, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
    2. BSveen 23:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    3. Support. ugen64 05:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    4. Support. To Edwin's detractors: Edit counting is silly because it completely ignores the quality of the edits. Can anyone just take the diarrhea approach to Wikipedia and spray around thousands of edits and be considered a guru for it? Saying you can't consider Edwin because he hasn't been on long enough is silly, you can see for yourself the quality of his work and dedication as proof that he is committed to Wikipedia. Maybe I don't get the good-old boys' club that makes up the Wikipedia elite. I nominated Edwin previously when we were both kinda new, I admit that I jumped the gun a bit. However, I think he has proven himself, and has inspired me to keep at it as well. MicahMN Talk 22:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    5. I have no comment on EdwinHJ, but I have to note that you have made the most disgusting vote that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Yuck! --Improv 20:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    6. Support. Time on Wikipedia results in experience, and experience is what an admin needs. Making zillions of tiny edits of fanatical recent changes patrolling does not imbue experience. Dan100 14:29, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose
    1. 718 edits (of which ~300 are minor), the vast majority of which are since December 6, 2004. Only 6 reverts. I'd support if he keeps up the active editing like he has been doing over the past few months and reaches 1300 edits or so. CryptoDerk 23:29, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    2. Good user, but he hasn't the neccesary experience or commitment to janitoring for me to support. Rje 03:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    3. Needs more experience. Carrp Talk 15:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    4. A wikipedian needs to spend time here to become an administrator, not the other way round. Admittedly, adding religious comment without stirring up controversy is good - perhaps at a later date. Grutnesshello? 25px 22:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    5. Neutralitytalk 23:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    6. Too new. r3m0t talk 22:28, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    7. Needs more experience; will support at 1200 edits. --Ryan! Talk 23:24, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    8. Too few edits. Jordi·✆ 09:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    9. Please get 1,200 edits before requesting adminship. --Lst27 (talk) 20:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Neutral
    1. I don't understand. You want to make him an admin to have him spend more time here? That's a bit weird. Adminship might not be a big deal but is it a carrot? Dr Zen 00:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    2. I for one started doing a whole lot more work (mostly RC patrol) when I got administrator status, since those tools actually let me DO something about the problems I found. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    3. He's doing great work in potentially sensitve areas and as I said last time, I'd love to support a fellow Lutheran, so I won't oppose. However, I'd like to see more cleanup and housekeeping work before he is made an administrator. The kind of work he currently does (and is good at, it seems) wouldn't really benefit from having sysop powers. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    4. a very valuable contributor, no doubt, but I won't support candidates with
     
    Comments

    There are no Comments yet




    last seen
    Most vists