The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

EdwinHJ[edit]

Final (24/2/0) ending 01:16 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Renominated by – Quadell (talk) (bounties)

EdwinHJ (talk · contribs) was nominated twice before (here and here), but was rejected largely because he was too new. He's been here for a year and half now, most active for the last year, and he has something between 2500 and 3000 edits. He's shown himself to be very patient and dedicated, spending time doing the drudge tasks as well as the glamorous stuff. Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. Thanks. 3rd time is the charm perhaps! EdwinHJ | Talk 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Me, the nominator, of course. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Edwin was the one who turned me on to Wikipedia and showed me the ropes. I think he would also make an excellent admin. -- MicahMN | μ 01:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. The wait is over! BD2412 T 01:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. KHM03 01:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools, has demonstrated committment to the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support your edit history looks good.--MONGO 03:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. King of All the Franks 05:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sleepy Support. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. utcursch | talk 08:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, answers correct, edits good, what more do you want. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support; I find the spamming of talk pages in an attempt to solicit opposition to be in rather poor taste. —Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Support. —Kirill Lokshin 13:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per above. Izehar (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support I agree, see below, nominee looks great to me.Gator (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Clearly understands adminship duties (I like his responses to the questions below). Edits are substantive and show good work ethic. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Everything looks good here, and thanks for answering the additional question below. xaosflux Talk/CVU 23:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Thunderbrand 03:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support good candidate --rogerd 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, didn't need to wait that long! the wub "?!" 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support good contributor — Moe ε 16:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support has shown commitment and unlikely to abuse admin powers. Gflores Talk 02:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. El_C 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Good contributor. --Kefalonia 13:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. A good contributor who certainly has enough experience now. :) Rje 02:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I noticed this RfA due to User:Phase1 asking users to reconsider their support. I went to investigate; while I can't seem to find the belligerent comments or lack of Wikipedia understanding, I am impressed with his calm discussion, and have come across Edwin's work numerous times before. I am pleased to support his candidacy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Edwin accused me of copyright violation on December 17 2005 (when his adminship must have seemed in the bag). His belligerent reaction to my explanation for this uploading of an image of former South African president P.W. Botha — see User_talk:Phase1 Copyright violation and Talk:Pieter_Willem_Botha — leads me to fear that he is likely to abuse his new-found powers.Phase1 15:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC) In another somewhat idiosyncratic judgment, Edwin has advocated on December 18 moving the Pieter Willem Botha article to PW Botha and thus seems unaware of the workings of the wiki "re-direct" system.Phase1 18:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've read the exchange, and EdwinHJ doesn't seem belligerent at all. He seems to be following correct procedure throughout, both in tagging the image and in asking for concensus for a page move. He doesn't seem to me to be unaware of the way redirects work either; he's just advocating a page move, and doing so politely as well. Not sure what the problem is. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Edwin's apparent pre-judging of the issue, by posting the heading Copyright violation on my User talk page!Phase1 13:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC) And the "belligerence" issue I mentioned is on the Talk:Pieter_Willem_Botha page, as follows:[reply]
"The image is validly marked as a copyright violation, because it appears to be a photo copyrighted by the BBC and used without permission. The orphaned image tag would not be appropriate. The current image [which EdwinHJ himself uploaded] may not be ideal but it has the advantage of not being someone else's work used without permission. [EdwinHJ|Talk] 16:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)."
This sort of language strikes me as that of a bully: I am an Admin (or am about to become one) so don't mess with me!Phase1 21:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still missing the belligerent comment; it looks like you might have copied the wrong statement. Could you perhaps provide a diff or quote it explicitly, so the rest of us can see it as well? I don't think it's still on your talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Knowledge Seeker. What is still on my talk page—I've just re-checked—is Copyright violation posted by EdwinHJ. The belligerence, as I've already said, is on the Talk:Pieter_Willem_Botha page quoted above.Phase1 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per Phase1 freestylefrappe 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot consider that quote a belligerent comment in any way. Edwin in no way mentioned his adminship, and in no way threatened to punish anyone or delete anything. He just pointed out that the image was a copyright violation. Would Phase1 or freestylefrappe care to explain why they consider this belligerent, because I am having a very hard time seeing it as that. Raven4x4x 00:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Belligerence or bullying, Raven4x4x, should be seen in context. Please review the relevant talk pages.Phase1 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Most everything looks in order, see one Question below. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Don't like Phase1's campaign to change people's votes on their user pages [1]. Seems personal to me. If you're opposed, make your case here and if no one is buying what you're selling, then just accept it, move on and let bygones be bygones.Gator (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Questions for the candidate[reply]
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. Reverts and vandalism watch (so the rollback button would be helpful), eventually I would like to become more experienced in resolving user conflicts and cooling down edit wars. I am a follower of the philosophy of Quadell when it comes to adminship and I like the word custodian and the nature of the care and service the word implies that an admin should have for the community.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am especially proud of my contributions to articles regarding Lutheranism and Minnesota politics.
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 have indeed experienced some disagreement with other editors. I have found that the best way to deal with these issues is to "step back" and reevaluate my own position. Often then I can see the other user's point of view. Then I am better able to find a way of editing that seeks consensus. EdwinHJ | Talk 01:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3b How would you deal with vandalism on articles that you are a primary editor of? (added by xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Vandalism per se is vandalism whether it happens on a page I have a lot of interest in or not, so it should be reverted. If you're refering to POV issues--then the thing to do is bring other people in to help you if you need to make sure of your objectivity. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category