Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Edcolins


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

Edcolins
Final (27/1/0) ended 12:00 October 28, 2005 (UTC)

– Edcolins has been a member of the Wikipedia community since March of 2004. During that time he has amassed more than 11,000 edits on a very consistent basis (20 edits per day, consistent average since May 2004). He has made significant contributions in law and related topics, Requested articles, Cleanup and a large number of other areas. He has been active in Articles for deletion, disambiguation work, and vandal fighting. In his contributions and user interactions he has been level headed, patient, and professional. He uses edit summaries 80% of the time. I have very (insanely?) high standards for nominating a candidate, and Edcolins meets my requirements. --Durin 19:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thanks, Durin. --Edcolins 12:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support per above. --Durin 19:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Looks to be an outstanding contributor--MONGO 12:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I'm deeply surprised this person isn't an admin already.  Privat  e   Butcher  15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom.  BD2412  talk 16:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   17:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support  Or an   e    (t)   (c)   (@)  20:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support low edit-summary use is really not a factor in this case, since he clearly has the experience. freestylefrappe 22:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 23:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support.  Let's avoid loweditsummarycountitis when considering dedicated contributors like this.  Bahn Mi 01:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support good editor --Rogerd 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support very solid --SFoskett 01:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Andre ( talk ) 02:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Definitely  Martin  09:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 20:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. The Minister of War 20:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  12:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Fir  e  Fo  x  13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support per nom. JoanneB 13:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support edit conflicts with Francs2000. El_C 22:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support --Kefalonia 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Proto t c 13:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support with more edit summaries. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 10:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Johann Wolfgang 18:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support, solid editor. Silensor 20:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support per above Tedernst 18:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support--Jcw69 09:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines.  Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice.  I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back.  His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question  or he is excessivley sarcastic .  I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs.  He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop.  He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see Requests for comment/Boothy443. --Durin 04:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Definately support on condition of email being supplied. Martin  15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have checked the "Enable email from other users" box in my "Preferences". --Edcolins 15:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice one, thanks. Martin  09:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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. Blocking vandals if necessary. Deleting an article for which there is a consensus. Any of the admin tasks whenever necessary.
 * I don't plan any major change in the way I contribute. I am just dedicated to help the community concentrate in writing excellent articles, by reaching consensus on NPOV matter, adding references, creating disambiguation pages, redirect, merging articles, and so on.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I'll give five examples. "European Patent Convention" is a precise article, with a good perspective I think. "Inventive step and non-obviousness" is a fruitful "transatlantic" collaboration. "Claim" is technically rich. "Software patents under the EPC" has a solid structure. And "London Agreement" helps to understand this legal arrangement, I think (well I hope so!).
 * 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 how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. See Talk:Alicante and Talk:Jerome H. Lemelson (I posted a RfC for this "threat").
 * I think I have progressively improved the way I deal with conflicts. I basically try to prevent them, by being as NPOV as possible and discussing the matter on talk pages as early as possible (as in Is the source reliable?). I have met a lot of reasonable wikipedians actually.


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.