Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EdwinHJ

Renomination
Renominated by Pedant I think it is time to reconsider this user as an admin candidate. I offered to renominate him when the time was right, and I've reviewed his more recent edits. I think his very first edits were high quality, that his writing style is perfectly acceptable, and that he works well with others. I see no evidence of that this user would abuse adminship. I think that number of edits is not a good indicator of quality editing or value to the community. This is volunteer work after all. Since this is a renomination, I'm leaving the original discussion intact below this section. Please be sure to vote in the top section.

Support I support this candidate, and would like to point out that the original nominator has also continued to provide good content. I had opposed Adminship before because this user (the nominator) seemed too new. The candidate has made several tactful edits to religious articles without provoking others, nice to have someone on-board who writes on religion and doesn't stew up storms of controversy. Please join me in supporting EdwinHJ in his second bid for adminship Pedant 22:16, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Oppose

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.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.
 * 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.

Original nomination
do not edit the original nomination please

withdrawn (2/12/0) ending 09:45 14 December 2004 (UTC)

Edwin has made many edits and contributed significantly to many Lutheran-related articles. Micahmn 09:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
 * I accept the nomination. Thank you! Edwin 09:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Per the comments below I wish to withdraw my acceptance of this seemingly premature nomination. Edwin 07:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Micahmn (''added by User:Ludraman when formatting)
 * 2) I am not an edit counter. CheeseDreams 19:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Nominator's username has been registered for awhile. 134.29.241.227 19:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but anons are not allowed vote on RfA. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 20:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) I am not an edit counter, but you only have 165 edits. Sorry! J OHN C OLLISON  [ Ludraman] 14:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) May be next time... --M7it 14:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Just 165 edits suggest you have little experience with Wikipedia, maybe next time. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 16:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Ditto above. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 16:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) CO GDEN  18:14, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I don't count edits, but this user does not have enough experience, and the nominator is a bit suspicious. ugen64 20:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm not sure I trust this either. Maybe later after a few more edits and if nominated by someone a little more trustworthy. Shane King 22:48, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Right now you have 213 edits. I will support you when you get to 1213 edits. --Lst27  ( t a l k )  23:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) In terms of interfaith relations, it's nice to have a Lutheran and a Mennonite getting together, and I have no problem with the few edits I glanced at, but under the circumstances, this nomination is too premature to be seriously considered. --Michael Snow 00:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Too few edits. Nominator not trustworthy. utcursch 12:07, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Nothing personal, just a bit too soon. GeneralPatton 06:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Way, way, way too new; come back here in a couple of months and I'll be happy to support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:47, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * Far, far, far too new, and far too desirous. Geogre 18:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Very strongly Oppose the editor who nominated this candidate has 9 edits to a 24 word article, including the addition of a copyrighted photograph. I won't waste my time looking further. Come back later when an actual good editor nominates you. (if you meet my standards I'll nominate you myself).  It seems really fishy to me that the only support you have is from an anonymous editor and CheeseDreams.  Adminship should be no big deal, but it's not something given lightly either.  Pedant 20:41, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Comments
 * User has 165 edits. Nominator has 21. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 14:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would offer a weak support, since edits go back a while even though there aren't many of them, but the fact that the nominator has only 21 edits, all of them made today, unnerves me greatly. Something is not right with this nomination. - RedWordSmith 19:28, Dec 7, 2004 (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.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.
 * 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.