Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EdwinHJ 2

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

Support
 * I accept EdwinHJ | Talk 19:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As nominator, of course I support Pedant 22:33, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
 * 2) BSveen 23:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. ugen 64  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.  Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|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. -- R yan!  |  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 ( t a l k )  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 <1000 edits. hope to see you re-nominated in a month or so! dab (ᛏ) 15:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Seems to be a good copyeditor, but nearly all his contributions in the Wikipedia namespace are related to this and the previous RfA. I'm not sure that a user with relatively few total edits and little (demonstrated) interest in Wikipedia maintenance and administration needs the mop and bucket right now. His answer to Question 1 below—while showing a commendable attitude toward NPOV—doesn't shed any light on why he should have or would use admin privileges. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) A "hobby user", in my opinion, by definition is not the sort of user who has a need for admin tools. There's nothing wrong with this user, and being able to NPOV-edit religious articles is a plus (hence, my vote is neutral rather than oppose).  But I think admins by definition should be users who consider Wikipedia something more than just a hobby. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  18:18, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) *Indeed, admins should be incorrigible Wikiaddicts. :) Seriously, the vast majority of Wikipedians are volunteers and (I hope) most of us have real lives outside of Wikipedia.  In a sense, nearly all editors could be considered "hobby" users.  I agree, though, that this particular hobby user doesn't seem to need admin tools for the work he does or seems to want to do. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:55, 15 Mar 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. I am highly concerned with the use of charged language and other POV issues. When I edit an article with controversy such as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I approach with mindfulness and care to ensure both accuracy and also be sensitive to the fact that in a case like that article, I am an outsider to the LDS community and should check my own motives and personal feelings. The idea of Wikipedia is so powerful, and I feel that I can be an excellent contributor and have already been one in the sense of fairness and openness.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am pleased whenever I can add information that really makes an article sparkle. I am especially pleased with my contributions to Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and associated articles on various religious topics. A lot of the edits I do I have flagged as minor in the past perhaps, in retrospect, an error as I see some users are concerned with that. However, I feel that minor wording changes, clarifications, wikifying,  and spelling corrections are VERY important to the overall quality of an article. I have been more careful with my minor edits, but I have always attempted to abide by guidelines concerning their use. I am proud to make article edits on topics on which I have knowlede as well as make minor wording, paragraph changes on ones in which I have less direct knowledge.
 * 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 stepped on toes when not meaning to. I seek to be careful and open when making edits, striving always towards NPOV and integrity. I have never been in a real edit war, but have found myself getting aggravated at certain edits. I remember to reevaluate and always act with consideration. When I edit articles on subjects with which I disagree, I try to be careful with my own motives. In addition, I have learned not to take corrections personally and to admit when I error in a situation. I feel that edit counts are not the best indication of a user's contributions.