Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EventHorizon

EventHorizon
Declined by nominee at 22:50, Feb 13, 2005, vote was (1/5/3)

Short working history (2.5 months) but seems very thorough and bold. His revisions often improve articles greatly; he's often willing to tear a problematic article apart entirely and rewrite it. He seems able to collaborate with other writers and deal with controversial issues; for example, on Class in the contemporary United States, he put an evident effort into "editing toward consensus", rather than revert-warring as would have usually happened in a similar situation. I think his strongest selling point is that, in his work, he's thorough. It's evident even to me (mostly a lurker) that he puts a lot of work and thought into his edits. So yeah, I think he's a strong candidate, and at least bears discussion even if rejected on the basis of short history. Crocogator 08:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am going to decline this nomination, for now. As said already, I've done mostly article content work, and should have more community involvement and knowledge before stepping up to the position.


 * I am curious: what is RC patrol? I wouldn't mind knowing, if one were interested in responding at my Talk page.


 * Also, my reason for delay in response is that I have been on a mini-vacation from Wikipedia. The tense situation (okay, flamewar) with "Jrwilhelm" at Class in the contemporary United States has required that I take a time-out from Wikipedia, for my own sake. I will resume participation (at that article as well as otherwise) in a few days.


 * Thank you for your consideration. EventHorizon  talk 22:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Crocogator 08:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) The edit count is low, but he does mention that this wasn't his first account. My main reasons for opposing are several statements on his user page that implies he's seeking a forum to voice his strong opinions and also the lack of participation in VfD and RC patrol. Carrp | Talk 13:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) More solid experience needed. - Taxman 14:47, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm with Taxman. -- R yan!  |  Talk  17:39, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) For now. Andre ( talk ) 21:08, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Needs more time and work, maybe in the future. User:Marine 69-71
 * 1) I await answers below; would like to know if user wants to be an admin and why, as this is important for my support. - Grunt 🇪🇺 22:21, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * 2) Not participating enough.  Also, does he want to be an admin?  -Bart133 (t) 23:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks like a good user, but the failure to answer the questions below makes it difficult to gauge the user's attitude. Also it gives the impression that the user isn't too fussed about being an admin. Rje 14:51, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments Questions for the candidate
 * Please set [ Vote here] (1/0/0) ending 07:58 18 February 2005 (UTC) correctly. Thanks. JuntungWu 09:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Kate's Tool puts the edit count at 653. JuntungWu 09:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * While I hesitate to judge a candidate based on who nominated them, I do think it's relevant to mention that Crocogator has only 39 edits. I'm also concerned with votes such as Crocogator's vote to 'keep' on Votes for deletion/Bushes Gone Wild. Carrp | Talk 14:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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.