Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Edgar181

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Edgar181

[edit]

Final(75/0/0) Ending 11:55, 2006-07-18 (UTC)

Edgar181 (talk · contribs) – Edgar181 (also known as Ed) hails from Pennsylvania, United States, is an unsung hero of the project. He has a PhD in Organic chemistry and is a researcher in the field, and here at Wikipedia, he is a major contributor to the expansion of Organic chemistry content on Wikipedia.

According to User:Edgar181/articles and User:Edgar181/gallery, I counted some 149 articles and 359 images (structure diagrams of organic chemical compounds), all written in a encyclopedic and technically correct manner, as well as being properly referenced - thereby setting a good example of NPOV and encyclopedic writing for other users; one of the most important facets of being an administrator.

For editcountitis purposes, he has about 9500 edits, but this is an understatement of his contributions here due to the fact that a science article needs to be written in a very technically correct way in order that it is useful and comprehensible. (I can vouch for this from personal experience as a Theoretical physics student writing Maths and Physics articles).

Secondly, an administrator is meant to be an ambassador for Wikipedia, and the civility, politeness, enthusiasm and encouragement ([1], [2], [3], [4]) that Edgar brings to the project is amply evidenced. He has never engaged in edit-warring or disruption. His ability to respond to queries appropriately and in an engaging manner can be seen through his service at Science Reference desk ([5], [6]).

His ability to work and discuss issues in a group can be observed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Chemicals among other places ([7], [8], [9])- he is always polite, and makes calm and reasoned points which are to the point of the issue.

Edgar helps to revert vandalism and warns the offenders appropriately, and has over 60 reports to AIV, so this will increase our coverage of vandalism here. He does NP patrol and his record and contributions at AfD, ([10], [11], [12]) which show discussion and reasoning, that he understands the deletion policy and would suggest that he would close AfDs with the discretionary wisdom required, and make reasoned judgments when the numerical results are indecisive.

He also has a very thorough usage of honest and accurate edit summaries, allowing others to see what he has written and follow the historical development of articles. His email is enabled and his userpage and signature are in completely in order.

Giving Edgar access to admin tools will speed up the works at AIV and AFD and also CSD. It is a privilege to recommend this extremely unsung hero to the community for administrator status. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Strong support as nominator.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support per the excellently written nom. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 12:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Perhaps go for a shorter nomination statement next time so that I don't have to read so much (j/k). This user definitely deserves the mop. DarthVader 12:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sometimes even the dark side is right  ;) Mostly Rainy 12:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very Strong Support per nom. SushiGeek 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, I don't think I can add anything to the nomination. Ed has been a fantastic contributor since his arrival. Rje 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Highway Batman! 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support - per nom abakharev 13:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support yes please - CrazyRougeian talk/email 13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, been around a while, very impressive upload log, contributed quite a lot to scientific related articles. Answers were very satisfying. I'm happy and convinced even though the user fails my criteria.--Andeh 13:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support This Fire Burns.....Always 13:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 14:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per nom.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support based on the nom and a brief overview of the candidate's edits, I think that the candidate would do well to have the extra tools and would become an even more valuable asset to Wikipedia with said tools. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 14:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. He has my full trust and support! Femto 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Retiree Support, of course. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 15:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Supportper brief review of user's contributions and the nomination. -- Avi 15:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: I have supported the specialist, as I do believe that the tendency, if any, on the part of administrators to deal with issues about which they may not have much knowledge is one of the most dangerous dimensions of wikipedia's functioning. In order to remove this, we require administrators who are well aware of one or more subjects. --Bhadani 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I cannot see a reason to not support! Political Mind 05:12, December 1, 2024 (UTC).
  23. Support - No worries about this candidate. Good work. Mário 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. What great candidate. Themindset 16:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Another excellent candidate coming through RfA.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: Organic chemist, goes after vandals - what's not to like? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support A great candidate. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Thanks for your valuable contributions. Dryman 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per nom. Roy A.A. 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support The road to my PhD was loaded with broken bottles of vodka...anyway, the world needs more organic chemists to be admins. TruthCrusader 19:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Organic Chemistry Rocks Support! I've read some of your contributions here, and I have to say I've learned a lot. As a college engineering student Organic Chem is a must, and your work here has helped clarify the concepts for me greatly. Thanks for your great work! Thistheman 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Pennsylvanian Support Would make a great addition to the administrative group. Has a lot of experience. Just one question for him, what part of PA do you live in? --WillMak050389 20:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I live in the suburbs of Philadelphia. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Of course...deserves the tools.` Alphachimp talk 21:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Looks good and a non-bad answer to my question. Keep the admin backlog clean. Kevin_b_er 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, I really like what edgar has to offer to the community. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The century won't be there for Phaedriel to collect....that's a shame for this RfA....Blnguyen | rant-line 05:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Merovingian {T C @} 00:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good candidate --rogerd 04:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No problems that worry me. Ansell 05:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Tawker.Support == 1 -- Tawker 05:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. support: Looks like a natural. Ombudsman 07:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support; will make a great admin and wiki needs more scientists. --Guinnog 10:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, but try to avoid the dangerous chemicals when doing janitorial duties. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per Guinnog. --Shizane 17:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per Guinnog. As a science student myself I know how much more work goes into writing on a technical subject. ViridaeTalk 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Very Strong Support--It should a policy at wikipedia if you create 100 articles about science and you have P.hd you automatically get adimship.--Scott3 21:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposed policy is full of wisdom...although 100 is a lot considering the technical correctness required.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Samir धर्म 00:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-13 04:17Z
  49. I'd-think-of-something-witty-but-I'm-blinded-by-awesome Support. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - we need admins who like to have fun with esters. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 07:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support - breaking my "I have to have interacted with them to vote" rule here - I couldn't pass up what seems to be the perfect candidate. Vandal fighting, civility, picture creation and article writing. Surely not? —Celestianpower háblame 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support!, contributions are overwhelmingly impressive, and appears to be a very positive editor. -- Natalya 11:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support!! Per nom. QuizQuick 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support--Jusjih 00:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Great Wikipedian. Very trustworthy and that's probably the most important quality to have as a Wikipedian. --Tuspm Talk | Contribs | E-Mail Me 01:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: a clear positive addition to Wikipedia. More tools is for this editor is better. Stephen B Streater 06:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per everyone. Jokestress 07:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Joe I 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support oh yeah, bring forth the mop. --Alf melmac 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Meets my criteria quite easily. --Wisden17 18:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support another great Blnguyen nom! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Jaranda wat's sup 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Lets join the bandwagon! ^^ --Terrancommander 13:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Spectacular candidate, speedy promote please! Rockpocket 07:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Pile-on support. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Good user, and you are also a specialist, which makes the decision even easier!!!Abcdefghijklm 15:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. We need more science editors with deep knowledge to spread the cult of Wikipedia among academia and to keep writing awesome articles. This editor is pH 7, well balanced. "More candidates like this one, please!TM Support' ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support the prefect candidate —M inun (Spiderman) 11:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry for forgetting to sign it, my aplogies —M inun (Spiderman) 11:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. --Klemen Kocjancic 07:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - very impressive candidate - Glen 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Trustworthy candidate, good contributions. JPD (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support SCIENCE FTW! Seriously though, good candidate. - FrancisTyers · 16:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Edgar181 has shown flawless civility and steadfast dedication to the project. I wish I had had the fortune of working with him, but his answers to the RfA questions as well as his talkpage responses speak well for his character. I'd also like to compliment Blnguyen for the great nomination.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong Support --A. B. 03:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Good contributor, and also knowledgeable on Science. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
Username	Edgar181
Total edits	9503
Distinct pages edited	6044
Average edits/page	1.572
First edit	10:04, October 14, 2005
	
(main)	6782
Talk	226
User	108
User talk	1334
Image	380
Image talk	2
Template	16
Template talk	1
Category	39
Wikipedia	563
Wikipedia talk	51
Portal	1

--Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: A large subset of my contributions to Wikipedia involve something akin to janitorial duties – reverting vandalism, moving pages, contributing to AFD, marking pages as candidates for speedy deletion, etc. Having administrative powers would enable me to contribute better to Wikipedia in all these functions. The rollback feature will help in removing vandalism; I've seen pages I would like to be able to move over a redirect with a history; I have reported many dozens of vandals to WP:AIV, and it would lessen the burden on others if I could apply a suitable block myself; I contribute regularly to discussions at WP:AFD, and I would expect to contribute to closings if given the authority to do so; and I have seen backlogs at WP:CSD and would gladly help out there if enabled to do so.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Nearly all of my additions to Wikipedia have been in chemistry-related articles. I have made an effort to improve the quality of many of the short articles and stubs by adding the chemistry infoboxes and associated data, as well as expanding content, clarifying difficult concepts and correcting errors. But since I started here, I have felt there was a need to expand on the number of articles covering chemical compounds that people may encounter in their daily life (ingredients in suncreens, food additives, etc.) I have created many such articles which are concise and informative, mostly in response to finding a redlink. Grapefruit mercaptan and oleocanthal are examples. It's this effort that I am most proud of.
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: For the most part, I have not encountered much conflict in my involvement with other Wikipedians. I believe I have always treated others civilly, and I am fortunate to have had few occasions where someone's response was not equally civil in turn. In part, this is probably because I edit almost entirely in science-related articles which tend to be among the least subjective topics, where difference of opinion is not a great factor (as it is in political articles, for example). However, there is one occasion in which my actions clearly caused grief for another individual. I removed a bunch of external links to a personal website that were added to multiple articles by one individual. Here was his response and my reply is below it. The only situations that have caused me stress (and I wouldn't say that it's really all that stressful) are when I have encountered persistent vandals, warned them several times, reported them to WP:AIV, then had to watch them continue on vandalizing while I just revert and wait for an administrator to block them.


Optional question from Kevin Breitenstein:

I see you've created quite a few chemical structure images for wikipedia using ChemDraw, an expensive piece of software. Could you tell me why you wouldn't use something like GIF/PNG-Creator for 2D Plots of Chemical Structures , a free tool, to generate your images for wikipedia? Thanks. Kevin_b_er 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: ChemDraw is the most convenient and user-friendly software available to me that is capable of producing chemical structure images that fit the guidelines set by Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. It is also the most common structure-drawing software used by chemists (and despite the price, most chemists in academia, schools, or industry have access to it), so images I create using it are more likely to be consistent in appearance with images produced by others because images produced by different software can look slighltly different despite consistent drawing settings. ChemDraw provides greater flexibility too, if I want to add color, add numbers to atoms, use reaction arrow, add text to images, etc.

Option question from Minun:

When you use your new powers, would you just do whatever is needed, or would you schedule your tasks and set exact times, cheers —M inun (Spiderman) 11:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I expect to keep an eye on areas where I think I can help out, such as WP:AIV and others, whenever I'm online; but at the moment, I have no plans for scheduling tasks or setting exacts times. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Lar:

(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of Category:Administrators_open_to_recall? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of Category:Rouge admins? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories)
A: For a while now I have regularly read the administrator's noticeboards, so I'm familiar with "rogue" and "rouge" admins and I've seen some debate pertaining to admin accountability; but I wasn't aware until now of the two categories you mention. At this stage, I don't see myself taking any kind of action that would drive six other admins to ask me to face recall, but I like the principle behind Category:Administrators_open_to_recall - the encouragement to think about the consequences to other people of one's administrative actions before proceeding. About I can say now is that I would at least consider placing myself in that category (more likely if I ever became more involved in the policy and/or politics of Wikipedia where my actions might affect more contributors). As to the light-hearted rouge admin category, I don't have either an interest in it or an objection to it.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Edgar181&oldid=1150710565"