Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EDGE

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EDGE

[edit]

Vote here

(2/16/0) ends 03:13, 29 Sep 2004
  • I am a relatively new user, but I show great promise. I have done valuable clean-up type work and have proven myself worthy of you, my peers. When elected, I intend to write an article on azmatology, poetic terrorism, and pirate utopias. I look forward to your support and many years of cooperation.

Support

  1. He is reformed and should be given a chance. --Taoster 19:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. -- orthogonal 03:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC). Since we have a well-known and easy to use method to remove abusive sysops, why not give him a chance?


Oppose

  1. Gentgeen 08:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. 115 edits, one month, a history (based on talk page) of vandalism, and, ya know, you don't have to be an admin to write new articles. --Golbez 08:27, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  3. way too early, especially after having introduced himself with acts of vandalism andy 08:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. I cannot in good faith support someone with hardly any edits and who writes uppercase. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 10:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Too new. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 11:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. I am quite sorry. I rarely vote for oppose, but there are too many detractor's on EDGE's record. First is his snits with other users and when andy said that EDGE has introduced himself with acts of vandalism. Second, and I say this to EDGE himself, you do not need to be an administrator to write articles on azmatology, poetic terrorism, and pirate utopias. Third, EDGE has underestimated what kind of experience is asked of him as an administrator. Fourth, he has a very fresh view of how the community works. I doubt that he read the rules on nominating himself in much depth, or he wouldn't have voted for himself, much less neutrally so. I would like to say to EDGE that you may want to consider a re-self-nomination after at least 1000 edits. Good luck! --MerovingianѤTalk 11:32, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  7. User created a lot of nonsense articles on "poetic terrorism" a few days ago, moved user and talk pages to random locations, and caused general mayhem. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 12:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Too new, and too much odd stuff. A month or two of good, solid wikipeding may change my mind. DJ Clayworth 15:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. A reformed vandal, which EDGE admits being, faces a significantly higher bar in terms of earning the trust of the community. --Michael Snow 16:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Too new + not enough experience + vandalism = strongly oppose. Sorry! --Lst27 18:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Not on your life. He is NOT a reformed vandal -- he refuses to discuss his edits, but prefers to delete discussions from his Talk page rather than to deal with them. RickK 01:12, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  12. I'm going with RickK on this for my first-ever admin opposition vote. In less than a month he's raised quite a bit of contention, especially with a respected user like Rick. If EDGE can prove himself like DJ Clayworth suggests, I too would be willing to change my vote at a future date after a lot more good-faith edits and a lot less contention. Just not yet. That third-party comment about the intuition raised my eyebrows a notch or two as well. - Lucky 6.9 02:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. What they said. --Slowking Man 02:51, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Um... I keep encountering very strange edits and comments made by this user. It is difficult to know if he is really reformed. func(talk) 00:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) (actually, the recent edits to articles have been ok). func(talk) 00:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) I also rarely vote oppose, but starting with vandalism is just bad. I say wait a few months, rack up about 400-500 more good edits and maybe more people will support.
  16. Strongly oppose. –Andre (talk) 21:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Commentary

  • user has 115 edits begining on August 26, 2004. IMHO, not enough time or experience yet. Gentgeen 08:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • User shows good promise and excellent intuition. However, he is quick to get into snits with other users. User needs to be more disciplined, empathetic, and patient. EDGE 09:01, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Note to RickK: refusing to discuss edits != vandalism. Furthermore, haven't we discussed my edits before? I have done so with many different people on many different pages. Your statement is just plainly wrong. I deleted a mere fragment of a discussion on my page, that being one of your additions. Why? Because you take the same cavaliere attitude on your talk page with anyone who does not have an account (how crude.) I am reformed. Let go of the past; embrace EDGE. EDGE 02:27, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EDGE&oldid=1138649943"