Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The ed17 2

The ed17

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (26/1/0); Scheduled to end 02:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

The ed17 (talk · contribs) – .

Co-nomination It is once again my pleasure to nominate The ed17 for adminship on the English Wikipedia. Ed has been with us for over two years, and in that time has become a valuable contributor, a well respected Military history WikiProject coordinator, and a familiar name at DYK. Ed's also been an active outreach user, having donated his time to help our new editors learn the ropes, and was the first to assume good faith in the case of an editor that a friend and I were concerned may have ownership issues with regards to article. His assistance and outstanding work have carried over to WikiProject Ships as well; his work with the ongoing Operation Majestic Titan has yielded a number of articles worthy of merit, including Wikipedia's first featured article on a specific predreadnought battleship and our first non-American or British battleship FA. I doubt that The ed17 will spend every waking moment working on administrative tasks, but I do believe that he will put these tools to good use for the greater good of Wikipedia as a whole whenever he feels the situation warrants an admin's touch. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination I was very pleased when Ed offered me the chance to nominate him for adminship. Ed has been continuously editing since March 2008, racking up about 23,000 edits in the meantime. Most editors have who traipsed through MILHIST at some point or another within the past year or so will have likely seen Ed doing plenty of great work for the project, whether it be regarding project coordination, A-class reviews, or writing high-quality battleship articles. I have had the pleasure of interacting with him a great deal at DYK and WP:ERRORS, where Ed does a good deal of work and has displayed solid judgment. Perhaps Ed will not be the most active administrator. But I know that when he does do administrator work, he will put in the same dedication and thought into his actions that he did for his 20 GA or higher quality articles. I have not seen a single edit of Ed's to suggest that he is not worthy of our trust. So let us give him just a little bit more. NW (Talk) 01:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: - I will be participating at DYK more for sure. As the queues are protected, an administrator is required to move updates from the prep areas into them. As to other areas, I do not know if I will take up residence in any; only time will tell.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: - My work at DYK—having 19 articles appear on the main page and putting together a fair amount of updates—is nice, but I am most proud of the higher-class articles I have written. I can count heavy contributions to ship articles from a plethora of countries, including the United States, Argentina, Brazil, the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan. Due to the scarcity of English-language sources, my favorite is probably Design 1047 battlecruiser; North Carolina-class battleship is very close though, because of the level of detail I was able to include in it.

FA/A/GA list

USS Nevada (BB-36) Alaska-class cruiser USS Connecticut (BB-18) - with many people Design 1047 battlecruiser Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes Yamato-class battleship - Climie.ca (talk · contribs) was main contributor Lexington-class battlecruiser Amagi-class battlecruiser - with Parsecboy (talk · contribs) North Carolina-class battleship - with Parsecboy Brazilian cruiser Bahia The Sword of Shannara - with DanDs (talk · contribs) USS Hawaii (CB-3) Tosa-class battleship - with Parsecboy Brazilian battleship São Paulo O class battlecruiser - with Parsecboy Design B-65 cruiser - with Cla68 (talk · contribs) ARA Rivadavia - with Parsecboy Design A-150 battleship Colorado-class battleship with Parsecboy and TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users 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 haven't been in any serious conflicts since March 2008. I would say that the closest things to a dispute would have been an article that was written in a lipogrammatic format (see the talk page archives from here down and here), or the FAC for USS Connecticut (BB-18), when I faced plagiarism concerns from Ottava Rima (talk · contribs).

Additional optional questions from Friday

4. What would you say to those who are unfamiliar with your editing history, but see cause for concern in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The ed17 ?

A: - To be honest, I see many problems with myself then as well. However, I do believe that I have improved a great deal in the 8^1/2 months since that RfA. In early January, I had only a few articles that I had gone through and taken to high quality. However, since then, I have worked on nearly two GAs (and/or higher quality articles) a month. In addition, since my last RfA I have found WP:DYK, an area that I would definitely see myself contributing more heavily to as an administrator. Regarding my demonstration of policy knowledge, which was a sticking point in my last RfA, I do believe I have demonstrated sufficient knowledge of all policies since then, but if there is anything in particular that sticks out, feel free to ask me. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/The ed17
• Requests for adminship/The ed17 2

• Links for The ed17: The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for The ed17 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/The ed17 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. Javért ^☆ 02:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as co-nominator. NW (Talk) 01:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong Support as co - nominator. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Looks good to me!--Res2216firestar 02:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Shiver me timbers! Ye sprog finally decided to set sail on the high seas that be RfA. Ye lily-livered landlubber better make me proud, else ye be keelhauled! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. I've been impressed by his work. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
6. A fine candidate indeed. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 02:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
7. All around good candidate with very strong wikiproject activity.  7  02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Tempodivalse [talk] 02:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong Support: It's now an year since I first met Ed, and everything I have seen him do during that time here is impressive. Ed helps out a lot at DYK, and the new tools would be a benefit there (and desperately needed too, I might add). The extra tools will be nothing but a benefit to the project. ≈ Chamal ^{Avast, landlubber!} ¤ 02:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Solid contributor, trust worthy in my thoughts would make a good addition esp for dyk.Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong support Reliable, sensible and hardworking editor who can be trusted with the tools.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Excellent work at DYK. Shubinator (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Deserves the trust of the community, and probably deserved it back in January too. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
14. While I weak supported last time, I cannot get over how pleased I am with the excellent to reasonable argument and stances at here, here, here, and here. Thus I am darn near going with a strong support this time around. The candidate has a host of FA, A-class, GA, and Did you know…? credits on his user page, was identified as an Awesome Wikipedian by BOTH Dylan and Relevse, has 3+ years of experience under his belt, was kind enough to adopt two other users, not to mention has received User:The_ed17/Awards, and the blocks were nearly three years ago. Finally, the fact that it is unanimous support thus far is telling, i.e. none of my fellow colleagues have offered any reasons not to support either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Strong support - I've known Ed for a while now, and have collaborated with him on several high-quality articles. He is a rational editor and can be trusted to use the tools with care. His work at DYK will be enhanced if he has the ability to directly process the update queues, which seem to be constantly backlogged. Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
16. I find the co-nominators to be convincing. @harej 03:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong support. A very trustworthy guy. bibliomaniac15 03:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - When I first met Ed, he had some content related difficulties. However, after discussing and fighting, he sure learned from his mistakes. :) It has been quite a long time since then, and I haven't noticed any of those problems in a very long time. His understanding of policies and guidelines has improved greatly and I trust him on his understanding of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Fine. BrianY (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
20. But of course! Ed is a very trustworthy and smart guy. He deserved the mop already! ;) iMatthew ^talk at 03:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
21. Prodego ^talk 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
22. SUpport for ensuring that we won't go an entire calendar day without having an RfA candidate ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. A regular worker for WP:DYK like yourself should be endowed with appropriate tools. I don't see any evidence of exceptionally bad behavior. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Aye, good candidate. See him around all the time. He's helpful, dedicated to the project, I trust him not to misuse the tools. But would suggest more experience in areas not related to content building. Per above and nom - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Looks good to me. Regards, Javért ^☆ 05:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong Support (I would have been a co-nom if it had not been for a power outage) - Ed is one of the finest Wikipedians I have worked with and he is a trusted member of the community already in the MILHIST project as a fellow coordinator. His content-building is exceptional, as is his work at DYK. I have no doubts that he would ever misuse the tools and the granting of the mop would be a huge net positive to the project. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Although I've supported some candidates under 18, I'm not totally convinced to see exceptional maturity from this candidate. Seems quick to judge and accuse given this comments[1][2] at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_46.--Caspian blue 03:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I believe that Ed is of the age of majority in America. NW (Talk) 03:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   I can confirm that Ed is over 18. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Not to badger, but I happen to remember why I jumped at him there, even though it was in May. :-) I had read through the entirety of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 46#Welcome to Wikipedia (United_States) about a week before, and I was a little annoyed that he decided to come to another area of the project to push the same ideas. However, I would agree that my responses were quite strong. Thanks for weighing in! Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose for now. Has created and recreated articles containing copyvios - see 36th Infantry Brigade (United States). Buckshot06(prof) 03:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Wrong editor. That's Ed!. The ed17 is the one up for adminship on this here page. @harej 03:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   See Ed! (talk · contribs) (who created the copyvio you linked to) versus The_ed17 (talk · contribs) who is the one up for adminship here. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well pointed out guys - my mistake. I withdraw my 'oppose.' Buckshot06(prof) 03:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral