The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Edcolins

Final (27/1/0) ended 12:00 October 28, 2005 (UTC)

Edcolins ( talk · contribs) – Edcolins has been a member of the Wikipedia community since March of 2004. During that time he has amassed more than 11,000 edits on a very consistent basis (20 edits per day, consistent average since May 2004). He has made significant contributions in law and related topics, Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Cleanup and a large number of other areas. He has been active in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, disambiguation work, and vandal fighting. In his contributions and user interactions he has been level headed, patient, and professional. He uses edit summaries 80% of the time. I have very (insanely?) high standards for nominating a candidate, and Edcolins meets my requirements. -- Durin 19:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thanks, Durin. -- Edcolins 12:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support per above. -- Durin 19:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Support Looks to be an outstanding contributor-- MONGO 12:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Support I'm deeply surprised this person isn't an admin already. Privat e Butcher 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Support per nom.  BD2412 ^talk 16:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Support Dlyons493 Talk 17:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Support Oran e (t) (c) (@) 20:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Support low edit-summary use is really not a factor in this case, since he clearly has the experience. freestylefrappe 22:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Support. Let's avoid loweditsummarycountitis when considering dedicated contributors like this. Bahn Mi 01:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Support good editor -- Rogerd 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Support very solid -- SFoskett 01:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Andre ( talk) 02:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Definitely Martin 09:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Support. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Support. The Minister of War 20:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Support. Shauri smile! 12:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Fir e Fo x 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support per nom. JoanneB 13:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Support -- Francs 2000 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC) reply
20. Support edit conflicts with Francs2000. El_C 22:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC) reply
21. Support -- Kefalonia 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Support Proto  t  c 13:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply
23. Support with more edit summaries. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 10:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
24. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
25. Support, solid editor. Silensor 20:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
26. Support per above Tedernst 18:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply
27. Support-- Jcw69 09:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. -- Boothy443 | comhrá 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question [1] or he is excessivley sarcastic [2]. I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Boothy443. -- Durin 04:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

Definately support on condition of email being supplied. Martin 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

No problem. I have checked the "Enable email from other users" box in my "Preferences". -- Edcolins 15:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Nice one, thanks. Martin 09:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

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. Blocking vandals if necessary. Deleting an article for which there is a consensus. Any of the admin tasks whenever necessary.

I don't plan any major change in the way I contribute. I am just dedicated to help the community concentrate in writing excellent articles, by reaching consensus on NPOV matter, adding references, creating disambiguation pages, redirect, merging articles, and so on.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I'll give five examples. " European Patent Convention" is a precise article, with a good perspective I think. " Inventive step and non-obviousness" is a fruitful "transatlantic" collaboration. " Claim" is technically rich. " Software patents under the EPC" has a solid structure. And " London Agreement" helps to understand this legal arrangement, I think (well I hope so!).

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. See Talk:Alicante and Talk:Jerome H. Lemelson (I posted a RfC for this "threat").

I think I have progressively improved the way I deal with conflicts. I basically try to prevent them, by being as NPOV as possible and discussing the matter on talk pages as early as possible (as in Is the source reliable?). I have met a lot of reasonable wikipedians actually.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.