Support = 32; Oppose = 0; Neutral = 0 - 100% Result: Absolute consensus achieved, so PhD sysop tools are granted. Edgar is now a Commons admin. Patríciamsg22:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here on Commons, there has been a recognized need to cleanup many of the chemistry related images. The number of poor quality and simply inaccurate chemical structure images is surprisingly high. This has resulted in the creation of categories such as Category:Disputed chemical diagrams which require both administrative action (image deletion) and a good knowledge of chemistry to properly maintain the process. However, as far as I'm aware, there are no highly active chemist admins on Commons. So with this void in mind, and encouragement from other chemists, I have decided to request adminship so that I may take on a bit more responsibility here, contribute to the maintenance of chemistry areas, and generally contribute more effectively to the Commons community. I have been a very active contributor on Commons since May 2006 with ~4000 edits and ~2000 uploads. I have also been one of the most active administrators on the English Wikipedia for about two years, having done ~17000 deletions and ~8000 blocks without generating controversy. I expect that my administrative actions here would be confined mostly to chemistry-related topics, but I think my contributions indicate that I have the experience, responsibility, and temperament to always act within appropriate guidelines wherever necessary. Edgar181 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support User has some positive contributions on this project and his specialized knowledge area will help greatly as well. Cirt (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on my interactions with the user and the unanimous support from his fellow chemists. It seems they need someone with the tools. (I just hope he widens his field of work a bit.) Rocket000(talk)12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally occurring aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids. In any other circumstances I'd like to see more copyvio tagging, as per Kanonkas below. However, with as long as you've been around, and with as much work as you have done, there's absolutely no question of trust in my mind; and you're a good and solid enough contributor that I'd be willing to support you even if you had some parts of our licensing policy that you were unclear about (and if there are: go take a crash course then pretend it never happened). Best of luck. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the evidence of copyright knowledge provided means I have no concerns over his relatively small number of deleted contribs. —Giggy08:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have my conerns as you an see in the comment section, but as long as Edgar keep doing what they know they have my support. Good luck! --Kanonkas(talk)10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Commons has become a dumping ground of sorts for chemical images (I'm not familiar with other areas). While I can fully appreciate that there is no single way to draw an image, the low quality images should be weeded out. It's a big task and (with all due respect to other users) only a chemist can do it. I'm glad Ed's stepped up. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ed's a prolific, dedicated and level-headed curator of Commons, with an exceptional level of knowledge of chemistry that will be very useful. His edits to Commons already have an admin level of quality to them, so there's no reason not to give him the tools. Ben (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe trust is the issue here, but when looking through your deleted contribs, I don't see much copyright violation tagging, how can I know that you'll delete an image corrrectly? Looking through this RfA it looks in my view you won't be dealing so much with them, but more with "Disputed chemical diagrams". It's good that you'll be working there, but I believe an admin should also have experienced with copyvio tagging. Thanks, --Kanonkas(talk)07:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your concern. The only assurance I can offer is that my non-controversial record of administrative actions on the English Wikipedia (including copyvio tagging and deletion) shows that it is not my personality to take action where I don't know the proper course of action. Edgar181 (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support = 32;
Oppose = 0;
Neutral = 0 - 100% Result: Absolute consensus achieved, so
Naturally occurring aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids. In any other circumstances I'd like to see more copyvio tagging, as per Kanonkas below. However, with as long as you've been around, and with as much work as you have done, there's absolutely no question of trust in my mind; and you're a good and solid enough contributor that I'd be willing to support you even if you had some parts of our licensing policy that you were unclear about (and if there are: go take a crash course then pretend it never happened). Best of luck. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OK in respect the mentioned above: nothing more to add! --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Rock On! Meh to en.wp - but I've dealt with ya here. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Bit by bit the chemistry
