Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wwoods
Very good user. He made many articles about US Navy and Navy ships. He made about 6150 edits since February 2004. I believe, that he will be a good admin. -- Darwinek 10:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
- I accept. —wwoods 16:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How could I nominate and not support. -- Darwinek 10:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- PedanticallySpeaking 16:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 00:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- ugen64 02:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Solid, reliable editor. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll support, excellent editor. Handles conflicts fairly evenly and with relatively cool head. Kim Bruning 12:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Gdr 11:50, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
- I've seen a lot of high-quality work from Wwoods. Acegikmo1 21:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Switch from neutral to support. --JuntungWu 11:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- support. Kingturtle 05:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Positive contributions on many issues. David Newton 19:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support: Very observant and open to suggestions; his contributions have been very good as well TomStar81 00:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- oppose. I oppose the adminship of anyone who does not understand what the term "machine parsable" means. Especially when the means to understand that term are readily available to them. This to me shows a lack of due diligence, which is a primary characteristic of an administrator. Avriette 02:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps the candidate knows what Machine-readable means, and found nothing when looking up Machine-parsable or Machine parsable... -Kbdank71 18:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Excellent editor. With all those edits, I haven't really found any relating to a conflict or situation which the candidate might have had to (re)solve. (to do with my personal admin criteria :-) ) Does anyone recall such a situation? Thanks in advance :-) Kim Bruning 13:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Quite a many of edits don't have edit summary. People doing RC check do lost their time over these. Pavel Vozenilek 17:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The lack of edit summaries makes me abstain for now. Zzyzx11 02:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. I cannot support people who rarely give edit summaries. --Lst27 (talk) 19:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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. Reverting drive-by vandalism, certainly. I haven't paid much attention to Votes for Deletion, but I guess I can do that.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Operation Downfall. It was a Featured Article last August, but I think I've improved it further.
- 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 will deal with it in the future?
- 4. I'd like to know what your feelings are on the content of the wikipedia. Do you feel that having templates and machine-parsable data are valuable to the wikipedia and its userbase? Do you feel that, for example, we should try to standardize the WikiProject Planes and WikiProject Ships data formats? Also, what is you opinion of "fancruft" and how do you feel it should be "handled"? Sorry for the double-whammy. Avriette 01:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think I'm a lot more tolerant of fancruft than you are; at least of stuff that I'm a fan of, like Stargate--and other stuff is below my horizon. Way back when, I made the suggestion that in cases where there are a lot of items about which nothing much can be said, it's better to collect them on one page than to make a lot of stubby articles, and that seems to have been done.
- —wwoods 20:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)