Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wayward


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

Wayward
Final (17/3/2), ended 02:00 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite honored to nominate for Wayward for adminship. He's been around since February and has over 2000 edits. For those who know, Wayward quietly copyedits many of the featured article candidates and many other articles with a rather decieving "minor edit" (which, if one looks at one such as its rather major for a minor edit). Anyway, Wayward also reverts a bit of vandalism every now and then (with a decieving admin-like edit summary) and I think he could use the REAL revert button. Give him the mop!! :) Ryan Norton T 02:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept RN's gracious nomination. &mdash;Wayward 03:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as the nom :) Ryan Norton T 02:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support CambridgeBayWeather 02:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support for no obvious reason. &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Merovingian (t) (c) 15:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. He has shown a firm understanding of our policies, and I am sure he will use the tools wisely. Copyediting is a vastly underrated task in Wikipedia, Wayward is a prime example of a user making a very valuable contribution without necessarily adding reams of content. Rje 15:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support copyediting is more relevant to administrating than writing is. 2000 edits is more than enough. freestylefrappe 23:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Good editor. Give him a mop.  --Rogerd 01:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Copyediting is a much-needed task, and users shouldn't be looked down on for focusing on it. --Aquillion 05:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   15:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Fir  e  Fo  x  16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Stereotyping "acceptable editing behaviors" for adminship seems counterproductive. Besides, Wikipedia needs better writing more than it needs new articles. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Seems unlikely to cause destruction. --Bjarki 02:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) -- (drini's page| &#x260E; ) 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. El_C 03:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Good candidate. Nice to see a normal editor for a change. --Tony Sidaway Talk  04:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support so long as you work on using more usertalk, especially in dealing with vandals:)--MONGO 08:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 23:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   00:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) An admin should ideally contribute more to articles than simple copyediting. I think more experience of writing articles from scratch, or contributing to existing articles is necessary attribute for an admin. Astrotrain 14:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Same reason as given by Astrotrain. Privat  e   Butcher  20:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) An admin should not regularly violate Wikipedia policy.  In this case, the nominee's besetting sin is a lack of respect for previous editors' national spelling. Examples:    Shimmin 12:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with your assessment of my respect for other editors. I have never attempted to foist upon an article my preferred version of English. When I begin to edit an article, I try to determine what variety of English is most prevalent and standardize on that. Once I mistakenly changed an article from one version of English to another. It was brought to my attention on my talk page, and I apologized and changed the article back. As for the articles you site as evidence of my misdeeds, please take a look at the versions prior to my edits.. Run any of those versions through a spell checker and you will see that they contain a mix of both American and British English. I did my best to standardize on one version of English. I may be a lot of things, but I am not disrespectful to anyone, and I do not push any particular version of English. I hope you will look into the links I have provided and perhaps you will change your opinion of me. &mdash;Wayward Talk 13:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose per Journalist 7 talk page edits way too few --JAranda'' | watz sup 01:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) I really want to support, as he is a very good editor (plus I trust the nominator), but 7 usertalk namespace edits are just too few. →Jo urna list   >>talk<<  21:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Journalist. the wub  "?!"  11:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops - fixed voting link. Blame the nominator please :). Ryan Norton T 02:25, 11 October 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. I already revert vandalism, check for poor edits, and delete link spam of the articles on my watch list. As an admin I would expand my efforts to speedy deletions, page protection, and other admin functions as I become familiar with them.

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


 * A. That's a tough one as I'm mostly a copyeditor. I would have to say I take the most pleasure in copyediting feature article candidates, putting the finishing touches on the best of what Wikipedia has to offer. In addition to copyediting, I have added footnotes to a number of articles, including feature articles Exploding Whale and Tooth Enamel. I am also active in reverting vandalism and participating in MoS discussion.

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. I haven't had a conflict with anyone so far. And while I have strong religious and political convictions, I check them at the Wikipedia door. However, I do avoid editing a handful of articles which I feel I maybe too emotional invested in. As far as dealing with future problems, I don't think I'll have any: I'll continue to contribute to those articles which I can and avoid the few which I feel uncomfortable with.


 * 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.