Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wile E. Heresiarch

Wile E. Heresiarch
contribs

I'd like to nominate Wile E., who has been a solid and involved contributor here throughout 2004. Charles Matthews 14:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you Charles, I accept the nomination. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Support


 * 1) Charles Matthews 15:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Quadell 15:35, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jwrosenzweig 15:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC) Wile's done some advanced stuff I barely understand, but the attitude (where I've seen it) has been great, and a nom from Charles Matthews pretty much assures me that Wile knows his/her stuff. :-)
 * 4) UninvitedCompany 16:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC). Wile E. is level-headed and meets all of my criteria.
 * 5) Maximus Rex 16:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) &#8212;No-One Jones 16:37, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Dpbsmith 18:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC) Quickly looking at a few contributions I thought I could evaluate, I noticed that all the ones I looked at were just superb: Ernst Mach, Illustration of the central limit theorem and Faraday effect, to name three. His contributions to discussions always make sense to me.
 * 8) Smerdis of Tlön 19:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, no question.  Isomorphic 21:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Angela. 21:11, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 21:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Good contributor. GrazingshipIV 22:29, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Michael Snow 22:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) About 600 article name space edits, but high quality math stuff, including major contributions. Also active on VfD -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) --Menchi 01:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --"D ICK " C HENEY  19:11, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) * That was rude and unnecessary. Cribcage 04:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) ** Considering that only 3.2% of registered en: users meet Kingturtle's criteria I find eir standard to be absurd and contrary to the spirit of adminship being "no big deal". I added the message to inform other users I oppose blackballing users from adminship because they didn't fix 3,000 spelling errors/redirects/whatever without checking the minor edit box (because now minor edits don't seem to count anymore at RfA). --"D ICK " C HENEY 06:16, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Support strongly. RickK 04:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Cribcage 04:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Support with extreme prejudice.--Beelzebubs 15:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Lst27 22:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) jengod 05:51, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Many excellent contributions DrBob 18:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Hephaestos|&#167; 02:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) 172 13:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Gentgeen 21:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) Snowspinner 18:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) Jiang 00:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) Rhymeless 07:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Not yet enough edits from Wile E, IMHO. User still needs more experience in this community before I can support. Kingturtle 01:30, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Bad judgment shown. --Wik 02:05, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) *Where and when? &#8212;No-One Jones 20:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) **On Template:VfD-Structure of German grammar where he talked about "Wik's edit warring". --Wik 20:58, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ***What, you mean where he criticized you for reverting a bunch of edits that were written by someone writing in their second language when you could have actually spent time fixing them? How's that bad judgment again? Snowspinner 18:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) ****I don't have to fix hopelessly error-ridden material, and if I wanted to, I could as well rewrite it from scratch. If no one else fixes it, the article is better gone entirely. It is not just about his English, the German is just as wrong. Wile E. probably doesn't speak any German and so should have refrained from commenting on this at all. The same goes for you. --Wik 19:28, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) *****Of course you don't have to. However, Avoiding common mistakes and Staying cool when the editing gets hot both suggest that simply deleting text is not preferable to working to fix it up. I don't think it's poor judgment to off-handedly criticize you for deleting "illiterate" text instead of working to fix it. Snowspinner 19:42, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ******What is there to criticize? Deleting illiterate text is better than to keep it in place. --Wik 19:48, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) *******And moving it to talk, trying to clean it up, putting the page on cleanup, or any number of other things are better than deleting it. Which is what I took his point there to be. Snowspinner 19:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) ********As you acknowledged, I'm not obliged to do that. He can clean it up if he wants. There is still no justification for him to accuse me about "edit warring" just because I twice removed illiterate additions from an article. --Wik 20:21, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I concure. I am not sure how long this user has actually been here, but from looking at their user page, not long.  However, I could think of worse nominations.  ChrisDJackson