Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wereon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wereon

final (5/18/0) ending 20:10, 13 March 2005 (UTC)

Wereon has been here a long time (at least since last January) and I think he'd make a fine admin. →Raul654 20:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. Wereon 21:29, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. I assume good faith! --Ryan! | Talk 21:54, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I appreciate his answer on the edit summary question. Support. Jonathunder 00:40, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  3. Support. ugen64 01:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Without naming any names, I find it hard to believe that some of the opposition are literate. ugen64 05:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Snowspinner 20:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC). Come on. I think Lir's RfA was less one sided than this.
  5. Two things lead me to support: Firstly, Raul's endorsement. Secondly, his defence and championing of proper English spelling and grammar. And by that I mean British English. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strongly oppose. 1) Arbitrarily changes grammar and spelling (systemically and en masse) from American English to British English. 2) Almost never leaves an edit summary. 3) Doesn't have a userpage that tells anything about him or his wiki-beliefs. 4) Has never shown an interest in the project namespace or administrative chores. 5) Copyediting is not an "admin chore"; Wereon listed it as a "sysop duty" below. Neutralitytalk 20:15, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I'm not happy about planned blocking of IPs. Geni 21:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. The comment about IP adresses below concerns me, as does his talismanic wielding of the Manual of Style (which is not policy). I do not believe he has shown enough community interaction, janitoring skills, or understanding of policy for me to support. Rje 22:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Activities such as copyediting would not be aided by admin powers. I'm also concerned about the proposed blocking of public IPs. Carrp | Talk 01:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Strongly oppose due to proposed IP blocking. ElBenevolente 01:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. *shudder* Dr Zen 04:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I'm not keen on the Manual of Style rigidity (it's not policy, and even those who edit it don't agree with much of its content), the proposed blocking of IP addresses used by libraries (some people may have no other way of editing), or that many or most of his edits are minor. SlimVirgin 06:43, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
    I was referring to my school, specifically users such as User:212.23.3.151. Look at the edit history – the vast, vast majority have been vandalisms, and temporary bans or messages do not work, as the IP address is shared by many users. I apologize; my comment below may have sounded wrong.
  8. Oppose. Banning people in libraries from editing an encyclopedia? --iMb~Mw 09:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose; interesting attitudinal link between IP and MOS comments. We need more flexibility, not less. Filiocht 10:29, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose for various reasons also given above. Jordi·✆ 10:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Nothing personal, but I think this user needs to learn to be more of a team player before being handed the keys. David Cannon 12:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, due to the issue of banning libraries from editing. You could use the same argument to just completely block AOL from editing. --Goobergunch|? 04:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    <AOL!> Ooh, can we? Jordi·✆ 10:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose — Matt Crypto 10:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Umm, don't ban public IPs as a "pre-emptive strike," don't consider copyediting "admin powers," and basically don't do anything you said you'd do in the section below, and I might vote for you next time. Oppoze. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Directly from the Manual of Style: "Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules". Also, consider responding to the criticisms without attacking. I certainly wouldn't want that treatment from an admin. -Kbdank71 17:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, seems apt to get into editing fights over minor issues. Daniel Quinlan 22:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  17. An example of the worst possible candidate, in my opinion. A.D.H. (t&m) 10:31, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. As someone who has done everyone of his 5000+ edits at public library terminals, I'm bothered by his notion that libraries should be blocked. PedanticallySpeaking 17:59, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • I'm sure he's a fine editor, but more descriptive edit summaries would be helpful. Jonathunder 20:49, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
    • Yes – sorry. Sometimes laziness gets the better of me, particularly for minor edits. I'll try use more descriptive summaries in future, whether user or admin. Wereon 21:12, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to Blankfaze's query: Here's just a few, from his last 500 edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Neutralitytalk 23:52, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

    • We have personally discussed this in great detail – it is not a Briticism, it is explicitly advocated by the Manual of Style here. You are a subversive, as you have attempted to change it without consensus, and your changes were overruled. You have also stated on Meta somewhere that you hate the "logical style", and so are biased. Please also note that my lack of edit summaries for many articles is largely due to your habit of reverting any of my edits marked "quoting style". You yourself have editing the quoting style (from "logical" to "conventional") while making minor changes to an article, and not indicated in the summary.
      • I'm a "subversive" now? BTW, sign your comments. Neutralitytalk 04:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • His description isn't far-fetched. You do tend to subversively make changes, both minor and major, without discussing, hidden amongst other edits, and often without noting them in edit summaries. While this RFA may have failed, at least I know that I'm not the only one who notices this behavior. -- Netoholic @ 22:12, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • General comment: personal attacks on one's critics are not a good way to win the confidence of the community. Filiocht 09:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, I don't know. If you make them on the right people, your popularity can grow quite rapidly. Dr Zen 23:30, 9 Mar 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. Copyediting – the number of minor mistakes, even on the Main Page, is astounding. Also reversion of vandalism, especially banning public IP addresses (such as in a library) from which a large percentage of edits or malicious.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The article B3ta, about the website b3ta.com – I was surprised to find that it hadn't been covered, as it is the source for the funny images in the British tabloids. Its culture is baffling to newcomers, and it's nice to see other users of the site correct my mistakes and add new sections.
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?
A. My own belief is that the Manual of Style should be upheld at all times, as it gives Wikipedia a consistent look and was agreed by consensus. Certain users have read the Manual, and reject it, preferring their own style, implying the Manual to have undeserved Briticisms. The only way to deal with this is to act maturely and gain support from the community. Adminship would help me correct such issues on the Main Page and other protected pages.